text
stringlengths 5
1.89M
| meta
dict | domain
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We derive a particle number-conserving rate equation for the ground state and for the elementary excitations of a bosonic system which is in contact with a gas of a different species (sympathetic cooling). We use the Giradeau-Arnowitt method and the model derived by Lewenstein [*et. al.*]{} with an additional assumption: the high-excited levels thermalize much faster with the cooling agent than the other levels. Evaporation of particles, known to be important in the initial stages of the cooling process, is explicitly included.'
address: '$^1$ Max-Planck Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme, Nöthnitzer Strasse 38, D-01187, Dresden, Germany'
author:
- 'A. N. Salgueiro$^1$[^1]'
title: 'Number-conserving rate equation for sympathetic cooling of a boson gas'
---
[2]{}
Introduction
============
The development of cooling techniques has opened up the possibility of studying ultracold gases. In particular, the quantum degeneracy of bosons and fermions has been investigated. Basically there are two different processes which can be used to cool an atomic or molecular ensemble, evaporative cooling and sympathetic cooling. However, there are gases in which the interaction is too weak for evaporative cooling to work. In addition, this method fails for identical fermions at low temperatures because of the exclusion principle [@fer]. In this case, sympathetic cooling can be used as an alternative to evaporative cooling: a cold gas is in thermal contact with another gas to be cooled. The first application of the sympathetic cooling method was in the context of the cooling of charged particles [@charged] and later it was extended to neutral atoms [@h]. Only recently has it been applied in the context of ultracold atoms. In particular, quantum degeneracy of bosons and fermions has been achieved by thermalization of atoms of the same species in different internal states [@sdi], between two isotopes of the same species [@iso], and finally between atoms of different species [@dsp; @allard; @ketterle; @matthias]. Moreover, in contrast to evaporative cooling, sympathetic cooling does not lead to a significant loss of either the cooled gas or the cooling agent.
From the theoretical point of view, classical and quantum models have been derived to describe the dynamics of thermalization of one-species and two-species systems. In the classical Boltzmann regime, an analytical formula for the evolution of the temperature in a mixture of non-equal mass atoms and equal mass atoms has been derived in Refs.[@allard; @cla]. A quantum mechanical description is given in terms of Boltzmann equations [@bol] and master equations [@master; @pap01; @qkt3; @l1]. In Ref.[@bol], sympathetic cooling of an atomic Fermi gas by a Bose gas is studied. In particular, the equilibrium temperature and the relaxation dynamics are obtained. In Ref.[@master], for the first time, a master equation describing the sympathetic cooling of a system $A$ is derived, treating the cooling agent $B$ as a heat bath at a fixed temperature. More recently, by means of decoherence and ergodicity arguments a rate equation for sympathetic cooling of harmonically trapped bosons or fermions is obtained [@pap01]. In Refs.[@qkt3; @l1] a detailed quantum kinetic master equation, which couples the dynamics of a trapped condensate to the vapor of noncondensate particles, is obtained along with information about the growth of a Bose-Einstein condensate. In Refs.[@l2; @qkt1; @qkt2; @qkt4; @qkt5; @qkt6; @qkt7; @l3; @j1], one can find more information about the growth of the condensate.
The purpose of this work is to describe the sympathetic cooling process of a total-number-conserving system in terms of particles in the ground state and elementary excitations. We use the particle-number-conserving Girardeau-Arnowitt formalism [@gira] and the sympathetic cooling model developed by M. Lewenstein et al. [@master] with the additional assumption, that, the highly excited levels of the trap thermalize much faster with the cooling agent than the other levels (or in other words, the highly excited levels of the trap are in thermal equilibrium with the cooling agent). The advantage of the Girardeau-Arnowitt formalism is that it covers all cases ranging from a total absence of population in the ground state, $\textsf{n}_{0}=0$, to a highly populated ground state $\textsf{n}_{0}\simeq N$. The assumption of the fast thermalization of the highly excited levels of the trap is related to the separation of the levels of the trap into two different bands, in the same way proposed by C.W. Gardiner et al. in Refs. [@qkt3; @l1], the [*condensate*]{} ($B_{C}$) band and the [*noncondensate*]{} band ($B_{NC}$), where the latter is in thermal equilibrium with the cooling agent. The condensate band includes all trap levels which are directly influenced by the presence of the condensate. The noncondensate band contains energy levels that are sufficiently high for the interaction with the condensate to be negligible. As we will show, the master equation for sympathetic cooling can be written in terms of two processes: (a) Creation and annihilation of particles in the ground state and (b) Creation and annihilation of quasiparticles. From this master equation we derive a rate equation for this number-conserving system under sympathetic cooling which includes the growth, scattering and loss (sympathetic evaporation) processes. This result is very important, specially now that sympathetic cooling is used as an alternative cooling method. In addition, this rate equation is more general than the one obtained by Gardiner [*et. al.*]{} in refs.[@qkt3; @l1], which is only valid in the regime of a highly populated condensate [@newbo].
The paper is organized as follows: In section \[I\] the description of the sympathetic cooling model is given. In section \[II\] the master equation describing the dynamics of a number-conserving system in the condensate band is derived. In subsections \[growth\], \[scatt\], and \[loss\] a rate equation describing the population growth, the effects of the scattered particles as well as the effects of the sympathetic evaporation (trap losses) is derived. Section \[con\] contains the conclusion.
Description of the system {#I}
=========================
For the sake of completeness and notation we briefly review the main results of Refs. [@master; @pap01]. However, we introduce some modifications to the model presented in Ref.[@master]: the cooling agent is a gas trapped in a harmonic potential, instead of a free gas, and the gas to be cooled is confined in an open trap. This situation is closer to the actual experimental conditions.
A system $A$ of $N_A$ bosons is subject to sympathetic cooling due to its interaction with system $B$. The cooling agent of $N_B$ atoms is in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T_{B}$. The single-particle states of system $B$ are then described by harmonic oscillator wave functions with energy $\epsilon_{\vec
\ell}= \hbar\omega_{B}(\ell_{x}+\ell_{y}+\ell_{z})$, where $\omega_{B}$ is the trap frequency and $\vec{\ell} =
(\ell_x,\ell_y,\ell_z)$ are the quantum numbers related to the bath. The corresponding Hamiltonian can be written $$H_B=\sum_{\vec{\ell}} \hbar \omega_{B} (\ell_x+\ell_y+\ell_z)
b^{\dagger}_{\vec{\ell}} b_{ \vec{\ell}},$$ with the creation and annihilation operators for the bath $b^{\dagger}_{\vec{\ell}}$ and $b_{\vec{\ell}}$, respectively.
System $A$ is assumed to be confined in an open trap. For energies $\epsilon$ much smaller than the trap depth $\epsilon_{t}$, the trap can be approximated by a harmonic potential with trap frequency $\omega_{A}$. The single-particle states in the harmonic oscillator potential have the quantum numbers $\vec{n} =
(n_x,n_y,n_z)$. The single–particle eigenfunctions are labelled $\psi_{\vec{n}}(\vec{x})$, the eigenvalues $\epsilon_{\vec n}=\hbar\omega_{A}
(n_x+n_y+n_z)$. The associated creation and annihilation operators are denoted by $a^{\dagger}_{\vec{n}}$ and $a_{\vec{n}}$, respectively. If, on the other hand, the energy is much larger than the trap depth, the system $A$ can be approximately described by free particles . In this case the states are described by plane waves with energy $\epsilon({\vec \kappa})={\hbar^2}\vec{\kappa}^2/(2m)$, with $\vec{\kappa}$ denoting the wavevector of the particle.
$$\label{ha}
H_A=\sum_{\vec{n}} U_{\vec n} a^{\dagger}_{\vec{n}} a_{
\vec{n}}$$
where
$$U_{\vec n}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon_{\vec n}& \textrm{if $\epsilon\ll\epsilon_{t}$} \\
\epsilon({\vec \kappa}) & \textrm{if $\epsilon\gg\epsilon_{t}$}
\end{array} \right.$$
when $\epsilon\approx\epsilon_{t}$, $U_{\vec n}$ cannot be determined in a simple way. The two-body interaction between the bath and the particles can be written in the form $$V_{A-B}=
\sum_{\vec{n},\vec{n'},\vec{\ell},\vec{\ell'}}\gamma_{\vec{n}
,\vec{n'},\vec{\ell},\vec{\ell'}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec{p}}
a_{\vec{p'}} b^{\dagger}_{\vec{\ell}} b_{\vec{\ell'}}.$$For simplicity, we assume a point-like interaction characterized by a scattering length $a$. We are interested in scattering processes between the bath and tightly bound particles, and processes in which low-energy particles of the system are scattered into the continuum through the interaction with the bath. In the first case, the matrix elements of the two-body interaction have the form $$\gamma_{\vec{n},\vec{n'},\vec{\ell},\vec{\ell^{\prime}}}=\frac{4\pi{\hbar}^2a}{
2\mu_{AB}} \int d\vec{x} \psi^{*}_{\vec{n}}(\vec{x})
\psi_{\vec{n'}}(\vec{x})\psi^{*}_{\vec{\ell}}(\vec{x})
\psi_{\vec{\ell'}}(\vec{x}).$$
Here, $\mu_{AB}=m_A m_B / (m_A + m_B)$ denotes the reduced mass. For scattering processes into the continuum, the matrix element can be written as $$\gamma_{\vec{n},\vec{\ell},\vec{\ell^{\prime}}}(\vec{\kappa})=\frac{4\pi{\hbar}^2a}{
2\mu_{AB}{(2\pi)}^{3/2}} \int d\vec{x} \quad e^{-i{\vec \kappa}\cdot{\vec
x}} \psi_{\vec{n}}(\vec{x })\psi^{*}_{\vec{\ell}}(\vec{x})
\psi_{\vec{\ell'}}(\vec{x}). \label{estrelinha}$$
As derived in Ref. [@master], the master equation for the time dependence of the reduced density matrix $\rho_A(t)$, obtained by tracing the total density matrix over the bath, has the form
$$\label{eq1} \frac{\mathrm{d} \rho_A(t)}{\mathrm{d}t} = -
\frac{i}{\hbar} \biggl [ H_A + V^{'}_{A-A}, \rho_{A}(t) \biggr ] +
{\mathcal{L}} \rho_{A}(t),$$
where $V^{'}_{A-A}$ describes the mutual interaction of the atoms in system $A$. The interaction includes the two-body interaction $V_{A-A}$ and, in addition, terms corresponding to shifts produced by the elimination of the bath in the master equation. It is assumed that the interaction $V_{A-A}$ is weak compared to $V_{A-B}$, i.e. the thermalization of the system is solely determined by the interaction with the bath. The equation above is obtained under the the following assumptions: (i) Markov: the correlation time for the interaction between systems $A$ and $B$ is much shorter than the cooling time, and (ii) rotating–wave approximation: terms rotating at multiples of the trap frequency are neglected.
It was shown in Ref. [@pap01] that if the number $N_B$ of particles in the bath is very large, decoherence acts very quickly compared to the equilibration time and reduces the density matrix to diagonal form. If only scattering processes involving tightly bound atoms of system $A$ are involved, the Liouvillian in Eq. (\[eq1\]) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{3} \mathcal{L} \rho_A & =& \sum_{{\vec m} \neq {\vec n}}
\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}} \biggl ( 2
a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}} \rho_A(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m}} - a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m%
}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}} \rho_A(t) \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad - \rho_A(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{%
\vec m}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}} \biggr ), \ \label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$
with the rate coefficients
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{rate} \Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}}= \frac{1}{2 \hbar^2}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d} \tau \sum_{\vec{\ell},\vec{\ell'}}
\ \gamma_{{\vec n},{\vec m},{\vec \ell},{\vec \ell'}}
\ \gamma_{{\vec m},{\vec n},{\vec \ell'},{\vec \ell}} \nonumber
\\
\times \textsf{n}_{\vec{\ell}}[\textsf{n}_{\vec{\ell'}}+1]
\exp{\left[ i \left(\Delta\epsilon_{A}+ \Delta\epsilon_{B} \right)
\tau / \hbar
\right]}\end{aligned}$$
where $\textsf{n}_{\vec{\ell}}$ is the average occupation number of the heat bath oscillator. The energy difference for the system and the bath is given by $\Delta\epsilon_{A}=\epsilon_{\vec{n}}-\epsilon_{\vec{m}}$ and $\Delta\epsilon_{B}=\epsilon_{\vec{\ell}}-\epsilon_{\vec{\ell'}}$, respectively. If particles are scattered into the continuum, the rate coefficients have similar form but with the matrix element defined in Eq. (\[estrelinha\]). More details about the evaluation of the rate coefficients are given in Refs.[@master; @pap01].
Master Equation for the Condensate Band {#II}
=======================================
In this section, a master equation describing the dynamics of the condensate band is derived. Basically, we extend the formalism developed by Gardiner et al. [@qkt3] to the case of two distinct gases. The trap-levels of the system $A$ are grouped in two bands: the [*condensate*]{} band ($B_{C}$) and the band of [*noncondensed*]{} particles ($B_{NC}$), where the latter is in thermal equilibrium with the cooling agent system $B$ (see Figure \[fig1a\]).
The condensate band $B_{C}$ includes the ground state and all excited levels in the trap which are directly influenced by the presence of the condensate. The noncondensate band $B_{NC}$ is composed by the highly excited levels, which include also the continuum states for $\epsilon>\epsilon_{t}$. The following assumptions are used in order to derive a master equation for the condensate band from Eq. (\[3\]):
\(i) We neglect the correlations between the particles in the condensate band and the particles in the noncondensate band. Therefore, we assume that the complete density matrix of the system $A$ can be written as a direct product between the density of the condensate band and the density of the noncondensate band, i.e., $\rho_{A}=\rho_{C}\otimes\rho_{NC}$. Since the main interest is in the dynamics of the condensate band, the noncondensate band is eliminated from the description by tracing out the noncondensate variable, i.e., $\rho_{C}=\mathrm{Tr}_{NC}(\rho_{A})$.
\(ii) The density matrix of the noncondensate band $\rho_{NC}$ is considered in thermal equilibrium with the cooling agent at temperature $T_{B}$. The levels of this band thermalize much faster with the cooling agent than the levels of the condensate band. Due to this assumption, we will completely neglect collisions between particles of the noncondensate band and particles of the cooling agent.
Applying these assumptions to Eq.(\[3\]), a master equation for the condensate band can be derived,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4} \frac{d\rho_{C}(t)}{dt}&=& \sum_{\begin{array}{c}
{\vec m}\in {\rm B_{NC}}\\
{\vec n}\in {\rm B_{C}}\end{array}} \Gamma^{{\vec{n}},{\vec m}} \
{\langle N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}} \biggl(
2 a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} \rho_C(t) a_{\vec n} \nonumber \\
&&-a_{n}a^{\dagger}_{n} \rho_C(t)
-\rho_C(t)a_{\vec n}a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} \biggr) \nonumber \\ \label{eq43} \\
&& + \sum_{\begin{array}{c}
{\vec m} \in {\rm B_{NC}}\\
{\vec n} \in {\rm B_{C}} \end{array}} \Gamma^{{\vec m},{
\vec{n}}}\ {\langle N_{\vec m}+1\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{ 0}}
\biggl( 2 a_{\vec n}\rho_C(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec n}\nonumber \\
&&-a^{\dagger}_{\vec n}a_{\vec n} \rho_C(t)
-\rho_C(t)a^{\dagger}_{\vec n}a_{\vec n} \biggr)\nonumber \\
\label{eq44} \\ \nonumber &&
+ \sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\vec m} \neq
{\vec n}\\{\vec n},{\vec m} \in {\rm B_{C}} \end{array} }
\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}} \ \biggl ( 2 a^{\dagger}_{\vec m}
a_{{\vec n}}
\rho_C(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m}} \nonumber\\
&&- a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}} \rho_C(t)
- \rho_C(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{%
\vec m}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}} \biggr ) \nonumber \\
\label{eq45} \\ \nonumber
&&+ \sum_{\begin{array}{c}{\vec m} \neq {\vec n}\\
{\vec n},{\vec m} \in {\rm B_{C}} \end{array}} \Gamma^{{\vec
n},{\vec m}} \ \biggl ( 2 a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m}}
\rho_C(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n}}\nonumber \\
&&- a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{\vec n }} a^{\dagger}_{\vec n}
a_{{\vec m}} \rho_C(t) - \rho_C(t) a^{\dagger}_{\vec m} a_{{ \vec
n}} a^{\dagger}_{\vec n} a_{{\vec m}} \label{eq46}\biggr )\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma^{{\vec{m}},{\vec n}}=\Gamma^{{\vec{n}},{\vec
m}}e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec m}-\epsilon_{\vec n})}$ and ${\langle N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}}\equiv \mathrm{Tr}
(a_{\vec{m}}^\dagger a_{\vec{m}} \rho_{NC})_{\textsf{n}_{0}}$ is the expectation value of the particle number operator for state $\vec m$, given that there are $\textsf{n}_{0}$ bosons in the ground state. Since the terms with $\vec m=\vec n$ cancel, this case is already excluded from the summation. The first two terms, Eqs.(\[eq43\],\[eq44\]), account for collisions between particles in the condensate band and in the noncondensate band, and are illustrated in Fig.\[fig2\]. The loss of particles from the trap, due to their interaction with the cooling agent atoms are also included in Eq.(\[eq44\]). The existence of such a process is related to the fact that the trap is open, hence the atoms with higher energy than the trap energy can indeed escape. In the present model these particles are considered to escape to continuum states (non-bound states). In this case the single-particle states are described by plane waves. Evaporation is illustrated in Fig.\[fig3\]. The following two terms, Eqs.(\[eq45\],\[eq46\]), describe collisions only between particles in the condensate band, which are shown in Fig.\[fig4\].
Eqs. (\[eq4\]-\[eq46\]) give an accurate treatment of the internal dynamics of the condensate band, describing how the condensate forms and how the particles are scattered by collisions. Effects of elementary excitations of the condensate, representing the “thermal cloud”, do not appear explicitly, since they are hidden in the single-particle operators $a_{\vec n}$ and $a^{\dagger}_{\vec n}$ for $\vec n \in
\mathrm{B_C}$. In the limit of a highly condensed ground state, i.e. ${\mathsf{n_0}} \simeq N$, the effects of the condensate excitations can be totally neglected [@l1]. During the process of condensate formation, however, their effects play a crucial role.
To analyse the role of elementary excitations, we resort to a formalism of Girardeau and Arnowitt [@gira], which conserves the number of particles. The method is based on the annihilation $\hat{\beta}_0$ and creation $\hat{\beta}_0^{\dagger}$ operators of one particle in the ground state, defined as $\hat{\beta}_0=
{(\hat{N}_0+1)}^{-1/2}\hat{a}_{0}$ and $\hat{\beta}_0^{\dagger}=
\hat{a}_{0}^{\dagger}{(\hat{N}_0+1)}^{-1/2}$, and in the phonon operators $\hat{\beta}_{\vec n}$, $\hat{\beta}^{\dagger}_{\vec n}$ defined as $\hat{\beta}_{\vec
n}=\hat{\beta}_0^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{\vec n}$ and $\hat{\beta}_{\vec
n}^{\dagger}= \hat{a}_{\vec n}^{\dagger}\hat{\beta}_0$, where $\hat{N}_{0}$ is the number operator of particles in the ground-state, $a_{\vec{n}}$ and $a^{\dagger}_{\vec{n}}$ are usual annihilation and creation operators for the trap level $\vec n$. These operators obey the Bose commutation relations, $[\hat{\beta}_{\vec n},\hat{\beta}_{\vec
n'}^{\dagger}]=\delta_{\vec{n},\vec{n'}}$. The phonons operators can be written in terms of the creation and annihilation quasiparticles operators: $\hat{b}_{\vec n}$ and $\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\vec n}$ , i.e., $\hat{\beta}_{\vec n}=u_{\vec
n}\hat{b}_{\vec n}+v_{\vec n} \hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\vec n}$ and $\hat{\beta}^{\dagger}_{\vec n}=u^{*}_{\vec
n}\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{\vec n} +v^{*}_{\vec n}\hat{b}_{\vec n}$, with ${|u_{\vec n}|}^2 -{|v_{\vec n}|}^2=1$. The formalism of Girardeau and Arnowitt is more general than the one developed by Gardiner [@newbo], since it covers all cases ranging from a total absence of population in the ground state $\textsf{n}_{0}=0$ to a highly populated ground state $\textsf{n}_{0}\simeq N$. A detailed comparison of both formalisms can be found in Ref.[@gira1].
We replace the operators $\hat{a}_0,\hat{a}_0^{\dagger},\hat{a}_{\vec n},\hat{a}_{\vec
n}^{\dagger}$ in Eqs. (\[eq4\]-\[eq46\]) by the particle-number-conserving Girardeau-Arnowitt operators $\hat{\beta}_0,\hat{\beta}_0^{\dagger},\hat{\beta}_{\vec
n},\hat{\beta}_{\vec n}^{\dagger}$. Then, the action of the opertators on the density matrix $\rho_{C}(t)$ is computed. Since the decoherence time is very fast (see discussion in Ref. [@pap01]), only the diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix $\rho_C$ contribute to the dynamics. Hence, only diagonal terms will be considered. In this way, we obtain a master equation for the diagonal elements $P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=\langle
\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}|\rho_{C}(t)|\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}\rangle$, with $\vec{n}\equiv(\textsf{n}_{1},...,\textsf{n}_{m},\textsf{n}_{n},...)$ denoting the set of occupation number for all quasiparticles:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dia2}
\frac{d}{dt}P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)&=&\frac{d}{dt}P_{\rm
growth}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t) +\frac{d}{dt}P_{\rm
scatt}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)\nonumber\\&&+\frac{d}{dt}P_{\rm
evap}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t).\end{aligned}$$
The rate $dP_{\rm growth}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)/dt$ represents the contribution of the condensate itself and the quasiparticles for the growth of the condensate. The number of particles in the condensate band changes. $dP_{\rm
scatt}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)/dt$ describes scattered particles in the condensate band. During the scattering process the number of particles in the condensate band does not change. Finally, $dP_{\rm evap}((\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)/dt$ includes the evaporation of particles with energies larger than the trap depth.
Rate Equations for the Condensate Band {#IIa}
======================================
Growth
------
Consider the diagonal elements of the Eqs. (\[eq43\]$-$\[eq44\]) for $\vec{n}=0$ and $\vec{n}\neq
0$ with the replacements described in the previous section, we arrive at a master equation for the occupation probability of the condensate band
$$\label{pgrow} \frac{d}{dt}P_{\rm
growth}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)=R_{C}+R_{Q},$$
where $R_{C}$ represents the growth rate of the condensate itself
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{a0}
R_{C}&&=2\textsf{n}_{0}\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0}-1)P(\textsf{n}_{0}-1,\vec{n})
-2(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}) \nonumber \\
&&+
2(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n})
-2\textsf{n}_{0}\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}).
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
The coefficients $\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})$ and $\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})$ carry information about particles entering and leaving the condensate
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
0}\Gamma^{{\vec 0},{\vec m}}{\langle N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}}\nonumber, \\
&&\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
0}\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec 0}}{\langle N_{\vec m}+1
\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The rate $R_{Q}$ takes into account the contribution of the elementary excitations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ak} R_{Q}&&=2\sum_{\vec n} \textsf{n}_{\vec
n}\Gamma^{++}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0}-1,\vec{n}-\vec{e}_{\vec
n})P(\textsf{n}_{0}-1,\vec{n}-\vec{e}_{\vec n}) \nonumber
\\&&-2\sum_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)
\Gamma^{++}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{\vec n} (\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)\Gamma_{\vec
n}^{--}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}+\vec{e_{\vec
n}})P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}+\vec{e_{\vec n}})\nonumber
\\&&-2\sum_{\vec n}\textsf{n}_{\vec n}\Gamma_{\vec n}^{--}P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})
\nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{\vec n} (\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0}-1,\vec{n}+\vec{e_{\vec
n}})P(\textsf{n}_{0}-1,\vec{n}+\vec{e_{\vec n}})\nonumber \\&&
-2\sum_{\vec n}\textsf{n}_{\vec n}\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})
\nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{\vec n}\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}\Gamma^{-+}_{n}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}-\vec{e_{\vec
n}})P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}-\vec{e_{\vec n}})\nonumber \\&&
-2\sum_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1) \Gamma^{-+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}),\end{aligned}$$
with $\vec{e_{n}}\equiv(...,0,0,1,0,0,...)$. The coefficients $\Gamma^{++}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})$, $\Gamma^{--}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})$, $\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})$ and $\Gamma^{-+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})$ are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Gamma^{++}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
\vec{n}}\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{\langle N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}}{|u_{\vec n}|}^2, \nonumber \\
&&\Gamma^{--}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
\vec{n}}\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}}
{\langle N_{\vec m}+1\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}} {|u_{\vec n}|}^2, \nonumber \\
&&\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
\vec{n}}\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{\langle
N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}} {|v_{\vec n}|}^2, \nonumber \\
&&\Gamma^{-+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{\vec{m}\neq
\vec{n}}\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}} {\langle N_{\vec
m}+1\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}} {|v_{\vec n}|}^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\vec m \in B_{NC}$ and $\vec n \in B_{C}$. These coefficients describe processes of creation and annihilation of phonons inside the condensate.
In order to obtain the dynamics of the population in the condensate band, the mean number of particles is evaluated. We will start with the contribution of the condensate mode itself. In Eq.(\[a0\]) we use the thermodynamic relation between the rate coefficients
$$\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})=\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})e^{\beta(\epsilon_{0}-\mu_{0})}$$
in combination with the factorization assumption $P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=P(\textsf{n}_{0})\otimes
P(\vec{n})=P(\textsf{n}_{0})\ldots\otimes P(\textsf{n}_{n})\otimes
\ldots$. Here $\beta=1/k_{B}T_{B}$, $\epsilon_{0}$ is the energy of the ground state and $\mu_0 \equiv \mu(\mathsf{n_0})$ the chemical potential for $\mathsf{n_0}$ particles in the ground state. For the rate of change of the condensate number one then finds
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{n} \frac{d\textsf{n}_{0}}{dt}|_{\rm growth}&&=2\biggl(
(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})-\textsf{n}_{0}\Gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})\biggr)\nonumber \\
&&=2\Gamma^{+}(\textsf{n}_{0})\biggl(\textsf{n}_{0}(1-e^{-\beta(\mu_{0}-\epsilon_{0})})
+1\biggr).\end{aligned}$$
In the limit of ${\mathsf{n}_{0}}\simeq N$, with $N \gg 1$, the equation above can be approximated by
$$\label{noap} \frac{dN}{dt}\approx 2\Gamma^{+}(N)N
\biggl((1-e^{\beta(\mu_0-\epsilon_{0})})\biggr),$$
where the coefficient $\Gamma^{+}(N)$ contains information about the sympathetic cooling process between system $A$ and cooling agent $B$.
If we apply the formalism described here to a gas of only one species, we find a rate equation for the growth of the condensate which has a form similar to the one obtained by Gardiner and coworkers based on [@newbo] (see Eq. (23) in Ref. [@l1] and Eq.(168) in Ref.[@qkt3]). However, due to the properties of the Giradeau-Arnowitt formalism, the rate equation in our case is not limited only to highly populated condensates but also includes condensates of arbitrary particle number.
We now explore the contribution of the elementary excitations for the growth process. We use the thermodynamic relation between the coefficients
$$\Gamma^{++}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=\Gamma^{--}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})e^{\beta(\epsilon_{\vec n}-\mu_{0})},$$
$$\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=\Gamma^{-+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})e^{\beta(\epsilon_{\vec n}-\mu_{0})},$$
and factorize all correlations i.e., $P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=P(\textsf{n}_{0})\otimes
...P(\textsf{n}_{n})...$ in Eq.(\[ak\]). Thus, the rate equation for the elementary excitations is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{taxaQ} \frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec{n}}}{dt}|_{\rm
growth}&&=2\sum_{\vec{n}}\Gamma^{++}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\biggl((1-e^{\beta(\mu_{0}-\epsilon_{\vec
n})})\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1\biggr)
\nonumber \\
&&-2\sum_{\vec n}\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\biggl((1-e^{\beta(\mu_{0}-\epsilon_{\vec
n})})\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1\biggr).\end{aligned}$$
A simplified form of Eq.(\[taxaQ\]) can be derived by using the relation $\Gamma^{+-}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=\Gamma^{++}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})-\Gamma^{+}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{taxaQsim} \frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec{n}}}{dt}|_{\rm
growth}&&=2\sum_{\vec{n}}\Gamma^{+}_{\vec{n}}
(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\biggl((1-e^{\beta(\mu_{0}-\epsilon_{\vec
n})})\textsf{n}_{\vec n} +1\biggr),\end{aligned}$$
with $\Gamma^{+}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})=\sum_{\vec{m}}
\Gamma^{\vec n, \vec m}{\langle N_{\vec m}\rangle}_{\textsf{n}_{0}}$.\
The total growth equation can be obtained from the contribution of the condensate mode itself Eq.(\[n\]) and the elementary excitations Eq.(\[taxaQsim\]).
Scattering {#scatt}
----------
In this subsection the effects of the scattering processes of atoms inside the condensate band are considered, as described by Eqs. (\[eq45\]$-$\[eq46\]). During the scattering process the number of particles in the condensate band does not change.
We use the same analytical procedure described in the previous section to derive a rate equation related to the scattering process. However, we will omit details of this calculation, since the expressions can be rather large. Thus, the corresponding scattering rate equation for $\textsf{n}_{\vec n}=\langle a_{\vec n}^{\dagger}a_{\vec
n}\rangle$ has the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{nscatt} \frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}}{dt}|_{\rm{scatt}}&&=2\sum_{\vec{n}\neq 0}\Gamma_{\vec n}^{u+}
\textsf{n}_{0}[e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec n}-\epsilon_{0})})-\textsf{n}_{\vec n}
(1-e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec n}-\epsilon_{0})})]\nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{\vec{n}\neq 0}\Gamma_{\vec n}^{v+}
\textsf{n}_{0}[\textsf{n}_{\vec n}(1-e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec n}-\epsilon_{0})})+1]\nonumber \\
&&+2\sum_{\vec{m}\neq \vec{n}\neq 0}\Gamma_{{\vec m},{\vec
n}}^{uu+-}[\textsf{n}_{\vec m}(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)\nonumber
\\&&-\textsf{n}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{\vec
m}+1)e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec m}-\epsilon_{\vec n})}]\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{\vec{m}\neq \vec{n}\neq0}\Gamma_{{\vec m},{\vec
n}}^{vv+-}[-\textsf{n}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{\vec
m}+1)\nonumber \\&&+\textsf{n}_{\vec m}(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec m}-\epsilon_{\vec n})}]\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{\vec{m}\neq \vec{n}\neq 0}\Gamma_{{\vec m},{\vec
n}}^{uv++}[(\textsf{n}_{\vec m}+1)(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)\nonumber
\\&&-\textsf{n}_{\vec n}\textsf{n}_{\vec
m}e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec m}-\epsilon_{\vec n})}]\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{\vec{m}\neq \vec{n}\neq 0}\Gamma_{{\vec m},{\vec
n}}^{vu++}[-\textsf{n}_{\vec n}\textsf{n}_{\vec m}\nonumber \\&&
+(\textsf{n}_{\vec m}+1)(\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}+1)e^{-\beta(\epsilon_{\vec m}-\epsilon_{\vec n})}],\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{coefscat} &&\Gamma_{\vec
n}^{u+}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{0},{\vec n}}_{{
\vec n},{0}}{|u_{\vec n}|}^2,\nonumber \\
&&\Gamma^{v+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{0},{\vec
n}}_{{\vec n,0}}{|v_{\vec n}|}^2,\nonumber \\
&&\Gamma_{{\vec n},{\vec
m}}^{uu+-}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{|u_{\vec n}|}^2{|u_{\vec m}|}^2,\nonumber\\
&&\Gamma_{{\vec n},{\vec
m}}^{vv+-}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{|v_{\vec n}|}^2{|v_{\vec m}|}^2,\nonumber\\
&&\Gamma_{{\vec n},{\vec
m}}^{uv++}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{|u_{\vec n}|}^2{|v_{\vec m}|}^2,\nonumber\\
&&\Gamma_{{\vec n},{\vec
m}}^{vu++}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\Gamma^{{\vec n},{\vec m}}{|v_{\vec n}|}^2{|u_{\vec m}|}^2.\end{aligned}$$
The first two terms of Eq.(\[nscatt\]) account for the scattering between the particles in the ground state and the quasiparticles of the $\vec n$-level. The other terms describe the scattering between quasiparticles of different levels.
Evaporation {#loss}
-----------
We now discuss the evaporation of particles from the trap. Atoms can escape from the condensate band of the trap to unbound states. This loss of particles from the trap is induced by their interaction with the cooling agent. This process is particularly important in the initial stage of the cooling process [@allard; @matthias]. To implement evaporation in the present model, particles are assumed to escape to continuum states (unbound states) inside the noncondensate band. Only Eq. (\[eq44\]) contributes to this process, since the rate coefficients of Eq. (\[eq4\]), which includes the overlap of the wave functions involved in the process, is completely negligible. Taking the diagonal elements of Eq. (\[eq44\]), $P_{\rm{evap}}$ is obtained
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{evap}
&&\frac{d}{dt}P_{\rm{evap}}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n},t)=
-2\textsf{n}_{0}\gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\nonumber\\
&&+2(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)
\gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1)P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n})
\nonumber\\
&&+2\sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\vec n} \in {\rm
B_{C}}\end{array}}(\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}+1)\gamma^{--}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}+\vec{e}_{n})P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}
+\vec{e}_{n})\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\vec n} \in {\rm
B_{C}}\end{array}}\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}\gamma^{--}(\textsf{n}_{0})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\nonumber
\\&&+2\sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\vec n} \in {\rm
B_{C}}\end{array}}\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}\gamma^{-+}_{\vec{n}}(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}-\vec{e}_{n})
P(\textsf{n}_{0}+1,\vec{n}-\vec{e}_{n})\nonumber\\
&&-2\sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\vec n} \in {\rm
B_{C}}\end{array}}(\textsf{n}_{\vec n}+1)
\gamma^{-+}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})P(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n}),\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{ {\vec m} \in {\rm
B^{(t)}_{NC}}}
\Gamma^{\vec{m},0},\nonumber\\
&&\gamma^{--}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{{\vec m}
\in {\rm B^{(t)}_{NC}}} \Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}}
{|u_{\vec n}|}^2,\nonumber\\
&&\gamma^{-+}_{\vec n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\equiv\sum_{{\vec m}
\in {\rm B^{(t)}_{NC}}}\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}}{|v_{\vec n}|}^2\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad=\gamma^{-+}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})-\gamma_{\vec n}^{-},\end{aligned}$$
with $\rm B^{(t)}_{NC}$ denoting the noncondensate band with energy $\epsilon_{\vec m}>\epsilon_{t}$. As mentioned at the end of section \[I\], these rate coefficients $\Gamma^{{\vec
m},{0}}$ and $\Gamma^{{\vec m},{\vec n}}$ have a different form from the ones which appear in the growth and scattering processes, since now $\vec m$ describes unbound states. The first line of Eq.(\[evap\]) describes the evaporation of an atom out of the ground state while the others describe the evaporation of an atom out of the $n$-excited level of the condensate band. Following the same procedure described in the previous subsections, a rate equation for the evaporation of particles from the ground state and the evaporation of quasiparticles in the condensate band is obtained:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{neva0}
&&\frac{d{\textsf{n}_{0}}}{dt}|_{\rm evap}=-2\quad\gamma^{-}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\quad{\textsf{n}_{0}|}_{\rm evap},\nonumber\\
&&\frac{d{\textsf{n}_{\vec n}}}{dt}|_{\rm evap}=-2\sum_{\vec
n}\gamma^{-}_{\vec
n}(\textsf{n}_{0},\vec{n})\quad{\textsf{n}_{\vec n}|}_{\rm evap},\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\gamma^{-}_{\vec n}=\sum_{{\vec m} \in {\rm
B^{(t)}_{NC}}}\Gamma_{{\vec n},\vec{m}}^{\vec{m},{\vec n}}.$$
Conclusion {#con}
==========
The total rate equation describing a number-conserving population of the condensate band can be obtained from Eqs.(\[n\],\[taxaQ\],\[nscatt\],\[neva0\])
$$\frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec n}}{dt}=\frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec
n}}{dt}|_{\rm growth}+\frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec n}}{dt}|_{\rm
scatt}+\frac{d\textsf{n}_{\vec n}}{dt}|_{\rm evap},$$
where $\textsf{n}_{0}$ and $\textsf{n}_{\vec n}$ denote, respectively, the population in the condensate and the population of the elementary excitations, which are commonly referred to as “thermal cloud”. The equation above gives a complete description for the thermalization of a system $A$ which is in thermal contact with a bath $B$. All the information about the dynamics of the thermalization process is contained in the coefficients $\Gamma$. Analytical and numerical evaluation of the coefficients for a specific system can be carried out along the lines described in Refs. [@master; @pap01].
The result obtained here can be applied to describe the dynamics of sympathetic cooling of a gas in thermal contact with a cooling agent, in terms of the population in the ground-state and elementary excitations. In particular, it can be aplied to the case where the cooling agent thermalize much faster compared to the thermalization of the system. The description remains valid for the quantum degenerate regime $T\ll T_{c}$, where $T_{c}$ is the critical temperature of the gas.
The use of the Giradeau-Arnowitt method has opened up the possibility to describe sympathetic cooling in terms of particles in the ground state and elementary excitation during the whole cooling process, i.e., from the case of total absence of particles in the condensate ($\textsf{n}_0=0$) to the case of a highly populated ground state ($\textsf{n}_0=N$). In addition, we include the effects of evaporation which are especially important during the initial stages of the cooling process. To our knowledge this is the first time that a formal complete number-conserving description of sympathetic cooling in terms of particles in the ground state and elementary excitations is given.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
ANS thanks fruitful discussions with M. da Mata, A.F.R. de Toledo Piza, M.O. da C. Pires, A. Mosk, M. Ameduri, H. Schomerus, A. Ozorio de Almeida and H.A. Weidenmüller. ANS gratefully acknowledges M. Weidemüller and M.C. Nemes for many discussions and help in preparing the manuscript.
[99]{} B. DeMarco [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4208 (1999). D. J. Larson [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 70 (1986), and references therein. H. F. Hess [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 672 (1988); R. van Roijen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 931 (1988); C. Myatt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 586 (1997). A. G. Truscott [*et al.*]{}, Science [**291**]{}, 2570 (2001). F. Schreck [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 080403 (2001). A. Mosk [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. [**B 73**]{}, 791 (2001). Z. Hadzibacbic [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 160401 (2002). M. Mudrich [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 253001 (2002). G. Delannoy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 63**]{}, 011402R (2001). W. Geist [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 59**]{}, 1500 (1999). M. Lewenstein, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. [**A 51**]{}, 4617 (1995). T. Papenbrock, A. N. Salgueiro, and H. A. Weidenmüller, Phys. Rev. [**A 65**]{}, 043601 (2002). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 58**]{}, 536 (1998). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1793 (1997). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5266 (1998). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 55**]{}, 2902 (1997). D. Jacksch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 56**]{}, 575 (1997). D. Jacksch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 58**]{}, 1450 (1998). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 61**]{}, 033601 (2000). M. D. Lee [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 61**]{}, 033601 (2000). M. J. Davis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**A 62**]{}, 063608 (2000). M. Köhl [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 080402 (2002). C. W. Gardiner [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. [**B 35**]{}, 733 (2002). M. Girardeau and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. [**113**]{}, 755 (1959). C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. [**A 56**]{}, 1414 (1997). M. Girardeau, Phys. Rev. [**A 58**]{}, 775 (1998).
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The search for ultra-high energy downward-going and Earth-skimming cosmic neutrinos by the Surface Detector array of the Pierre Auger Observatory (PAO) is analyzed in the ADD model with $n$ extra flat spatial dimensions. We assumed that the diffuse neutrino flux $dN_\nu/dE_\nu$ is equal to $k E_\nu^{-2}$ in the energy range $10^{17}$ eV – $2.5 \times 10^{19}$ eV. Taking into account that no neutrino events where found by the PAO, we have estimated an upper bound on a value of $k$. It is shown that this bound can be stronger than the upper bound on $k$ recently obtained by the Pierre Auger Collaboration, depending on $n$ and (n+4)-dimensional gravity scale $M_D$.'
author:
- |
M.O. Astashenkov[^1]\
[Department of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University,]{}\
[119991 Moscow, Russian Federation]{}\
A.V. Kisselev[^2]\
[A.A. Logunov Institute for High Energy Physics, NRC “Kurchatov Institute”,]{}\
[142281 Protvino, Russian Federation]{}
title: '**Bound on a diffuse flux of ultra-high energy neutrinos in the ADD model**'
---
Introduction {#sec:intr}
============
Ultra-high energy (UHE) cosmic neutrinos plays an important role in particle physics and astrophysics. They help us to determine the composition of UHE cosmic rays, as well as their origin. In particular, the detection of UHE neutrino candidates by the Pierre Auger Observatory (PAO) in coincidence with gravitational wave (GW) events could constrain the position of the source of GW [@Auger_GW]. Measuring the scattering of UHE cosmic neutrinos off atmospheric nucleons can probe a new physics that could modify the neutrino-nucleon cross section at energies above $10^{17}$ eV. The first observation of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos was done by the IceCube Collaboration in 2014 [@IceCube:2014]. It was found that the neutrino-nucleon cross section agrees with predictions in the range 6.3 TeV – 980 TeV [@IceCube:2017].
To detect neutrino events with energies above $10^{17}$ eV, more powerful cosmic rays facilities such as the PAO [@PAO] and Telescope Array [@TA] are needed. Recently, the Pierre Auger Collaboration reported on searches for downward-going (DG) UHE neutrinos [@Auger:2015]. The DG incline air showers [@Berezinsky:1969]-[@Zas:2005] are initiated by cosmic neutrinos moving with large zenith angle which interact in the atmosphere near the Surface Detector (SD) array of the PAO. Note that the background from hadronic showers is very small at $E_\nu >
10^{17}$ eV and negligible above $10^{19}$ eV [@Anchordoqui:2010]. The data were collected by the SD in the zenith angle bins $60^\circ - 75^\circ$ and $75^\circ - 90^\circ$ for a period which is equivalent of 6.4 years of a complete PAO SD working continuously.
The PAO also searched for Earth-skimming (ES) air showers [@Bertou:2002]-[@Feng:2002] induced by upward tau neutrinos at zenith angles $90^\circ - 95^\circ$ which interact in the Earth producing tau leptons. In their turn, the tau leptons escape the Earth and initiate showers close to the SD.
No neutrino candidates were found. Assuming the diffuse flux of UHE neutrinos to be $$\label{flux_en_dependence}
\frac{dN}{dE_\nu} = k \,E_\nu^{-2}$$ in the energy range $1.0\times10^{17}$ eV – $2.5\times10^{19}$ eV, the upper single-flavor limit to the diffuse flux of UHE neutrinos was obtained by the Pierre Auger Collaboration $$\label{Auger_bound}
k < 6.4 \times 10^{-9} \mathrm{\ GeV \ cm^{-2} \ s^{-1} \ sr^{-1}}
\;.$$
This bound is approximately four times less than the Waxman-Bachall bound on cosmic neutrino production in optically thin sources [@WB:2001]. Some cosmogenic neutrino models with a pure proton composition injected at the sources were rejected by the Auger limit . The maximum sensitivity of the SD of the PAO lies at the neutrino energies around 1 EeV [@Auger:2015]. The IceCube fit of the diffuse single-flavor astrophysical neutrino flux [@IceCube:2015], if extrapolated to 1 EeV, would give $E_\nu^2
dN/dE_\nu = 0.3 \times 10^{-9} \mathrm{\ GeV \ cm^{-2} \ s^{-1} \
sr^{-1}}$. The calculations of the exposure of the SD array of the PAO were done under assumption that neutrino-nucleon collisions in the atmosphere are described by the SM interactions (in CC and NC channels).
The goal of the present paper is to estimate the single-flavor bound on the diffuse flux of UHE cosmic neutrinos in the model with extra dimensions. Namely, the ADD model [@Arkani-Hamed:98] with $n$ extra flat spatial dimensions will be considered. We will assume that neutrino energy spectrum is of the form $E_\nu^{-2}$ in the range $10^{17}$ eV – $2.5 \times
10^{19}$ eV.
Space-time with large extra dimensions (the ADD model) {#sec:ADD}
======================================================
Let us briefly remind readers the main features of the ADD model. The large extra dimensions scenario was postulated in refs. [@Arkani-Hamed:98]. Its metric looks like $$\label{ADD_metric}
ds^2 = g_{{\mu \nu}}(x) \, dx^{\mu} \, dx^{\nu} + \eta_{_{ab}} \,
dy^a \, dy^b \;,$$ where $\mu,\nu = 0,1,2,3$, $a,b=1, \ldots n$, and $\eta_{_{ab}} =
(-1, \ldots, -1)$. All $n$ extra dimensions are compactified with a size $R_c$.
There is a hierarchy relation between the fundamental mass scale in $D=4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, and 4-dimensional Planck mass, $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, $$\label{hierarchy_relation}
M_{\mathrm{Pl}} = V_n \, M_D^{2+n} \;,$$ where $V_n$ is a volume of the compactified dimensions. $V_n = (2\pi
R_c)^n$ if the extra dimensions are of a toroidal form. In order $M_D$ to be of order one or few TeV, the radius of the extra dimensions should be large. The compactification scale $R_c^{-1}$ ranges from $10^{-3}\hbox{\rm \,eV}$ to $10\hbox{\rm \,MeV}$ as $n$ runs from 2 to 6.
All SM gauge and matter fields are assumed to be confined to a $3$-dimensional brane embedded into a $(3+n)$-dimensional space, while the gravity lives in all $D$-dimensional space-time called bulk.
In linearized gravity we present $D$-dimensional metric $G_{AB}$ in the form ($A,B = 0,1, \ldots, 3+n$) $$\label{lenearized_appr}
G_{AB}(x,y) = \eta_{_{AB}} + \frac{2}{M_D^{1+n/2}} \, h_{AB}(x,y)
\;.$$ Performing the KK mode expansion of the gravitational field $h_{_{AB}}(x,y)$, we obtain the graviton interaction Lagrangian density $$\label{Lagrangian}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}}(x) = -\frac{1}{\bar M_{\mathrm{Pl}}} \,
T^{\mu \nu}(x) \sum_{n=0}^\infty h_{\mu \nu}^{(n)}(x) \;,$$ where $n$ labels the KK excitation level and ${\bar M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}
= M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/\sqrt{8\pi}$ is a reduced Planck mass. $T^{\mu
\nu}(x)$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter on the brane. The masses of the KK graviton modes $h_{\mu \nu}^{(n)}$ are $$\label{KK_masses}
m_n = \frac{\sqrt{n_a n^a}}{R_c} \, , \quad n_a=(n_1,n_2 \ldots n_n)
\;.$$ So, a mass splitting is $\Delta m \sim R_c^{-1}$ and we have an almost continuous spectrum of the gravitons.
One can see from (\[Lagrangian\]) that the coupling of both massless and massive graviton is universal and very small ($\sim
1/{\bar M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$). Nevertheless, all cross sections with real and virtual production of the massive KK gravitons are defined by the gravity scale $M_D$, but not by $\bar M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$.
Neutrino-nucleon cross sections {#sec:nu_N}
===============================
We intend to consider ultra-high energies of cosmic neutrino, $E_\nu
> 10^{17}$ eV. It corresponds to a large center-of-mass energy of the neutrino-proton collision, $\sqrt{s} \gtrsim 14$ TeV. Thus, we are in a transplanckian region $\sqrt{s} \gg M_D$. At the transplanckian energies a scattering is described by classical physics [@Giudice:02] -[@Emparan:02], provide an impact parameter $b$ is lager than the $D$-dimensional Schwarzschild radius $R_S$ [@Myers:86] $$\label{R_S}
R_S(s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{1}{M_D} \left[ \frac{8 \Gamma
\left( \frac{n+3}{2}\right) }{n+2} \frac{\sqrt{s}}{M_D}
\right]^{\!\frac{1}{n+1}} .$$ $R_S$ as a function of the neutrino energy $E_\nu$ is presented in tabs. 1-3 in Appendix A ($s = 2 m_N E_\nu$). The transplanckian regime corresponds to the conditions $$\label{tarns_Pl_regime}
\sqrt{s} \gg M_D \;, \quad \theta \sim (R_S/b)^{\!n+1} \;,$$ where $\theta$ is the scattering angle [@Giudice:02].
In the eikonal approximation [@Cheng:69], which is valid at small momentum transfer ($-t \ll s$) the leading part of the scattering amplitude is obtained by summation of all ladder diagrams with graviton exchange in the $t$-channel [@Giudice:02] -[@Emparan:02]. The tree-level exchange of the $D$-dimensional graviton gives the following Born amplitude $$\label{A_Born}
A_{\mathrm{Born}}(q^2) = \frac{s^2}{M_D^{n+2}} \int \!\!\frac{d^n
q_n}{t-q_n^2} = \pi^{n/2} \Gamma(1-n/2) \left( \frac{-t}{M_D^2}
\right)^{\!n/2-1} \!\!\left( \frac{s}{M_D^2} \right)^{\!2} ,$$ where $q_n$ is the momentum transfer in the extra dimensions. Summing all loop diagrams leads to the eikonal formula $$\label{A_eik}
A_{\mathrm{eik}}(s,t) = -2is \!\int \!\!d^2b \,e^{iq b} \left[
e^{\chi(b)} - 1 \right] ,$$ with the eikonal phase $$\label{eik}
\chi(b) = \frac{1}{2s} \int \!\!\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} \,e^{-iq b}
A_{\mathrm{Born}}(q^2) \;.$$ It has been calculated in [@Giudice:02]-[@Emparan:02] (see also [@Sessolo:08]) to be $$\label{eik_final}
\chi(b) = \left( \frac{b}{b_c} \right)^{\!\!n} ,$$ where $$\label{b_c}
b_c = \left[ \frac{(4\pi)^{n/2-1} s \Gamma(n/2)}{2M_D^{n+2}}
\right]^{\!1/n} .$$ An energy dependence of $b_c$ for different values of $n$ and $M_D$ is presented in tabs. 1-3 in Appendix A.
As a result, the final expression of the eikonal amplitude is given by $$\label{A_eik_final}
A_{\mathrm{eik}}(s,t) = 4\pi s \,b_c^2 F_n(b_c q) \;,$$ $$\label{F_n}
F_n(y) = - i \int\limits_0^\infty \!\!dx x J_0(x y) \left[
e^{ix^{-n}} - 1 \right] ,$$ where $x = b/b_c$. The eikonal representation of the scattering amplitude is a good approximation, provided $b > R_S$ [@Giudice:02]-[@Emparan:02].
At UHEs the neutrino interacts essentially with the quarks (antiquarks) and gluons inside the nucleon. Let us define a fraction of the neutrino energy transferred to the nucleon $$\label{y_def}
y = \frac{E_\nu - E'_\nu}{E_\nu} = \frac{Q^2}{x s} \;,$$ where $E_\nu (E'_\nu)$ is the initial (final) energy of the neutrino, and $x$ is the fraction of nucleon momentum carried by parton $i$ ($i = q, \bar{q}, g$). Taking into account above mentioned formulas, we get the differential neutrino-nucleon cross section $$\label{dif_cs}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy} = \pi s \sum_{i}x f_{i}(x,\mu^2) \,
b_{c}^4(\hat s) \,|F_{n}(b_c Q)|^2 \;,$$ where $\hat{s} = x s$, and $Q = \sqrt{y \hat{s}}$. The quantities $f_{i}(x,\mu^2)$ are the parton distribution functions (PDFs). Following ref. [@Sessolo:08], we put $\mu^2 = Q^2$. We use the CT14 set for the PDFs [@CT14]. For a chosen value of $n$ we take $M_D$ to be equal to a 95$\%$ CL lower limit on $M_D$ obtained recently by the CMS Collaboration (see fig. 11 in [@CM:limits_MD]). For instance, $M_D^{\min} = 2.3$ TeV (2.5 TeV) for $n=2$ (6). In order to calculate total cross sections, we integrate in the region $Q_0^2 < Q^2 < R_S^{-2}$ [@Sessolo:08]. As in [@Sessolo:08], we put $Q_0^2=0.01
m_W^2$, where $m_W$ is the W-boson mass.
As it was mentioned above, the eikonal approximation can be used if $Q^2 < R_S^{-2}$ ($b > R_S)$. In the rest of integration region $s
\geqslant Q^2 > R_S^{-2}$, that corresponds to the region $b < R_S$ in the impact parameter space, one expects that the neutrino and a parton inside the nucleon will form a black hole. In such a case, the cross section can be estimated as [@Feng:02]-[@Giddings:02] $$\label{CS_bh}
\sigma_{\nu N \rightarrow \mathrm{BH}}(s) = \pi \sum_{i}
\!\!\int\limits_{(M_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{min}})^2/s}^1 \!\!\!\!dx
f_i (x, \bar{\mu}^2) R_S^2(\hat{s}) \;.$$ We put $\bar{\mu}^2 = xs$. The dependence of $\sigma_{\nu N
\rightarrow \mathrm{BH}}$ on the choice of $\bar{\mu}^2$ and $M_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{min}}$ is discussed in [@Anchordoque:02]-[@Ahn:02]. For chosen $n$, $M_D$, we take $M_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{min}}$ to be equal to the 95$\%$ CL lower limit on $M_{\mathrm{bh}}$ for the same $n$ and $M_D$ obtained by the CMS Collaboration [@CM:limits_MBH]. As one can see from fig. 6 in [@CM:limits_MBH] and tabs. 1-3 in Appendix A, $M_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{min}} \gg R_S^{-1}$ for all $E_\nu$, if $2
\leqslant n \leqslant 6$, and $2 \mathrm{\ TeV} < M_D < 6$ TeV.
The black hole production by cosmic rays was studied in a number of papers (see, for an example, [@Feng:02], [@Anchordoque:02]-[@Ringwald:02]).
![Left panel: the neutrino total cross sections for $n=2$ and $M_D = 2.3$ TeV, 3.5 TeV, 5.0 TeV (solid lines). Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $n=6$ and $M_D = 2.5$ TeV, 4.0 TeV, 6.0 TeV. For comparison, the neutrino CC total cross section is shown by the dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:n2sum"}](n2sum_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left panel: the neutrino total cross sections for $n=2$ and $M_D = 2.3$ TeV, 3.5 TeV, 5.0 TeV (solid lines). Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $n=6$ and $M_D = 2.5$ TeV, 4.0 TeV, 6.0 TeV. For comparison, the neutrino CC total cross section is shown by the dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:n2sum"}](n6sum_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
![Left panel: the neutrino cross sections in the ADD model for $M_D = 2.3$ TeV and $n = 4$, 6 (solid lines, no SM contribution is included). Dashed line: the neutrino CC total cross section. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $M_D = 4$.[]{data-label="fig:n4n6MD2.3"}](n4n6MD2.3_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left panel: the neutrino cross sections in the ADD model for $M_D = 2.3$ TeV and $n = 4$, 6 (solid lines, no SM contribution is included). Dashed line: the neutrino CC total cross section. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $M_D = 4$.[]{data-label="fig:n4n6MD2.3"}](n4n6MD4_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
As for the SM neutrino interaction, we adopt the neutrino-nucleon cross sections in [@Sarkar:2008], since the Pierre Auger Collaboration [@Auger:2015] has obtained limit with the use of these SM cross sections.
The total cross sections as functions of the $D$-dimensional mass scale $M_D$ and number of the extra dimensions $n$ are shown in figs. \[fig:n2sum\]-\[fig:n4n6MD2.3\]. Let us note that at $E_\nu
> 10^{19}$ eV the cross section $\sigma_{\nu N \rightarrow
\mathrm{BH}}$ rises with $n$, while the eikonal cross section decreases. The combined effects of these two factors is that the difference of the cross sections for $n=4$ and $n=6$ tends to zero as $E_\nu$ grows (see fig. \[fig:n4n6MD2.3\]).
Our calculations of the cross sections is not an end in itself but it will enable us to estimate exposures for both DG and ES neutrino events at the SD array of the PAO in the ADD model and thus to put limits on the diffuse single-flavor flux of UHE neutrinos.
Limits on diffuse flux of UHE neutrinos in the ADD model {#sec:limits}
========================================================
In [@Kisselev:2016] the following functional dependence of the DG event rate on the new physics cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{NP}}$ was proposed for UHE neutrino events $$\label{DG:BSM_vs_SM}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}} (E_\nu) =
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{DG}} (E_\nu)\,
\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{eff}}(E_\nu) +
\sigma_{\mathrm{NP}}(E_\nu)}{\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{eff}}(E_\nu)}
\;,$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}}$ ($\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{DG}}$) is the exposure of the SD of the PAO with (without) account of the new interaction. In addition, instead of $\sigma_{\mathrm{CC}}$, an effective SM cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$ is introduce in : $$\label{sigma_eff}
\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{eff}} = \sigma_{\mathrm{CC}}
\!\!\sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau} \! \, m_{\mathrm{CC}}^i +
3\sigma_{\mathrm{NC}} \, m_{\mathrm{NC}} + \sigma_{\mathrm{CC}}\,
m_{\mathrm{mount}} \;.$$ Here $m_{\mathrm{CC}}^i$ and $m_{\mathrm{NC}}$ are relative mass apertures for charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) interactions of the DG neutrinos at the PAO. The mass aperture $m_{\mathrm{mount}}$ corresponds to the CC interaction of a $\tau$ neutrino within the mountains around the PAO. The relative mass apertures as functions of the neutrino energy where calculated using the data in Table I of ref. [@Auger:2011]. Note that $\sum_{i=e,\mu,\tau} m_{\mathrm{CC}}^i + 3 m_{\mathrm{NC}} +
m_{\mathrm{mount}} = 1$.
![The combined exposure of the SD array of the PAO (1 January 2004-20 June 2013) as a function of the neutrino energy. The individual exposures are also shown (fig. 3 from ref. [@Auger:2015]).[]{data-label="fig:Auger_exposures"}](Auger_exposures.eps){width="8cm"}
In contrast to the DG neutrino exposure, the exposure of the ES neutrinos decreases with the rise of the neutrino total cross section [@Kisselev:2016] $$\label{ES:BSM_vs_SM}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(E_\nu) =
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(E_\nu) \,
\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{CC}}^2(E_\nu)}{[\sigma_{\mathrm{CC}}(E_\nu) +
\sigma_{\mathrm{NP}}(E_\nu)]^2} \;.$$
The formulas and allowed us to calculate exposures of the SD of the PAO for the period 1 January 2004 – 20 June 2013 expected in the ADD model. The PAO data on the exposures for the SM neutrino interactions in the region from $\log(E_\nu/\mathrm{eV}) = 17$ to 20.5 were used (see fig. \[fig:Auger\_exposures\] taken from ref. [@Auger:2015]). The results of our calculations are presented in figs. \[fig:n2\_exp\]-\[fig:n6\_exp\].
![Left panel: the expected exposures of the SD array of the PAO for the DG neutrinos with zenith angle $75^\circ < \theta <
90^\circ$ in the ADD model. Right panel: the expected exposures of the SD array of the PAO for the ES neutrinos in the ADD model.[]{data-label="fig:n2_exp"}](n2DG_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left panel: the expected exposures of the SD array of the PAO for the DG neutrinos with zenith angle $75^\circ < \theta <
90^\circ$ in the ADD model. Right panel: the expected exposures of the SD array of the PAO for the ES neutrinos in the ADD model.[]{data-label="fig:n2_exp"}](n2ES_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
![The same as in fig. \[fig:n2\_exp\], but for $n=6$.[]{data-label="fig:n6_exp"}](n6DG_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![The same as in fig. \[fig:n2\_exp\], but for $n=6$.[]{data-label="fig:n6_exp"}](n6ES_new.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
![The expected ratio of the ES neutrinos to the DG neutrinos with zenith angle $75^\circ < \theta < 90^\circ$ at the SD array of the PAO as a function of the gravity scale $M_D$ for two values of $n$.[]{data-label="fig:ES_DG"}](ES_DG.eps){width="6cm"}
We assume that the astrophysical flux arrives isotropically from all directions, and neutrino flavor composition is $\nu_e : \nu_\mu
:\nu_\tau = 1 : 1 : 1$. Following Pierre Auger Collaboration, we also assume that the flux is described by a power law of the form . Then the upper limit on the value of $k$ can be estimated as [@Auger:2015] $$\label{k_int}
k = \frac{N_{\mathrm{up}}}{\int \!E_\nu^{-2}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{tot}}(E_\nu) d E_\nu} \;,$$ where $N_{\mathrm{up}}$ is an actual value of the upper limit on the signal events which depends on the number of the observed events and total exposure $$\label{exp_tot}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{tot}} =
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}} +
\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{ES}} \;,$$ see eqs. and . Since the PAO sees no events, we put $N_{\mathrm{up}} = 2.39$, assuming a number of expected background events to be zero [@Auger:2015].
As one can see in fig. \[fig:n2sum\], in the ADD model the cross sections rise more rapidly with the neutrino energy than the SM cross sections. As a result, the exposure for the DG events, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}}$ , rises, while the exposure for the ES events, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{ES}}$ , decreases as $E_\nu$ grows (see figs. \[fig:n2\_exp\], \[fig:n6\_exp\]). The expected ratio of the ES neutrinos to the DG neutrinos with zenith angle $75^\circ < \theta < 90^\circ$ is shown in fig. \[fig:ES\_DG\].
As a result, for some values of $n$ and $M_D$, the total expected exposure in the ADD model can be larger than the Auger exposure calculated on the assumption that the neutrino-nucleon scattering is defined by the SM interactions only. Correspondingly, an upper bound on $k$ defined by eq. can be even stronger than the bound obtained by the Pierre Auger Collaboration . It is demonstrated by figs. \[fig:k\_n\_MD\]-\[fig:k\_MD\_n\], in which the PAO upper bound on the value of $k$ is also shown.
![Left panel: the upper bound on the value of $k$ as a function of D-dimensional Planck scale $M_D$ for $n=2$ in the ADD model. Dashed line is the PAO upper limit [@Auger:2015]. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $n=6$.[]{data-label="fig:k_n_MD"}](k_MD_n2.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left panel: the upper bound on the value of $k$ as a function of D-dimensional Planck scale $M_D$ for $n=2$ in the ADD model. Dashed line is the PAO upper limit [@Auger:2015]. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $n=6$.[]{data-label="fig:k_n_MD"}](k_MD_n6.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
![Left panel: the upper bound on the value of $k$ as a function of number of extra dimensions $n$ for $M_D= 2.3$ TeV. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $M_D= 4.0$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:k_MD_n"}](k_n_MD2.3.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left panel: the upper bound on the value of $k$ as a function of number of extra dimensions $n$ for $M_D= 2.3$ TeV. Right panel: the same as on the left panel, but for $M_D= 4.0$ TeV.[]{data-label="fig:k_MD_n"}](k_n_MD4.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
Conclusions
===========
Using the exposure of the PAO for the period equivalent of 6.4 years of the complete PAO SD array working continuously, we have estimated the exposures for the neutrino induced events expected in the scenario with the large flat extra dimensions of the space-time. Both downward-going and Earth-skimming UHE cosmic neutrinos are considered.
The exposures are defined by the neutrino-nucleon cross sections in the ADD model. In the transplanckian region and large impact parameters $b > R_S$ the eikonal approximation is valid. In such a case, the scattering amplitude is given by the exchanges of the $t$-channel massive gravitons. At small $b < R_S$, the eikonal approximation breaks down, and the production of the black holes is assumed. The dependence of the exposures on the number of extra dimensions $n$ and the gravity scale $M_D$ is obtained (figs. \[fig:n2\_exp\]-\[fig:n6\_exp\]).
Our main goal was to calculate the single-flavor upper limit on the diffuse neutrino flux in the presence of the massive graviton interactions in the ADD model. We assumed that the flux of UHE neutrinos is proportional to $E_\nu^{-2}$ . Our results demonstrate us that in the ADD model the upper bound on the diffuse neutrino flux can be stronger that the PAO limit , depending on the parameter of the ADD model, $n$ and $M_D$. As one can see in fig. \[fig:k\_n\_MD\], it takes place for $M_D < 3.01$ TeV (2.38 TeV), if $n=2$ (6). For $M_D = 2.3$ TeV it is true for $n \leqslant
3$ and $n \geqslant 6$ (left panel of fig. \[fig:k\_MD\_n\]). However, with the increase of $M_D$ our bound becomes weaker than the PAO bound for all $n$ (right panel of fig. \[fig:k\_MD\_n\]).
It can be understood as follows. Remember that the upper limit on the neutrino diffuse flux is given by formula . In the presence of the extra dimensions, the neutrino-nucleon cross section grows with the neutrino energy more rapidly than the SM one (fig. \[fig:n2\_exp\]). Correspondingly, the expected exposure for the DG neutrino events, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}}$ , also rises. On the contrary, the exposure for the ES neutrino events, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{ES}}$ , decreases as the energy grows (figs. \[fig:n2\_exp\]-\[fig:n6\_exp\]). As a result, the total expected exposure of the SD array of the PAO, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{tot}}$ , may be larger than the total exposure obtained by the Pierre Auger Collaboration (fig. \[fig:Auger\_exposures\]), provided that the integrated increase of $E_\nu^{-2}\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{DG}}(E_\nu)$ prevails over the integrated reduction of $E_\nu^{-2}\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{BSM}}^{\mathrm{ES}}(E_\nu)$. As $M_D$ grows, the upper limit on the value of $k$ tends to the PAO limit from above, as one can see on the right panel of fig. \[fig:k\_n\_MD\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are indebted to J. Alvarez-Muñiz for sending us the numerical data on the exposures of the SD array of the PAO.
Appendix A {#app:A .unnumbered}
==========
Here we present an energy dependence of the parameter $b_c$ and $D$-dimensional Schwarzschild radius squared $R_S^2$ for different values of the number of the extra dimensions $n$ and $D$-dimensional gravity scale $M_D$.
Table 1. The parameter $b_c$ and Schwarzschild radius squared $R_S^2$ for $n=2$, $M_D = 2.3$ TeV as a function of the neutrino energy $E_\nu$.
$E_\nu$, eV $b_c$, GeV$^{-1}$ $R_S^2$, GeV$^{-2}$
---------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{17}$ $1.831113\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 5.155385\cdot 10^{-7}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{17}$ $2.245307\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 5.906109\cdot 10^{-7}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{18}$ $5.790488\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.110694\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{18}$ $7.100285\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.272433\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{19}$ $1.831113\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 2.392918\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{19}$ $2.245307\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 2.741373\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{20}$ $5.790488\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 5.155385\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{20}$ $7.100285\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 5.906109\cdot 10^{-6}$
$2.38298316 \cdot 10^{20}$ $8.938727\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 6.886017\cdot 10^{-6}$
Table 2. The same as in tab. 1, but for $n=4$.
$E_\nu$, eV $b_c$, GeV$^{-1}$ $R_S^2$, GeV$^{-2}$
---------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{17}$ $1.679949\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.161700\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{17}$ $1.860272\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.260429\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{18}$ $2.987419\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.841171\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{18}$ $3.308083\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.997645\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{19}$ $5.312466\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 2.918059\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{19}$ $5.882696\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 3.166054\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{20}$ $9.447048\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 4.624811\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{20}$ $1.046108\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 5.017857\cdot 10^{-6}$
$2.38298316 \cdot 10^{20}$ $1.173752\cdot 10^{-2}$ $ 5.501970\cdot 10^{-6}$
Table 3. The same as in tab. 1, but for $n=6$, $M_D = 2.5$ TeV.
$E_\nu$, eV $b_c$, GeV$^{-1}$ $R_S^2$, GeV$^{-2}$
---------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{17}$ $1.639502\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.550374\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{17}$ $1.754818\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 1.643386\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{18}$ $2.406460\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 2.154238\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{18}$ $2.575721\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 2.283477\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{19}$ $3.532200\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 2.993304\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{19}$ $3.780641\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 3.172881\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.00000000 \cdot 10^{20}$ $5.184560\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 4.159182\cdot 10^{-6}$
$1.50356136 \cdot 10^{20}$ $5.549222\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 4.408704\cdot 10^{-6}$
$2.38298316 \cdot 10^{20}$ $5.991912\cdot 10^{-3}$ $ 4.708497\cdot 10^{-6}$
Note that the invariant energy squared of the neutrino-nucleon scattering is equal to $s = 2 m_N E_\nu$.
[99]{} A. Aab *et al.* (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **94** (2016) 122007. M.G. Aartsen *et al.* (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. **113** (2014) 101101. M.G. Aartsen *et al.* (IceCube Collaboration), Nature **551** (2017) 596. J. Abraham *et al.* (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **523** (2004) 50. T. Abu-Zayyad *et al.* (Telescope Array Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **689** (2012) 87. A. Aab *et al.* (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **91** (2015) 092008. V.S. Berezinsky and G.T. Zatsepin, Phys. Lett. B **28** (1969) 423; V.S. Berezinsky and A.Yu. Smirnov, Astrophys. Space Sience **32** (1975) 461. K.S. Capelle, J.W. Cronin, G. Parente and E. Zas, Astropart. Phys. **8** (1998) 321. E. Zas, New J. Phys., **7** (2005) 130. L. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, D. Góra *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **82** (2010) 043001. X. Bertou *et al.*, Astropart. Phys. **17** (2002) 183. J.L. Feng, P. Fisher, F. Wilczek and T.M. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88** (2002) 161102. E. Waxman and J.N. Bachall, Phys. Rev. D **64** (2001) 023002 . M.G. Aartsen *et al.* (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **91** (2015) 022001. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{} (1998) 263; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{} (1998) 257 ; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 086004. H. Cheng and T.T. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. B [**26**]{} (1969) 666; H. Abarbanel and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**23**]{} (1969) 53; M. Levy and J. Sucher, Rev. Rev. [**186**]{} (1969) 1656. G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J.D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B **630** (2002) 293. R. Emparan, M. Masip and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 064023. R.C. Myers and M.J. Perry, Ann. Phys. [**172**]{} (1986) 304; P.C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos and J. March-Russel, Phys. Lett. B [**441**]{} (1998) 96. E.M.Sessolo and D.W.McKay,Phys. Lett. B **668** (2008) 396. S. Dulat *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **93**, 033006 (2016). A.M. Sirunyan *et al.* (CMS Collaboration), *Search for new physics in events with a leptonically decaying $Z$ boson and a large transverse momentum imbalance in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV*, arXiv:1711.00431 (submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C). J.L. Feng and A.D. Shapere,Phys. Rev. Lett. **88** (2002) 021303. S.B. Giddings and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 056010. L.A. Anchordoque, J.L. Feng, H. Golgberg and A.D. Shapere, Phys. Rev. D **65** (2002) 124027; *ibid*, **68** (2003) 104025. E-J. Ahn, M. Ave, M. Cavaglià and A.V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D **68** (2002) 043004. A. Ringwald and H. Tu, Phys. Lett. B **525** (2002) 135. A.M. Sirunyan *et al.* (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B **774** (2017) 279. A. Cooper-Sarkar and S. Sarkar, JHEP **0801** (2008) 075. A.V. Kisselev, L.A. Shkalina, EPJ Web of Conferences **125** (2016) 02014. P. Abreu *et al.* (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **84** (2011) 122005.
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The main goal of network pruning is imposing sparsity on the neural network by increasing the number of parameters with zero value in order to reduce the architecture size and the computational speedup. In most of the previous research works, sparsity is imposed stochastically without considering any prior knowledge of the weights distribution or other internal network characteristics. Enforcing too much sparsity may induce accuracy drop due to the fact that a lot of important elements might have been eliminated. In this paper, we propose *Guided Attention for Sparsity Learning* (GASL) to achieve **(1)** model compression by having less number of elements and speedup; **(2)** prevent the accuracy drop by supervising the sparsity operation via a guided attention mechanism and **(3)** introduce a generic mechanism that can be adapted for any type of architecture; Our work is aimed at providing a framework based on an interpretable attention mechanisms for imposing structured and non-structured sparsity in deep neural networks. For *Cifar-100* experiments, we achieved the state-of-the-art sparsity level and 2.91$\times$ speedup with competitive accuracy compared to the best method. For *MNIST* and *LeNet* architecture we also achieved the highest sparsity and speedup level.'
author:
- |
Amirsina Torfi\
Department of Computer Science\
Virginia Tech\
Blacksburg, VA, USA\
`[email protected]`\
Rouzbeh A. Shirvani\
Howard University\
Washington DC, USA\
`[email protected]`\
Sobhan Soleymani\
West Virginia University\
Morgantown, WV, USA\
`[email protected]`\
Naser M. Nasrabadi\
West Virginia University\
Morgantown, WV, USA\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'GASL: Guided Attention for Sparsity Learning in Deep Neural Networks'
---
Introduction
============
Recent advances in deep neural networks came with ideas to train deep architectures that have led to near-human accuracy for image recognition, object categorization and a wide variety of other applications [@lecun2015deep; @maturana2015voxnet; @schmidhuber2015deep; @mnih2013playing; @hinton2012deep]. One possible issue is that an over-parameterized network may make the architecture overcomplicated for the task at hand and it might be prone to over-fitting as well. In addition to the model complexity, a huge amount of computational power is required to train such deep models due to having billions of weights. Moreover, even if a huge model is trained, it cannot be effectively employed for model evaluation on low-power devices mainly due to having exhaustive matrix multiplications [@courbariaux2015binaryconnect].
So far, a wide variety of approaches have been proposed for creating more compact models. Traditional methods include model compression [@ba2014deep; @hinton2015distilling], network pruning [@han2015learning], sparsity-inducing regularizer [@collins2014memory], and low-rank approximation [@jaderberg2014speeding; @denton2014exploiting; @ioannou2015training; @tai2015convolutional]. The aforementioned methods usually induce random connection pruning which yields to few or no improvement in the computational cost. On the other hand, structured pruning methods proposed to compress the architecture with significant computational efficiency [@wen2016learning; @neklyudov2017structured].
One of the critical subjects of interest in sparsity learning is to maintain the accuracy level. In this paper, we discuss the *intuitive reasons behind the accuracy drop and propose a method to prevent it*. The important step is to determine how the sparsity and accuracy are connected together in order to be able to propose a mechanism for controlling the sparsity to prevent severe accuracy drop. In order to connect the sparsity to accuracy, intuitively, the accuracy drop is caused by imposing too much sparsity on the network in a way that the remaining elements cannot transfer enough information for optimal feature extraction for the desired task. Another intuitive reasoning is to argue that the sparsity is not supervised with any attention towards the model performance during optimization.
For effective network pruning and feature selection, different approaches such as employing the group lasso for sparse structure learning [@yuan2006model], structure scale constraining [@liu2015sparse], and structured regularizing deep architectures known as Structured Sparsity Learning (SSL) [@wen2016learning] have previously been proposed. For most of the previous research efforts, there is lack of addressing the direct effect of the proposed method on the combination of the sparsity and accuracy drop. One may claim that successful sparsity imposing with negligible accuracy drop might be due to the initial over-parameterizing the network. Moreover, there is *no control mechanism to supervise the sparsity operation connected to the model performance* which limits the available methods to intensive hyper-parameter tuning and multiple stages of training.
**Our contribution.** We designed and employed a supervised attention mechanism for sparsity learning which: **(1)** performs model compression for having less number of parameters **(2)** prevents the accuracy drop by sparsity supervision by paying an attention towards the network using variance regularization and **(3)** is a generic mechanism that is not restricted by the sparsity penalty or any other limiting assumption regarding the network architecture. To the best of our knowledge, *this is the first research effort which proposes a supervised attention mechanism for sparsity learning*.
**Paper Organization.** At first, we provide a review of the related research efforts (Section \[sec:Related works\]). Then, we introduce the attention mechanism which is aimed at forcing some sections of the network to be active (Section \[sec:Proposed attention mechanism\]). Later in Section \[sec:GASL: Guided Attention in Sparsity Learning\], we propose an algorithm only for the attention supervision. We complement our proposed method in Section \[sec:Experimental results\], by providing experimental results for which we target the sparsity level, accuracy drop and robustness of the model to hyper-parameter tuning. As will be observed, the proposed mechanism prevents the severe accuracy drop in higher levels of sparsity. We will empirically show the robustness to exhaustive hyper-parameter tuning in addition to performance superiority of the proposed method in higher sparsity levels.
Related works {#sec:Related works}
=============
**Network weights pruning.** Network compression for parameter reduction has been of great interest for a long time and a large number of research efforts are dedicated to it. In [@han2015learning; @han2015deep; @ullrich2017soft; @molchanov2017variational], network pruning has been performed with a significant reduction in parameters, although they suffer from computational inefficiency due to the mere weight pruning rather than the structure pruning.
**Network structure pruning.** In [@louizos2017bayesian; @wen2016learning; @neklyudov2017structured], pruning the unimportant parts of the structure[^1] rather than simple weight pruning has been proposed and significant computational speedup has been achieved. However, for the aforementioned methods, the architecture must be fully trained at first and the potential training speedup regarding the sparsity enforcement cannot be attained. A solution for training speedup has been proposed by $\ell_0$-regularization technique by using online sparsification [@louizos2017learning]. Training speedup is of great importance but adding a regularization for solely speeding up the training (because of the concurrent network pruning) is not efficient due to adding a computational cost for imposing $\ell_0$-regularization itself. Instead, we will use an adaptive gradient clipping [@pascanu2013difficulty] for training speedup.
**Attention.** In this paper, the goal is to impose the sparsity in an accurate and interpretable way using the attention mechanism. So far, attention-based deep architectures has been proposed for image [@fu2017look; @jia2015guiding; @mnih2014recurrent; @xu2015show] and speech domains [@bahdanau2016end; @chorowski2015attention; @toro2005speech], as well as machine translation [@bahdanau2014neural; @luong2015effective; @vaswani2017attention]. Recently, the supervision of the attention mechanism became a subject of interest as well [@liu2016neural; @liu2017attention; @chen2016guided; @mi2016supervised] for which they proposed to supervise the attention using some external guidance. We propose the use of guided attention for enforcing the sparsity to map the sparsity distribution of the targeted elements[^2] to the desired target distribution.
Proposed attention mechanism {#sec:Proposed attention mechanism}
============================
The main objective of the attention mechanism is to control and supervise the sparsity operation. For this aim, it is necessary to propose a method which is neither dependent on the architecture of the model nor to any layer type while maintaining the model accuracy and enforcing the compression objective. Considering the aforementioned goals, we propose the *variance loss* as an auxiliary cost term to force the distribution of the weights[^3] to be skewed. A skewed distribution with a high variance and a concentration on zero (to satisfy the sparsity objective) is desired. Our proposed scheme supervises the sparsity operation to keep a portion of the targeted elements (such as weights) to be dominant (with respect to their magnitude) as opposed to the other majority of the weights to simultaneously impose and control sparsity. Intuitively, this mechanism may force a portion of weights to survive for sufficient information transmission through the architecture.
Assume enforcing the sparsity is desired on a parametric model; let’s have the training samples with $\{x_i,y_i\}$ as pairs. We propose the following objective function which is aimed to create a sparse structure in addition to the *variance regularization*:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gen-objective}
\begin{split}
&\Omega(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \frac{1}{N} \left (\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Gamma \left ( F(\boldsymbol{x_i};\boldsymbol{\theta}),\boldsymbol{y_i} \right ) \right ) + R(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + \lambda_{s} . \ominus(G(\boldsymbol{\theta})) + \lambda_{v} . \Psi^{-1}(H(\boldsymbol{\theta)}), \\
& \theta_{opt} = \underset{\boldsymbol{\theta}}{\mathrm{argmin}}\{\Omega(\boldsymbol{\theta})\},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
in which $\Gamma(.)$ corresponds to the cross-entropy loss function and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ can be any combination of the target parameters. Model function is defined as $F(.)$, $R(.)$ is some regularization function, $G(.)$ and $H(.)$ are some arbirtrary functions[^4] on parameters (such as grouping parameters), $N$ is the number of samples, $\lambda$ parameters are the weighting coefficients for the associated losses and $\ominus(.)$ and $\Psi(.)$ are the sparsity and variance functions[^5], respectively. The variance function is the utilized regularization term for any set of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ parameters[^6]. The inverse operation on top of the $\Psi(.)$ in Eq. \[eq:gen-objective\] is necessary due to the fact that the higher variance is the desired objective. The power of the variance as a regularizer has been investigated in [@namkoong2017variance]. In this work, we expand the scope of variance regularization to the sparsity supervision as well.
Model complexity {#sec:Model complexity}
----------------
Adding a new term to the loss function can increase the model complexity due to adding a new hyper-parameter (the coefficient of the variance loss). For preventing this issue, we propose to have a dependent parameter as the variance loss coefficient. If the new hyperparameter is defined in terms of a variable dependent upon another hyperparameter, then it does not increase the model complexity. Considering the suggested approach, a dependency function must be defined over the hyperparameters definition. The dependency is defined as $\lambda_{v} = f(\lambda_{s}) = \alpha \times \lambda_{s}$ in which $\alpha$ is a scalar multiplier.
Structured attention for group lasso regularization {#sec:Structured attention}
---------------------------------------------------
**Group Sparsity.** Group sparsity has widely been utilized mostly for its feature selection ability by deactivating neurons[^7] via imposing sparsity on the whole cluster of weights in a group [@yuan2006model; @meier2008group]. Regarding the Eq. \[eq:gen-objective\], the group sparsity objective function can be defined by follwoing expression:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-group}
\begin{split}
\ominus(G(\boldsymbol{w})) = \sum_{l=1}^{N_l} \frac{1}{\sqrt{|G(W^{l})|}} \left (\sum_{j=1}^{M}\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{|w^{(j)}|}(w_{i}^{(j)})^{2}}\right )_l ,\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
in which $w^{(j)}$ is the $j_{th}$ group of weights in $w$ and $|w^{(j)}|$ is the number of weights in the associated group in the case of having M groups. The $l$ indicates the layer index, $|G(W^{l})|$ is a normalizer factor which is in essence the number of groups for the $l_{th}$ layer and $(.)_l$ demonstrates the elements (weights) belonging to the the $l_{th}$ layer.
**Structured attention.** We propose a *Structured Attention (SA)* regularization, which adds the attention mechanism on group sparsity learning (the sparsity imposition operation is smiliar to SSL [@wen2016learning]). The attention is on the predefined groups. Under our general framework, it can be expressed by the following substitutions in Eq. \[eq:gen-objective\]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-group}
\begin{split}
\Psi(H(\boldsymbol{w})) = \sum_{l=1}^{N_l} \frac{1}{\sqrt{|G(W^{l})|}} \left ( \frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^{M}\left ( \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{|w^{(j)}|}(w_{i}^{(j)})^{2}} - \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k=1}^{M}\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{|w^{(k)}|}(w_{i}^{(k)})^{2}}\right )^{2}\right )_l,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
which is simply the variance of the group values for each layer, normalized by a factor and aggregated for all the layers.
**Generalizability.** It is worth noting that our proposed mechanism is not limited to the suggested structured method. It can operate on any $\ominus(.)$ function as sparsity objective because the definition of the attention is independent of the type of the sparsity. As an example, one can utilize an *unstructured attention* which is simply putting the attention function $\Psi(.)$ on all the network weights without considering any special groups of weights or prior objectives such as pruning unimportant channels or filters.
GASL: Guided Attention in Sparsity Learning {#sec:GASL: Guided Attention in Sparsity Learning}
===========================================
The attention mechanism observes the areas of structure[^8] on which the sparsity is supposed to be enforced. we propose the *Guided Attention in Sparsity Learning (GASL)* mechanism, which aims at the attention supervision toward mapping the distribution of the elements’ values to a certain target distribution. The target distribution characteristics must be aligned with the attention objective function with the goal of increasing the variance of the elements for sparsity imposition.
Increasing variance by additive random samples {#sec:additive-random-vector}
----------------------------------------------
Assume we have the vector $V(\boldsymbol{\theta})=[\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,\boldsymbol{\theta}_2,...,\boldsymbol{\theta}_{|\boldsymbol{\theta}|}]^T$ that is the values of the elements in the group $[\boldsymbol{\theta}]=\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,\boldsymbol{\theta}_2,...,\boldsymbol{\theta}_{|\boldsymbol{\theta}|}\}$ and for which we want to maximize the variance. In [@paisley2012variational], variational Bayesian inference has been employed for the gradient computation of variational lower bound. Inspired by [@wang2013variance], in which random vectors are used for stochastic gradient optimization, we utilize the additive random vectors for variance regularization. The random vector is defined as $V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})=[V^r_1,V^r_2,...,V^r_{|\boldsymbol{\theta}|}]^T$.The formulation is as below:
$$\label{eq:variance-add}
\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = V(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + M. \left(V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E(V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}))\right),$$
where $M$ is a $|\boldsymbol{\theta}| \times |\boldsymbol{\theta}|$ matrix. The resulted vector $\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ does not make any changes in the mean of the parameters distribution since it has the same mean as the initial $V(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ vector.
Assume the variance maximization of the $\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is desired. The choice of matrix M, does not enforce any upperbound on the variance vector $\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$.
**Proof.** For that aim, the task breaks to the subtask of finding the optimal $M$ for which the trace of the $\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is maximized. For the mini-batch optimization problem, we prove that the proposed model is robust to the selection of $M$. The maximizer $M$ can be obtained when the trace of the variance matrix is maximized and it can be demonstrated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-max}
\begin{split}
M_{*} = & \underset{M}{\mathrm{argmax}} \left \{ Tr\left ( Var[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})] \right ) \right \}\\
= & \underset{M}{\mathrm{argmax}} \left \{ Tr\left ( Cov[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta}),\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})] \right ) \right \}\\
= & \underset{M}{\mathrm{argmax}} \left \{ Tr \left ( Var[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + \Upsilon + \Upsilon^T + M.Var[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T \right ) \right \}\\
, & \Upsilon = M. Cov[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
As can be observed from Eq. \[eq:variance-max\], as long as $M$ is a positive definite matrix, the additive random can add to the value of the matrix trace without any upper bound. The detailed mathematical proof is available in the Appendix.$\blacktriangle$
Considering the mathematical proof, one can infer that the mere utilization of the variance loss term in Eq. \[eq:gen-objective\], as the attention mechanism and without the additive random vector, can supervise the sparsity operation. However, we will empirically show that the additive random vectors can improve the accuracy due to the supervision of the attention. *The supervision of the variance is important regarding the fact that the high variance of the parameters may decrease the algorithm speed and performance for sparsity enforcement. This is due to the large number of operations that is necessary for gradient descent to find the trade-off between the sparsity and variance regularization*. From now one, without the loss of generality, we assume $M$ to be *identity matrix* in our experiments.\
**The choice of random vector $V^r$.** In practice, the choice of $V^r$ should be highly correlated with $V$. Furthermore, Eq. \[eq:variance-max\] shows that without being correlated, the terms associated with $Cov[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})]$ may go to zero which affects the high variance objective, negatively. The algorithm for random vector selection is declared in Algorithm. \[algorithm:random-vector-selection\]. *The distribution $pdf(.)$ should be specified regarding the desired output distribution*. We chose *log-normal distribution* due to its special characteristics which create a concentration around zero and a skewed tail [@limpert2001log]. If the variance of the random vector $V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is less than the main vector $V(\boldsymbol{\theta})$, no additive operation will be performed. In case the $[\boldsymbol{\theta}]$ parameters variance is high-enough compared to the $V(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ vector, then there is no need for additive random samples. This preventing mechanism has been added due to the practical speedup.
\[algorithm:random-vector-selection\] **Parameters group**: Form $V(\boldsymbol{\theta})=[\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,\boldsymbol{\theta}_2,...,\boldsymbol{\theta}_{|\boldsymbol{\theta}|}]^T$ **Random sampling**: Draw $\beta_{k}$ $\thicksim$ $pdf(\beta)$ for $k$ in $\{1,2,...,\boldsymbol{\theta}\}$ **Random vector creation**: Form $V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})=[\beta_1,\beta_2,...,\beta_{|\boldsymbol{\theta}|}].V(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ **Computation**: Update gradiant
Deacreasing ambiguity by the variance inverse
---------------------------------------------
In practice, we do not want to add ambiguity to the system. In another word, ideally, the new loss term should not add any extra information for decision making. This problem is closely related to the Fisher information in statistics which is the information that an observed random variable $X$ has about the unknown parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ [@rissanen1996fisher; @efron1978assessing; @frieden2004science]. The parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ can be the weights or groups of weights in our model. In Eq. \[eq:gen-objective\], we chose the variance inverse for this aim.
The choice of the variance inverse with the objective of having a high variance, has inverse proportional relation with the Fisher information,i.e., having more variance, decreases the Fisher information added by the variance loss term.
**Proof.** Assume $\mathcal{O}$ is used for classification purposes and has the hidden variable of $[\boldsymbol{\theta}]=\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1,\boldsymbol{\theta}_2,...,\boldsymbol{\theta}_n\}$. Let the likelihood distribution be $p(\mathcal{O}|\boldsymbol{\theta})$. The Fisher information is equal to the second moment of the log-likelihood distrubution as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fisher-information}
I(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = E_\mathcal{O}\left [ \left ( \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\theta}}^2} log\{p(\mathcal{O}|\theta)\} \right )^2|\boldsymbol{\theta} \right ].\end{aligned}$$
Assume we have an unbiased estimator $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\mathcal{O})$ which has the condition of $E\left [ \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\mathcal{O}) - \boldsymbol{\theta} | \boldsymbol{\theta} \right ]$. Regarding that, we have the following inequality using the Cramér-Rao Bound [@frieden2004science]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fisher-bound}
Var[\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}]\geq \frac{1}{I(\boldsymbol{\theta})}.\end{aligned}$$
The Eq.\[eq:fisher-bound\] expresses the fact that if the variance of an estimation is more than a value $\mathcal{V}$, then the Fisher information lower bound will be $\mathcal{V}^{-1}$.$\blacktriangle$
We have shown in Section \[sec:additive-random-vector\] that the unbiased estimate can be made by simply generating a random vector with the same mean value which satisfies the assumed condition on $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}(\mathcal{O})$. The Eq.\[eq:fisher-bound\] does not necessarily put an upper bound on the Fisher information but decreasing the lower bound is still justified with the *objective of not increasing the ambiguity*.
**Combination of GASL and SA.** GASL algorithm can operate on the top of the structured attention for attention supervision. The schematic is depicted in Fig. \[fig:SA\_GASL\]. Furthermore, a visualized example of the output channels from the second convolutional layer in the MNIST experiments has also demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:SA\_GASL\]. The structured attention is dedicated to the output channels of a convolutional layer.
![The combination of GASL and structured attention. The cube demonstrates the output feature map of a convolutional layer. The weights associated with each channel, form a group. For visualization, the right column is the activation visualization of the attention-based sparsity enforcement on output channels and the left one is the results of imposing sparsity without attention. As can be observed, some of the channels are turned off and the remaining ones are intesified.[]{data-label="fig:SA_GASL"}](imgs/SA_GASL.png)
Experimental results {#sec:Experimental results}
====================
We use three databases for the evaluation of our proposed method: MNIST [@lecun1998gradient], CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 [@krizhevsky2009learning]. For increasing the convergence speed without degrading the overall performance, we used gradient clipping [@pascanu2013difficulty]. A common approach is to clip individual gradients to some fixed predefined range $[-\zeta,\zeta]$. As the learning rate becomes smaller continuously, the effective gradient[^9] will approach zero and training convergence may become extremely slow. For tackling this issue, we used the method proposed in [@kim2016accurate] for gradient clipping which defined the range dynamically as $[-\zeta/\gamma,\zeta/\gamma]$ for which $\gamma$ is the current learning rate. We chose $\zeta=0.1$ in our experiments. Hyper-parameters are selected by cross-validation. For all our experiments, *the output channels of convolutional layers and neurons in fully connected layers are considered as groups.*
MNIST dataset
-------------
For experiments on MNIST dataset, we use $\ell_2$-regularization with the default hyperparameters. Two network architectures have been employed: LeNet-5-Caffe[^10] and a multilayer perceptron (MLP). For the MLP network, the group sparsity is enforced on each neuron’s outputs for feature selection; Same can be applied on the neurons’ inputs as well. The results are shown in Table. \[table:MNIST-resutls\]. The percentage of sparsity is reported layer-wise. One important observation is the superiority of the *SA* method to the *SSL* in terms of accuracy, while the sparsity objective function for both is identical and the only difference is the addition of structural attention (Eq. \[eq:variance-group\]). As a comparison to [@louizos2017bayesian], we achieved closed sparsity level with better accuracy for the MLP network. For the LeNet network, we obtained the highest sparsity level with competitive accuracy compared to the best method proposed in [@molchanov2017variational].
[\*[11]{}[c]{}]{} & &\
(lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} Method & Error($\%$) & Sparsity($\%$) / speedup & Error($\%$) & Sparsity($\%$) / speedup\
baseline & 0.8 & 0-0-0-0 / 1.00$\times$ & 1.54 & 0-0-0 / 1.00$\times$\
$\ell_1$-regularization & 2.44 & 15-31-37-53 / 1.07$\times$ & 3.26 & 21-23-15 / 1.01$\times$\
Network Pruning [@han2015learning] & 1.21 & 61-58-80-67 / 1.17$\times$ & 1.71 & 20-32-69 / 1.03$\times$\
Bayesian Compression [@louizos2017bayesian] & 0.9 & 60-74-89-97 / 2.31$\times$ & 1.8 & **71-81-94** / 1.18$\times$\
Structured BP [@neklyudov2017structured] & 0.86 & 85-62-64-43 / 2.03$\times$ & 1.55 & 68-77-89 / **1.28**$\times$\
Structured Sparsity Learning [@wen2016learning] & 1.00 & 71-58-61-34 / 1.83$\times$ & 1.49 & 52-61-74 / 1.12$\times$\
Sparse Variational Dropout [@molchanov2017variational] & **0.75** & 66-36-59-75 / 1.43$\times$ & 1.57 & 31-56-57 / 1.05$\times$\
$\ell_0$-regularization [@louizos2017learning] & 1.02 & 8-62-96-17 / 1.31$\times$ & **1.41** & 32-34-37 / 1.07$\times$\
Structured Attention & 1.05 & 78-62-72-50 / 1.91$\times$ & 1.56 & 22-31-62 / 1.04$\times$\
Structured Attention + GASL & 0.92 & **76-88-86-95** / **2.41**$\times$ & 1.53 & 64-80-95 / 1.23$\times$\
\[table:MNIST-resutls\]
Experiments on Cifar-10 and Cifar-100
-------------------------------------
For experiments in this section, we used VGG-16 [@simonyan2014very] as the baseline architecture. Random cropping, horizontal flipping, and per-image standardization have been performed for data augmentation in the training phase and in the evaluation stage, only center cropping has been used [@krizhevsky2012imagenet]. Batch-normalization has also been utilized after each convolutional layer and before the activation [@ioffe2015batch]. The initial learning rate of $0.1$ has been chosen and the learning rate is dropped by a factor of 10 when the error plateaus for 5 consecutive epochs. As can be observed from Table. \[table:CIFAR-resutls\], the combination of the GASL algorithm and SA dominates regarding the achieved sparsity level and demonstrates competitive results in terms of accuracy for Cifar-100. We terminate the training after 300 epochs or if the averaged error is not improving for 20 consecutive epochs, whichever comes earlier. For Cifar-10, we obtained the second best results for both accuracy and sparsity level.
[\*[11]{}[c]{}]{} & &\
(lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} Method & Error ($\%$) & Sparsity ($\%$) / speedup & Error ($\%$) & Sparsity ($\%$) / speedup\
baseline & 8.75 & 0 / 1.00$\times$ & 27.41 & 0 / 1.00$\times$\
$\ell_1$-regularization & 11.43 & 22 / 1.36$\times$ & 31.75 & 17 / 1.35$\times$\
Network Pruning [@han2015learning] & 10.76 & 32 / 1.54$\times$ & 28.46 & 22 / 1.46$\times$\
Bayesian Compression [@louizos2017bayesian] & 8.42 & **82** / 3.16$\times$ & 25.72 & 41 / 2.02$\times$\
Structured BP [@neklyudov2017structured] & 8.62 & 46 / 2.86$\times$ & 25.47 & 29 / 2.45$\times$\
Structured Sparsity Learning [@wen2016learning] & 9.12 & 74 / **3.31**$\times$ & 26.42 & 46 / 2.43$\times$\
Sparse Variational Dropout [@molchanov2017variational] & **7.79** & 61 / 2.14$\times$ & **24.91** & 42 / 2.11$\times$\
$\ell_0$-regularization [@louizos2017learning] & 8.83 & 52 / 2.41$\times$ & 26.73 & 38 / 1.92$\times$\
Structured Attention & 8.62 & 48 / 2.80$\times$ & 25.76 & 32 / 2.37$\times$\
Structured Attention + GASL & 8.32 & 76 / 3.06$\times$ & 25.41 & **48** / **2.91**$\times$\
\[table:CIFAR-resutls\]
**The advantage of the proposed method for higher sparsity levels.** For Cifar-100 experiments, we continued the process of enforcing sparsity for achieving the desired level of compression[^11]. We chose three discrete level of sparsity and for any of which, the accuracy drop for different methods is reported. Table. \[table:accuracy-drop\] demonstrates the comparison of different methods with regard to their accuracy drops at different levels of sparsity. For some levels of sparsity, it was observed that some methods performed better than the baseline. We deliberately selected higher levels of sparsity for having some performance drop as opposed to the baseline for all the implemented methods. As can be observed, our method shows its performance superiority in accuracy for the higher levels of sparsity. *In another word, the proposed method outperforms in preventing the accuracy drop in the situation of having high sparsity level.*
[\*[11]{}[c]{}]{} &\
(lr)[2-9]{} Sparsity & $\ell_1$ & [@han2015learning] & [@louizos2017bayesian] & [@neklyudov2017structured] & [@wen2016learning] & [@molchanov2017variational] & [@louizos2017learning] & Ours\
60% & 1.51 & 1.31 & 0.63 & 0.67 & 0.74 & **0.59** & 0.61 & 0.71\
70% & 3.46 & 2.73 & 1.73 & 1.79 & 1.89 & 1.81 & 1.74 & **1.68**\
80% & 4.21 & 4.78 & 2.47 & 2.68 & 2.64 & 2.73 & 2.81 & **2.23**\
\[table:accuracy-drop\]
**Robustness to the hyperparameter tuning.** Regarding the discussion in Section \[sec:Model complexity\], it is worth to investigate the effect of $\lambda_{v}$ on the accuracy drop. *In another word, we investigate the relative importance of tuning the variance loss coefficient*. The accuracy drop is reported for Cifar-100 experiments using different $\alpha$ values and sparsity levels. The results depicted in Table. \[table:robustness-alpha\], empirically shows the robustness of the proposed method to the selection of $\alpha$, as the dependent factor, for which in the dynamic range of $[0.1,10]$, the accuracy drop is not changing drastically. *This clearly demonstrates the robustness of the proposed method to the selection of the new hyperparameter associated with the attention mechanism as it is only a dependent factor to the sparsity penalty coefficient*.
[\*[11]{}[c]{}]{} &\
(lr)[2-6]{} Sparsity & 0.01 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 10 & 100\
60% & 2.1 & 0.86 & 0.71 & 0.67 & 1.61\
70% & 3.46 & 1.91 & 1.68 & 1.79 & 3.21\
80% & 4.21 & 2.51 & 2.13 & 2.09 & 4.41\
\[table:robustness-alpha\]
Conclusion
==========
In this paer, we proposed a guided attention mechanism for controlled sparsity enforcement by keeping a portion of the targeted elements to be alive. The GASL algorithm has been utilized on top of the structured attention for attention supervision to prune unimportant channels and neurons of the convolutional and fully-connected layers. We demonstrated the superiority of the method for preventing the accuracy drop in high levels of sparsity. Moreover, it has been shown that regardless of adding a new term to the loss function objective, the model complexity remains the same and the proposed approach is relatively robust to exhaustive hyper-parameter selection. Without the loss of generality, the method can be adapted to any layer type and different sparsity objectives such as weight pruning for unstructured sparsity or channel, neuron or filter cancellation for structured sparsity.
Acknowledgement
===============
This work was supported by the Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR), a National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Proof of Proposition 1 {#proof-of-proposition-1 .unnumbered}
----------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{apdx:eq:1}
\begin{split}
Var[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})] = & Cov[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta}),\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})] \overset{a}{=} E[(\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})])(\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[\hat{V}(\boldsymbol{\theta})])^T]\\
\overset{b}{=} & E[\{V(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + M. \left(V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})]\right)\}\{V(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + M. \left(V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})-E[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})]\right)\}^T]\\
\overset{c}{=} & E[(\overline{V(\boldsymbol{\theta})} + M. \overline{V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})})(\overline{V(\boldsymbol{\theta})} + M. \overline{V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})})^T]\\
\overset{d}{=} & Var[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + M.Var[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T + M. Cov[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + Cov[V(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T\\
\overset{e}{=} & Var[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + M.Var[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T + M. Cov[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + Cov^T[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T\\
=&Var[V(\boldsymbol{\theta})] + M.Var[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta})].M^T + \zeta + \zeta^T,\zeta = M. Cov[V^r(\boldsymbol{\theta}),V(\boldsymbol{\theta})]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
In the above, (a) comes directly from the covariance definition which is $Cov(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}) = E[(\boldsymbol{X}-E[\boldsymbol{X}])(\boldsymbol{Y}-E[\boldsymbol{Y}])^T]$. The equality (b) is resulted from the expansion of $\hat{\boldsymbol{V}}(\theta)$. In (c), the bar sign for a variable means: $\overline{\boldsymbol{X}} = \boldsymbol{X} - E[\boldsymbol{X}]$. The line (d) is concluded using the following expressions:
$$\begin{aligned}
&E[\overline{\boldsymbol{X}}][\overline{\boldsymbol{Y}}^T] = Cov[\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}]\\
&E[\overline{\boldsymbol{X}}][\overline{\boldsymbol{X}}^T] = Cov[\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{X}] = Var(\boldsymbol{X})\\
&E[A\boldsymbol{X}] = AE[\boldsymbol{X}]\\
&Cov[\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}]=Cov^T[\boldsymbol{Y},\boldsymbol{X}]\end{aligned}$$
Log-Normal Distribution {#log-normal-distribution .unnumbered}
-----------------------
A random variable X with log-normal distribution and the mean $\mu$ and standard deviation of $\sigma$, X can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
X = e^{\{\mu + Y \sigma \}}\end{aligned}$$
in which, $Y$ has a normal distribution. The reason behind choosing this distribution is to force the desired distribution of the parameters to be skewed with a concentration around zero for having the sparsity condition in addition to forcing a small portion of the parameters to be active. A log-normal distribution with $\mu=0.1$ and $\sigma=1$, can be demonstrated as below:
![An example for the an skewed distribution.[]{data-label="fig:dist"}](imgs/dist-log-normal.png)
[^1]: This can be neurons in fully-connected layers or channels/filters in convolutional layers.
[^2]: Elements on which the sparsity enforcement is desired: Weights, channels, neurons and etc.
[^3]: Or any elements on which we are enforcing sparsity.
[^4]: Diffrentiable in general.
[^5]: The $\Psi(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is simply taking the variance on the set of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ parameters if H(.) is the identity function.
[^6]: Such as groups, weights and etc.
[^7]: Or channels in convolutional layer.
[^8]: Groups, weights or elements.
[^9]: Which is $gradient \times learning\_rate$
[^10]: https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/blob/master/examples/mnist
[^11]: The increasing of the $\lambda_s$ might have been necessary.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We have studied the physical properties of with neutron diffraction, inelastic neutron scattering, heat capacity, and magnetic susceptibility measurements. crystallizes in a trigonal structure, with Nd$^{3+}$ ions surrounded by cages of 7 oxygen anions. The crystal field spectrum consists of four excitations spanning the energy range 3-60 meV. The refined eigenfunctions indicate XY-spins in the $ab$ plane. The Curie-Weiss temperature of $\theta_{CW}=-23.7(1)$ K was determined from magnetic susceptibility measurements. Heat capacity measurements show a sharp peak at 550 mK and a broader feature centered near 1.5 K. Neutron diffraction measurements show that the 550 mK transition corresponds to long-range anti-ferromagnetic order implying a frustration index of $\theta_{CW}/T_N\approx43$. These results indicate that is a structurally and chemically simple model system for frustration caused by competing interactions with moments with predominate XY anisotropy.'
author:
- 'G. Sala'
- 'M. B. Stone'
- 'B. K. Rai'
- 'A. F. May'
- 'C. R. Dela Cruz'
- 'H. Suriya Arachchige'
- 'G. Ehlers'
- 'V. R. Fanelli'
- 'V. O. Garlea'
- 'M. D. Lumsden'
- 'D. Mandrus'
- 'A. D. Christianson'
title: 'Physical properties of the trigonal binary compound [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Nd$^{3+}$ based compounds have recently been a subject of renewed interest in relation to the so-called “moment fragmentation" mechanism [@Ludovic]. This puzzling phenomenon was recently put forward in the context of spin ice, in which the magnetic moment can fragment, resulting in a dual ground state (GS) consisting of a fluctuating spin liquid, a so-called Coulomb phase, superimposed on a “magnetic monopole" crystal. Experimentally this fragmentation can be realized in e.g. $\rm Nd_2Zr_2O_7$ [@Lake1; @Benton] and $\rm Nd_2Hf_2O_7$ [@Lake2] where it manifests in neutron diffraction measurements as the superposition of magnetic Bragg peaks, characteristic of the ordered phase, and a pinch point pattern, characteristic of the Coulomb phase. These results highlighted the relevance of the fragmentation concept to describe the physics of systems that are simultaneously ordered and fluctuating, and it opens the possibility to study new exciting phenomena in frustrated systems.
Additional examples of the aforementioned behavior are sought by the community. Beyond this, simple examples which may help establish trends in magnetic properties of such materials are important. In this regard, appears potentially interesting. Indeed, previous characterizations of found no magnetic order above 4 K [@Hacker; @Justice], with Curie-Weiss temperatures in the range $-20 \leq \Theta_{CW} \leq -32$ K suggesting that may be a structurally and chemically simple model system with significant frustration and competing interactions. Additionally, is a potentially important magnetic impurity phase in the context of other more complex Nd-based materials and a thorough characterization of the low temperature physical properties is thus important.
![ \[fig1\] (a) Crystal structure of with red spheres representing Nd sites and blue spheres representing oxygen sites. crystallizes in the trigonal centrosymmetric space group $P\bar{3}m1$ (164). The environment surrounding the Nd$^{3+}$ sites consists of 7 oxygen ions located at the vertex of a distorted cube along one diagonal. The $C_3$ axis coincides with the c-axis, while one of the mirror planes lies perpendicular to the ab plane. (b) and (c) Refined magnetic structures of showing only the magnetic moments on the Nd sites. The Rietveld refinement at 280 mK indicates two potential magnetic structures, both with antiferromagnetically aligned moments in the ab-plane and either (b)($--++$) or (c)($+--+$) stacking along c-axis.](Figure1_v5){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig1\]a, crystallizes in the trigonal centrosymmetric space group $P\bar{3}m1$ (164); this space group is in agreement with the classification made by Pauling [@Pauling], Steven [@Stevie], Faucher [@Faucher] and, more recently, by Gruber [@Gruber] which also predicts the correct symmetry of the Raman modes. Other authors assigned to this compound the acentric space group $P321$ [@Zachariasen], or $P6_3/mmc$ [@Muller]. As we describe in greater detail below, both of these options have been ruled out by our refinement at $T = 2$ K which gives the best agreement with the data set for the trigonal $P\bar{3}m1$ space group, having a = b = 3.83(1) Å, c = 6.00(3) Å, $\alpha$ = $\beta = $ 90$^{\circ}$ and $\gamma = $ 120$^{\circ}$ in accord with previous measurements [@Pauling; @Stevie; @Faucher; @Gruber].
The environment surrounding Nd$^{3+}$, shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), has a $C_{3v}$ symmetry, consisting of 7 oxygen ions located at the vertex of a distorted cube along one diagonal. The $C_3$ axis coincides with the c-axis, while one of the mirror plane lies perpendicular to the ab plane. Nd ions are arranged on triangular nets stacked along the c-axis. The two shortest Nd-Nd bonds (3.69 and 3.77 Å) are along the c-axis. The shortest Nd-Nd distance in the plane is somewhat longer than those out of the plane at 3.83 Å. These three similar bonds distances likely result in competing interactions in addition to the geometric frustration inherent to the triangular nets of Nd.
The goal of the present study is to characterize the magnetic properties of , particularly at lower temperatures than have been previously reported. Fits to the magnetic susceptibility with a Curie-Weiss law find an effective moment of 3.64(1) $\mu_B$/ion and a $\theta_{CW} = -23.7(1)$ K. Inelastic neutron scattering measurements reveal a spectrum of 4 crystal field excitations from the ground state doublet to excited states. We analyze this spectrum to determine the crystal field Hamiltonian. The ground state eigenfunction extracted from this analysis indicates moments with XY anisotropy. Low temperature heat capacity measurements show a broad peak centered at 1.5 K and a sharp peak at 550 mK not previously reported. Neutron diffraction measurements further reveal that the sharp peak in the heat capacity data corresponds to the onset of long range magnetic order at 550 mK with a ordering wave vector $\vec{k}$ = (1/2 0 1/2). The magnetic structure determined from the diffraction data is characterized by moments lying in the trigonal basal plane with an ordered moment size of 1.87(10)$\mu_B$ (see Figs. \[fig1\](b,c)). Together the results presented here indicate that is a chemically simple example of a frustrated magnet with moments with a strong XY anisotropy on a centrosymmetric lattice.
\[sec: Exp\] Experimental Details
==================================
was obtained from Alfa Aesar (99.997%) and dried in air at 1050$^{\circ}$C. Using the same source material, pellets of diameter $\approx$ 8mm were prepared by cold-pressing dried powder and sintering in air at 1250$^{\circ}$C for 12h. These samples were characterized by means of a Quantum Design Physical Property Measurement System and a Magnetic Property Measurement System. Specific heat data were collected using an $^3$He insert in the temperature range $0.4 \leq T \leq 10$ K with an applied magnetic field $H$ of zero and 50kOe. The magnetization $M$ was measured upon cooling in $H$ = 10kOe, and the results are reported as the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$=$M$/$H$.
The crystal field excitations have been studied using the SEQUOIA spectrometer at the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory [@SEQref]. Approximately 5g of polycrystalline was loaded into a cylindrical Al can and sealed under helium exchange gas. The sample and an equivalent empty can for background subtraction [@aluminum] were mounted in a sample carousel. Measurements were performed at 5 K and 50 K, with incident energies, $E_is$, of 25, 75 and 130 meV. Higher energy resolution measurements were performed on the same sample with the Cold Neutron Chopper Spectrometer (CNCS) [@CNCSref]. For these measurements the sample was cooled to 2 K in a cryo-magnet and measured with $E_i=$ 6.5 meV at 0 and 50 kOe. Unless otherwise noted, all inelastic measurements presented here have had the measured backgrounds subtracted. The collected data sets from SEQUOIA and CNCS have been analyzed using the software MANTID [@mantidplot] and Dave [@dave].
The magnetic structure has been studied through neutron powder diffraction measurements with the HB-2A powder diffractometer at the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) [@HBref]. Sintered pellets were stacked to achieve a sample of cylindrical shape 0.4 mm radius and 1.5 cm length. The pellets were loaded into a Cu cylindrical can to maximize thermal contact, and sealed with a He exchange gas. Measurements with $\lambda$ = 2.54 Å were conducted in zero applied field at 2 K, 1 K and 280 mK using a cryostat with a $^{3}$He insert. The magnetic structure refinement was performed independently with the software Full-Prof [@Fprof] and JANA2006 [@Jana].
![ \[fig: susc\] susceptibility collected over the temperature range $2\leq$ T $\leq$300 K (blue dots). The Curie-Weiss fit was performed above 50K and yielded $\theta_{CW} = -23.7(1)$ K and an effective magnetic moment of 3.64(1) $\mu_B$/ion. The red line shows the calculated crystal field susceptibility based on our refinement in LS-coupling, we ascribe the small deviations below $\approx 25$ K to Nd-Nd spin correlations. Inset shows the same data on a linear-linear scale.](chiFigure1_v5){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Crystal Field Analysis
======================
Inelastic neutron scattering is an efficient probe of crystalline electric field (CEF) excitations. Characterization of the crystal field levels allows the nature of the magnetic ground state of a system to be determined with reasonable accuracy. The crystal field analysis performed here follows the formalism described by Wybourne [@Wybourne; @Judd1; @Judd2]; given the local structure of drawn in Fig. \[fig1\](a), and the $C_{3v}$ site symmetry of this compound, the crystal field Hamiltonian consists of $6$ parameters [@Walter]. Prather’s convention [@Prather] for the minimal number of crystal field parameters was achieved by rotating the environment by $\pi/6$ along the three fold axis. Finally, within LS coupling, Hund’s rules state that, for a $4f^3$ ion, the quantum numbers are $L=6$ and $S=3/2$, thus $J = \| L - S\| = 9/2~$ [@Kittel]. Therefore the crystal field Hamiltonian can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
H = B_2^0\hat{C}_2^0 + B_4^0\hat{C}_4^0 + B_4^3(\hat{C}_4^3-\hat{C}_4^{-3}) + B_6^0\hat{C}_6^0
\nonumber
\\
+ B_6^3(\hat{C}_6^3-\hat{C}_6^{-3}) + B_6^6(\hat{C}_6^6+\hat{C}_6^{-6})
\label{eq: 1}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_n^m$ are the crystal field parameters and $\hat{C}_n^m$ are spherical tensor operators [@Racah1; @Racah2; @Racah3; @Racah4]. Nd$^{3+}$ is a Kramers ion, so we expect to have at least doubly degenerate CEF levels as stated in the theorem [@Kramer]. The effect on the Hamiltonian of a Zeeman term, will result in breaking time reversal symmetry, splitting the degeneracy of the levels from doublets to singlets. As a first approximation this splitting will be proportional to the strength of the field times the magnetic moment of the ion thus, at small fields, this term will broaden the crystal field levels and decrease their intensity.
Once Eq. \[eq: 1\] is diagonalized, the unpolarized neutron partial differential magnetic cross-section can be written within the dipole approximation as [@squires]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2\sigma}{d\Omega dE'} = C\frac{k_f}{k_i}f^{2}(|Q|)S(|Q|,\omega)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is the scattered solid angle, $\frac{k_f}{k_i}$ the ratio of the scattered and incident momentum of the neutron, $C$ is a constant, $|Q|$ is the magnitude of the wave-vector transfer, and $f(|Q|)$ is the magnetic form factor. The scattering function $S(|Q|,\hbar \omega)$ gives the relative scattered intensity due to transitions between different CEF levels. At constant temperature, $\beta = 1/k_BT$: $$S(|Q|,\hbar\omega) =
\sum_{i,i'}\frac{(\sum_{\alpha} |\langle i {| J_{\alpha} | i'\rangle |}^2) \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_{i}} }{\sum_j \mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_{j}}} F(\Delta E + \hbar \omega,\Gamma_{i,i'})
\label{eq: 2}$$ where $\alpha = x,y,z$, $\Delta E = E_{i} - E_{i'}$, and $F(\Delta E + \hbar \omega, \Gamma_{i,i'})$ is a Lorentzian function with halfwidth $\Gamma$ to parameterize the lineshape of the transitions between the CEF levels $i \rightarrow i'$. We calculate the scattering function using this formalism. The calculation is compared with experimental data set, and the procedure is iterated varying the crystal field parameters to minimize the $\chi^2$ difference.
{width="1.75\columnwidth"}
A potential difficulty with the analysis described above is that the spectrum of Nd has higher J-multiplet levels which can be close to the GS one. This implies that the eigenfunctions of the GS could result in a linear combination of different J-multiplets. In order to investigate this possibility, we repeated our crystal field analysis in an intermediate coupling regime, including the first 12 J-multiplets up to $2$ eV. This analysis highlighted that there is indeed an effect due to the close proximity of the J = 9/2 and J = 11/2 multiplets but, as shown in Tab. \[tab: 3\], the overall GS eigenfunctions do not change appreciably from the original LS-approximation. Thus, our discussion of the physical properties of in the remainder of the paper uses a description appropriate for a J = 9/2 multiplet rather than the more general case.
Results and Discussion
======================
Magnetic Susceptibility
-----------------------
The magnetic susceptibility of is shown in Fig. \[fig: susc\]. A Curie-Weiss fit (black line) yields $\theta_{CW} = -23.7(1)$ K and an effective magnetic moment of 3.64(1)$\mu_B$/ion. The Curie-Weiss model $\chi$ = $C/(T-\theta_{CW})$ was utilized to fit data above 50K, where the Curie constant $C$ is related to the effective moment and $\theta_{CW}$ is the Weiss temperature. The value of effective moment is comparable to the free ion value of 3.62 $\mu_B$ [@ashcroft]. At low temperatures, below $\sim$25 K, the Curie-Weiss fit deviates from the data as a consequence of the thermal depopulation of crystal field levels and the growing importance of magnetic correlations which ultimately drive the formation of a long-range magnetically-ordered state below 550 mK (see Sec. \[lro\]). The fitted curve in Fig. \[fig: susc\] from the crystal field model (see Sec. \[cfs\]) also deviates from the susceptibility data at a similar temperature, but in contrast to the CW model over estimates the susceptibility (and thus underestimates $\chi^{-1}$) presumably due to the importance of magnetic correlations at low temperatures.
Crystal Field Spectrum {#cfs}
----------------------
![ \[fig:IvsQ\] Normalized scattering intensity as a function of $|Q|$ for measured using the SEQUOIA instrument as described in the text. Constant energy scans were integrated over energies as indicated in the legend of the figure. The solid line is the square of the Nd$^{3+}$ magnetic form factor.](formfacplotV2){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig: cf\] shows an overview of the measured spectra collected at SEQUOIA as a function of energy transfer, $\hbar\omega$, and wave-vector transfer, $Q$, at $T=5$ and $50$ K for several values of $E_i$ (130 meV, 75 meV, 25 meV from top to bottom). Each data set has been plotted subtracting the empty can background collected at the same temperature. From the dynamic structure factor we can clearly see that there is a series of flat modes which are potentially Nd crystal field levels. In particular, at 5 K, we detected two strong modes near 3 meV and 10 meV, and two less intense modes near 30 meV and 60 meV respectively. The level at 60 meV is quite close to an oxygen phonon ($\approx$ 58 meV) whose intensity increases in the 50 K data set. Notice that modes measured with larger incident energies are broadened in part because the energy resolution of the SEQUOIA time-of-flight spectrometer is approximately $3\%$ of the incident energy for the spectrometer settings used in these measurements.
To confirm that the modes identified above are crystal field excitations, the intensity as a function of wave-vector transfer was examined. Individual cuts as a function of $Q$ were made through the $T=5$ K data shown in Fig. \[fig: cf\]. These cuts were scaled to have the same average integrated intensity for $0.5~$Å$^{-1} < |\vec{Q}| < 3 ~$Å$^{-1}$. The resulting values are shown in Fig. \[fig:IvsQ\]. We simultaneously fit these data to the magnetic form factor of the Nd$^{3+}$ ion (black line). The agreement is excellent validating the magnetic origin of the excitations. The Q dependence of the $\approx$ 58 meV feature has also been checked; in this case a quadratic increase of intensity as a function of Q is observed confirming its phonon nature. Indeed we found strong support for this result in Refs. \[\], which showed that this phonon is one of the two Raman $E_g$ mode for . Other phonon modes have been identified at $\approx 13$ and $\approx 23.5$ meV.
The intensity of the CEF excitations have a significant temperature dependence as shown in Fig. \[fig: cf\](d-f). These changes are due to the thermal population of each level that changes according to Boltzmann statistics. At low temperatures, the probability that high energy levels are populated is essentially zero, so that only CEF transitions from the ground state to excited states occur as allowed by dipole selection rules. Then, as the temperature increases, the GS is depopulated in favour of the first excited state. Thermal population of the first excited state allows transitions to the other states. Such transitions are visible at 9 and 28 meV.
![ \[fig: cfa\] Inelastic neutron scattering spectra of measured at $T=$5 K with $E_i=$ 6.5 meV measured with CNCS. The comparison between the (b) zero field and (a) 50 kOe applied field data shows a decrease in the intensity of the first excited state due to the Zeeman term that splits and lifts the degeneracy of the doublets. In the zero field data, there appears to be a small dispersion of the lowest excited state. ](CNCS_contour2_ac){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
$B_n^m$ LS-coupling Intermediate
--------- ---------------- --------------
$B_2^0$ $-258\pm 13$ $-281\pm 14$
$B_4^0$ $-77\pm 4$ $-71\pm 4$
$B_4^3$ $56\pm 3$ $75\pm 4$
$B_6^0$ $-14.9\pm 0.7$ $-21\pm 1$
$B_6^3$ $65\pm 3$ $60\pm 3$
$B_6^6$ $57\pm 3$ $51\pm 1$
: \[tab: 1\] Tabulated crystal field parameters in units of meV determined for the LS-coupling and Intermediate coupling approximations.
$m_J$ $0.0$ $0.0$ $2.86$ $2.86$ $10.49$ $10.49$ $30.46$ $30.46$ $60.29$ $60.29$
-------- ------- ---------- -------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------
$-9/2$ -0.099 (-0.271) -0.011 (0.957)
$-7/2$ 0.233 (-0.509) (-0.829)
$-5/2$ (-0.523) 0.652 0.548
$-3/2$ 0.085 (-0.954) -0.120 (-0.263)
$-1/2$ 0.820 (0.561) (-0.114)
$1/2$ (0.820) 0.561 0.114
$3/2$ -0.954 (-0.085) 0.263 (-0.120)
$5/2$ 0.523 (-0.652) (0.548)
$7/2$ (-0.233) 0.509 -0.829
$9/2$ 0.271 (-0.099) 0.957 (0.011)
$m_J$ $0.0$ $0.0$ $2.86$ $2.86$ $10.49$ $10.49$ $30.46$ $30.46$ $60.29$ $60.29$
--------- -------- ---------- -------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------
$-9/2$ -0.251 (0.088) 0.957 (0.011)
$-7/2$ -0.182 (0.449) 0.872
$-5/2$ (0.356) 0.794 (-0.485)
$-3/2$ 0.958 (0.086) 0.240 (-0.109)
$-1/2$ 0.916 (0.398) -0.015
$1/2$ (0.916) -0.398 (0.015)
$3/2$ -0.086 (0.958) -0.109 (-0.240)
$5/2$ -0.356 (0.794) -0.485
$7/2$ (0.182) 0.449 (0.872)
$9/2$ 0.088 (0.251) -0.011 (0.957)
$-11/2$ (-0.004) 0.054 (-0.028)
$-9/2$ 0.01 (-0.045) -0.070 (0.012)
$-7/2$ -0.006 (-0.06) -0.001
$-5/2$ (-0.015) -0.033 (-0.022)
$-3/2$ -0.008 (0.012) -0.088 (-0.029)
$-1/2$ -0.008 (-0.007) -0.038
$1/2$ (0.008) -0.007 (-0.038)
$3/2$ 0.012 (0.008) 0.029 (-0.088)
$5/2$ -0.015 (0.033) 0.022
$7/2$ (-0.006) 0.06 (0.001)
$9/2$ 0.045 (0.01) 0.012 (0.07)
$11/2$ 0.004 (0.054) -0.028
The energy width of the first excited state can be better appreciated in Fig. \[fig: cfa\], which shows the dynamic structure factor of collected at CNCS with $E_i=$ 6.5 meV at T = 5 K. The crystal field excitation is clearly broader than the instrumental resolution of 0.3 meV. This broadening appears to be due to a weak dispersion of the crystal field excitation, likely reflecting the Nd-Nd exchange interactions. The data set collected at 50 kOe shows that the intensity of the first excited state decreases. The Zeeman term in the Hamiltonian breaks time reversal symmetry thereby lifting the degeneracy of the crystal field doublets. The additional field induced splitting of the crystal field levels alters the thermal population with the result that changes in intensity of the lowest crystal field excitations are observed.
The determination of the crystal field parameters defined in Eq. \[eq: 1\], has been done using the $T=5$ K and 50 K inelastic neutron scattering data as a function of energy transfer. We fit the experimental CEF spectrum using a series of Lorentzian functions that were allowed to vary for each excitation. We diagonalize Eq. \[eq: 1\] using a set of CEF parameters calculated in the point charge approximation [@Hutchings; @Stevens], determine the spectrum and the eigenfunctions, and then calculate the dynamical structure factor as in Eq. \[eq: 2\]. We then compare the calculation to the measurement to determine a $\chi^2$ value. This quantity is minimized by iterating the procedure until the calculation converged to a global minimum.
The crystal field parameters (in meV) determined from our refinements for both the LS-coupling and the Intermediate coupling approximations, are given in Tab. \[tab: 1\]. The extrapolated values of the ground state $g$-tensor are: $g_z = 0.231(16)$ and $g_{xy} = 1.733(12)$, with a corresponding magnetic moment of $\mu_{Nd} = 1.89(5) \mu_B$. The anisotropy in the $g$-tensor $g_z/g_{xy}=0.133$, where as we noted the $z$-axis is projected along the $[001]$ axis, indicates a significant XY-character of the spin.
Tables \[tab: 2\] and \[tab: 3\] list the refined wave functions and energy levels of the crystal field states for in the LS and intermediate coupling approximations respectively. According to our refinement, the spectrum consists of five doublets at: $0.0$, $2.86(3)$, $10.49(2)$, $30.46(3)$ and $60.29(4)$ meV in very good agreement with the experimental data. For the sake of representation, the wave functions of doublet excitations are gathered into one column, of which the values without (within) parentheses correspond to the first (second) member of the doublet. The GS is mainly a linear combination of $\psi_0=|\pm1/2\rangle$ + $|\pm5/2\rangle$ + $|\pm7/2\rangle$ states. This spectrum is also in excellent agreement with the energies of the crystal field excitations reported in previous optical measurements[@Henderson; @Caro] which identified the $J=9/2$ transitions around $2.85$, $10.41$, $31.37$, $61.5$ meV and $2.60$, $9.67$, $30.25$, $60.88$ meV respectively.
A comparison showing the fitted intensity at 5 K and 50 K versus the experimental spectra is shown in Fig. \[fig: cf\](g-i). The calculation is in excellent agreement with both data sets over the entire range of energy transfer, confirming the quality of the fit. The magnetic susceptibility calculated solely on the basis of our crystal field model is presented as a red line in Fig. \[fig: susc\].
Low Temperature Specific Heat
-----------------------------
The low temperature specific heat, $C_p/T$, is presented in Fig. \[fig: heatcap\](a). The inset shows $C_p$ to higher temperatures where a Schottky anomaly is observed near 15 K. The Schottky anomaly is expected due to the thermal depopulation of the crystal field level at 2.86 meV and is consistent with the previous work of Ref. \[\]. Above 25 K the lattice contribution becomes an important component of the specific heat.
At temperatures below 4 K there are two previously unobserved features evident in the data. The first is a broad contribution to the specific heat centered near 1.5 K and the second is a sharper peak near 550 mK. As will be discussed in Sec. \[lro\], the low temperature peak indicates the onset of long range anti-ferromagnetic order. A field of 50 kOe dramatically alters the specific heat and appears to either eliminate long range order or suppress it to temperatures below the observation window of the measurement.
At the present time we are unable to determine the origin of the broad feature centered near 1.5 K. No additional signal was detected in the neutron diffraction patter at 1 K (see inset of Fig. \[fig: 4\]). We exclude an unobserved crystal field level as an explanation since our crystal field analysis accounts for the allowed crystal field levels. Integrating $C_p/T$ from 0.4 to 5 K yields an entropy of $\approx$90% of $R\ln(2)$, as shown in Fig. \[fig: heatcap\](b). For this analysis, we utilized La$_2$O$_3$ data to subtract the nonmagnetic background. Thus the entropy associated with the broad feature appears to be required to account for the total $R\ln(2)$ entropy expected for a doublet GS. However, this can not be stated definitively as additional entropy may be released at temperatures below those probed here. Other possible explanations for the feature include: undetected short range magnetic order and/or a low lying magnetic excitations. Both of these possibilities are reasonable expectations for a material with significant frustration as is the case for . Further studies are planned to investigate this aspect of in single crystal samples.
![ \[fig: heatcap\] (a) The comparison of the Cp/T data for and La$_2$O$_3$ highlights the sharp anomaly at T=550 mK, typical of a phase transition, and a smaller broad contribution at 1.5 K (see inset) whose origin is at present undetermined. Both these contributions are completely absent in $\rm La_2O_3$. A field of 50 kOe appears to either eliminate long range order or suppress it to temperatures below the observation window of the current measurements. (b) Magnetic Bragg peak scattering intensity at (1/2 0 1/2) and magnetic entropy, $S_m$, (integrated Cp/T) from 0.4 to 5 K as a function of temperature yielding an entropy of $\approx$90% of $R\ln(2)$. For this analysis the La$_2$O$_3$ was used to subtract the non magnetic background. The vertical dashed line highlights the transition temperature of $T = 550$ mK. The solid black line is a fit of the Bragg peak scattering intensity to a power-law function and serves as a guide to the eye. ](CpFigure_V2c){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Long Range Magnetic Order {#lro}
-------------------------
We use neutron diffraction measurements to probe the phase transition observed in the heat capacity measurements. We find that has magnetic long range order below $T_N$ = 550 mK. To the best of our knowledge neither the appearance of magnetic order nor the ordered spin configuration have been previously reported for .
Figure \[fig: 4\] shows the measured diffraction data and Rietveld refinement of the data collected with HB-2A in zero field at T = 280 mK. Note that two small peaks due to an unidentified impurity phase were observed in the diffraction pattern (see Fig. \[fig: 4\]). The structural model was refined using the 2 K data set as starting point, no evidence of a distortion or a structural phase transition was found confirming previous work performed at higher temperatures [@Pauling; @Faucher]. Note that the refinement was done excluding the two strongest peaks coming from the Cu holder. The results of the structural refinements are given in Table \[tab: 4\]. The inset of Fig. \[fig: heatcap\] shows the temperature dependence of the intensity of the (1/2 0 1/2) magnetic Bragg peak. The appearance of the magnetic Bragg peak coincides with the anomaly in the specific heat at 550 mK.
The magnetic structure has been analyzed with two software packages: Full-Prof and Jana2006 to cross-check the results. In both cases this magnetic structure has been refined in the $C_c 2/m$ (\#12.63) magnetic space group with a propagation vector of (1/2 0 1/2)(referenced to the parent space group $P\bar{3}m1$)). Within this symmetry, the Nd spins are anti-ferromagnetically coupled in the basal plane with an ordered moment of $\mu_{Nd}$ = 1.87(10)$\mu_B$ (consistent with our crystal field analysis)(See Fig. \[fig1\](b,c)). Note that moments are constrained to be along the b-axis by the magnetic space group $C_c 2/m$ defined for a magnetic unit cell twice as large than the chemical cell along a and c directions. Due to the close proximity of the Nd atoms to the $1/4$ position, we are unable to distinguish between the ($--++$) and ($+--+$) stacking sequence of AFM planes, as depicted in Fig. \[fig1\](b) and (c) respectively. The relative stacking is determined by the alternating out of plane Nd-Nd bonds (3.69 and 3.76 Å). The space group $C_c 2/m$ allows both solutions and the calculated structure factor does not change appreciably between the two models. The results of the refinement of the magnetic structure are given in Table \[tab: 4\].
Temperature Position GOF
------------- ------------------------------ ------
2 K a=b=3.83(2) Å, c=6.00(3) Å 1.70
Nd = 1/3, 2/3, 0.246(3)
O(1) = 0, 0, 0
O(2) = 1/3, 2/3, 0.648(5)
280 mK a=b=3.83 Å, c=6.00 Å 1.91
Nd = 1/3, 2/3, 0.246(4)
O(1) = 0, 0, 0
O(2) = 1/3, 2/3, 0.647(7)
$\mu_{Nd}$ = 1.87(10)$\mu_B$
: \[tab: 4\] Rietveld refinement summary for in the space group $P\bar{3}m1$ (164). Notice that the refinement at 280 mK has been done keeping the 2 K lattice constants fixed.
![ \[fig: 4\] Neutron diffraction data and Rietveld refinement of the structural model for . Data were collected with HB-2A in zero field at $T = 280$ mK. The two strongest peaks are due to the Cu sample holder. The magnetic structure refinement used structural parameter values determined from the structural refinement at 2 K. The systems orders into an anti-ferromagnetic layered structure with spins in the basal plane, consistent with our crystal field analysis. The ordering wave vector, $\vec{k}$ = (1/2 0 1/2). The two asterisks in the main panel highlight two small impurity peaks. The inset shows the temperature dependent diffraction data as a function of the scattering angle, $2\theta$. Magnetic reflections are observed at $2\theta=$ 23.8, 41.0, 51.6 and 58.9$^\circ$. The data were collected with $\lambda$ = 2.54 Å](Structure_and_diffraction_dspacing_eps_V3){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Taken together the results above indicate that is a chemically and structurally simple frustrated system. Since the ground state eigenfuction is mostly composed of $J_z$=1/2 (67 %) and is reasonably well separated from the first excited state crystal field level at 2.86 meV it is temping to view has an effective spin 1/2 system with potentially strong symmetric anisotropic exchange terms due to the strong spin-orbit coupling expected for a rare-earth ion.
It is also interesting that the stripe like magnetic order of is similar to that found in theoretical models of triangular lattices. This type of stripe order is nearby to a spin liquid phase[@zhu_spin_liquid]. However, the situation in appears to be rather different from a geometrically frustrated triangular lattice. As described above, in the nearest neighbor Nd-Nd distances are out of plane. Thus the frustration appears to be driven by competing interactions rather than geometrical frustration. A definitive answer to the importance of various exchange parameters awaits studies of single crystal samples.
Conclusions
===========
We have examined the magnetic properties and crystal field levels of the binary compound . The crystal field spectrum spectrum of the Nd$^{3+}$ ions spans an energy range between 3 and 60 meV; in zero field the XY-like spins are in the ab plane with a magnetic moment of 1.89(5) $\mu_B$/ion. This value is consistent with the ordered moment of 1.87(10)$\mu_B$ determined from the neutron diffraction data. The ordered phase consists of spins AFM coupled in the ab plane, and oriented along b-axis with an ordering vector $\vec{k}$ = (1/2,0,1/2). The planar arrangement of ordered moments agrees with the XY anisotropy determined from the crystal field levels. The results presented here suggest that is a strongly frustrated system driven by competing interactions.
We acknowledge useful discussions with C. Batista. This work was supported by the U.S. DOE, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division. This research used resources at the High Flux Isotope Reactor and Spallation Neutron Source, DOE Office of Science User Facilities operated by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. HSA and DM acknowledge support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s EPIQS Initiative through Grant GBMF4416.
[99]{} M. E. Brooks-Bartlett, S. T. Banks, L. D. C. Jaubert, A. Harman-Clarke, and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Phys. Rev. X **4**, 011007 (2014). J. Xu, C. Balz, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, and B. Lake Phys. Rev. B **94**, 064425 (2016). O. Benton, Phys. Red B **94**, 104430 (2016). V. K. Anand, D. L. Abernathy, D. T. Adroja, A. D. Hillier, P. K. Biswas, and B. Lake Phys. Rev. B **95**, 224420 (2017). H. Hacker JR, M. S. Lin and E. F. Westrum JR, Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Rare Earth Research, (1965). B. H. Justice, and E. F. Westrum Jr., J. Phys. Chem. **67** (2), pp 339–345 (1963).
L. Pauling, Z. Krist. **69** 415 (1928). S. I. Boldish, W. B. White, Spectrochimica Acta Vol. **35A**, 1235-1242 (1979).
M. Faucher, J. Pannetier, Y. Charreire, Caro, P., Acta Crystallographica, Section B: Structural Crystallography and Crystal Chemistry **38**, (1) 344-346 (1982). J. B. Gruber et al., J. Chem. Thermodynamics **34**, 457-473, (2002). W. Zachariasen, Z. Phys. Chem. **123**, 134 (1926). Hk Muller-Buschbaum and H. G. v. Schnering, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. **340**, 232 (1965).
G. E. Granroth, A. I. Kolesnikov, T. E. Sherline, J. P. Clancy, K. A. Ross, J. P. C. Ruff, B. D. Gaulin, S. E. Nagler, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **251**, 12058 (2010). M. Kresch, M. Lucas, O. Delaire, J. Y. Y. Lin and B. Fultz, Physical Review B **77**, 024301 (2008). G. Ehlers, A.A. Podlesnyak and A. I. Kolesnikov, Review of Scientific Instruments **87**, 093902 (2016).
O. Arnold, J. C. Bilheux, J. M. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. I. Campbell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. Ferraz Leal, M. A. Gigg, V. E. Lynch, A. Markvardsen, D. J. Mikkelson, R. L. Mikkelson, R. Miller, K. Palmen, P. Parker, G. Passos, T. G. Perring, P. F. Peterson, S. Ren, M. A. Reuter, A. T. Savici, J. W. Taylor, R. J. Taylor, R. Tolchenov, W. Zhou, and J. Zikovsky, Nuc. Inst. Meth. Phys. Res. A **764**, 156 (2014). R. T. Azuah, L. R. Kneller, Y. Qiu, P.L.W. Tregenna-Piggott, C. M. Brown, J. R. D. Copley, and R. M. Dimeo, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stan. Technol. **114**, 341 (2009). V.O. Garlea, B.C. Chakoumakos, S.A. Moore, G.B. Taylor, T. Chae, R.G. Maples, R.A. Riedel, G.W. Lynn, D.L. Selby, Appl. Phys. A **99**, 531-535 (2010). J. Rodriguez-Carvajal, Physica B **192**, 55 (1993) V. Petricek, M. Dusek, and L. Z. Palatinus, Kristallogr. **229** (5), 345-352 (2014).
B. G. Wybourne *Spectroscopic Properties of Rare Earths*, Wiley (1965). B. R. Judd, Proc. Phys. Soc. A, **69** 157 (1956) B. R. Judd, Proc. Royal Soc. A, **** (1958) U. Walter, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids **45**, 401 (1984). J. Prather, NBS monograph **19** (1961).
Charles Kittel, *Introduction to Solid State Physics*, Wiley. G. Racah, *Theory of Complex Spectra I*, Phys. Rev. **61**, 186 (1942). G. Racah, *Theory of Complex Spectra II*, Phys. Rev. **62**, 438 (1942). G. Racah, *Theory of Complex Spectra III*, Phys. Rev. **63**, 367 (1943). G. Racah, *Theory of Complex Spectra IV*, Phys. Rev. **76**, 1352 (1949). H. A. Kramers, Proc. Amsterdam Acad. **33**, 959 (1930).
G. L. Squires, *Introduction to the Theory of Thermal Neutron Scattering*, Dover Publications, INC. Mineola, New York (1978).
Ashcroft and Mermin, *Solid State Physics*, Cornell University.
J. Zarembowitch, J. Gouteron, A. M. Lejus, Phys. Stat. Sol. B **94**, 249 (1979).
M. T. Hutchings. Solid State Physics Advances in Research and Applications **16**, 227-273 (1964).
K. W. H. Stevens, Proc. Phys. Soc. London Sect. A **65**, 209-215 (1952).
J. R. Henderson, M. Muramoto, J. B. Gruber, J. Chem. Phys. **46**, 2515-2520 (1967). P. Caro, J. Derouet, L. Beaudry, E. Soulie, J. Chem. Phys. **70**, 2542-2549 (1970). Z. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 207203 (2018)
[^1]: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
The paper proposes an estimator to make inference of heterogeneous treatment effects sorted by impact groups (GATES) for non-randomised experiments. Observational studies are standard in policy evaluation from labour markets, educational surveys and other empirical studies. To control for a potential selection-bias we implement a doubly-robust estimator in the first stage. Keeping the flexibility, we can use any machine learning method to learn the conditional mean functions as well as the propensity score. We also use machine learning methods to learn a function for the conditional average treatment effect. The group average treatment effect, is then estimated via a parametric linear model to provide p-values and confidence intervals. To control for confounding in the linear model we use Neyman-orthogonal moments to partial out the effect that covariates have on both, the treatment assignment and the outcome. The result is a best linear predictor for effect heterogeneity based on impact groups. We introduce inclusion-probability weighting as a form of cross-splitting and averaging for each observation to avoid biases through sample splitting. The advantage of the proposed method is a robust linear estimation of heterogeneous group treatment effects in observational studies.
**JEL classification:** C01, C14, C31, C63\
**Keywords:** *causal inference, machine learning, simulation study, confidence intervals, multiple splitting, sorted group ATE (GATES), doubly-robust estimator*
author:
- 'Daniel Jacob[^1]'
- 'Wolfgang Karl Härdle[^2] [^3]'
- Stefan Lessmann
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
date: 'This Draft: '
title: 'Group Average Treatment Effects for Observational Studies[^4]\'
---
Introduction
============
When evaluating a causal effect of some policy, marketing action or another treatment indicator, it might not be sufficient to only report the average treatment effect (ATE). The estimation of heterogeneous effects, e.g. the conditional (on covariates) average treatment effect (CATE), provides further insight into causal mechanisms and helps researchers and practitioners to actively adjust the treatment assignment towards an efficient allocation. The more information in terms of characteristics i.e. covariates we are provided with, the better can heterogeneity be observed. If we have little deterministic information it might be that heterogeneity effects are overlooked. The trade-off here is that the more covariates datasets have, the more complex they get. This is why parametric models are often insufficient when applied on high-dimensional, non-linear datasets @chernozhukov2018double. Therefore, recent methods for treatment effect estimation use machine learning models that have shown to be superior in high-dimensional prediction problems @hastie2009elements. The idea is to learn nuisance functions and regularize the parameter space while making as little assumptions as possible. This is especially helpful when the data does not come from randomised experiments where treatment is randomly assigned to the individuals. In observational studies, self-selection into treatment can arise which introduces a bias that has to be corrected for (i.e. self-selection bias) [@heckman1998characterizing]. For the ATE one would use the nuisance parameter to orthogonalize the effect that covariates have on both, the treatment assignment and the outcome variable. See @chernozhukov2018double for a recent approach which they call double machine learning.
The two most prominent methods used to estimate the CATE may be the general random forest, which builds on the idea of controlling for observed confounders through a tree structure and then estimates the CATE within each final leaf [@athey2019generalized]. The results from each tree are then weighted over the trees within the forest to get a final estimate. The second one is causal boosting, which uses boosted trees to increase performance [@powers2018methods]. What the aforementioned methods lack, however, is that they are built on tree algorithms and therefore do not allow a flexible estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects in terms of the model choice. A recent method called R-learner does provide such flexibility and shows competitive performance in the estimation of the CATE to other existing proposals [@nie2017quasi]. Other models, known as meta-learners, decompose the modelling procedure into sub-regression functions, which can be solved using any supervised learning method. This can e.g. be done by a two-model approach (TMA) where a response function (conditional mean) on the treated and another one on the non-treated observations is trained. In randomised experiments, the difference between the two functions can thus be interpreted as the CATE. [@kunzel2019metalearners]. Applying the two-model approach on data from non-randomized experiments would incorporate a potential bias. One way to address the problem is to use a doubly-robust estimator as proposed by [@robins1995semiparametric]. Using the estimates from the two-model approach in combination with inverse probability weighting (IPW) decreases the variance of the estimator and controls for observed confounding (see e.g. [@lunceford2004stratification]). Additional orthogonalization using the two conditional mean functions produced by the TMA further decreases the bias of the parameter of interest [@lee2017doubly]. The doubly-robust estimator can be used in high-dimensional settings to estimate a reduced dimensional conditional average treatment effect function. Functional limit theory can be derived for the case where the nuisance functions are trained via machine learning methods which are then applied on the doubly-robust estimator. The reduced functional form can then be found using a traditional kernel regression [@fan2019estimation]. Recent papers study and evaluate different models that are designed for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects (see e.g. [@knaus2018machine; @kunzel2019metalearners; @powers2018methods].
The difficulty, however, is that machine learning methods are often a black box that is not easy to interpret. This fact hinders the information on drivers for effect heterogeneity. In this paper, we, therefore, build on the ideas of @chernozhukov2018generic who concentrate to estimate group average treatment effects (GATE) in randomised experiments. The groups are built on the distribution from the CATE (e.g. quantiles to get five groups). A parametric model is then used to identify the best linear predictor for the group treatment effect, providing standard errors and confidence intervals. The heterogeneity between the groups can further be interpreted through covariates which shed some light on the question of what characteristics determine the differences between groups. In this paper, we extend the approach to estimating the GATE parameter towards the use in observational studies and also towards the possibility to estimate a best linear CATE based on the group heterogeneity. The advantage of the proposed method is a robust estimation of group heterogeneous treatment effect that is comparable with other models thus keeping its flexibility in the choice of machine learning methods and at the same time its ability to interpret the results. The latter is especially useful in all areas of empirical economics like policy or labour markets. It also has the advantage to control for potential self-selection bias. The idea of going beyond the average, but not as deep as to estimate conditional average treatment effects for many covariates, is first considered in @chernozhukov2018sorted. They provide standard errors and confidence bands for the estimated sorted group effects and related classification analysis and provide confidence sets for the most and least affected groups. While they only use parametric estimators, a nonparametric attempt to estimate group average treatment effects and also provide insights from the heterogeneity in terms of observed covariates is proposed by @zimmert2019group. They use a two-step estimator of which the second step consists of a kernel estimator. Our contribution is to keep machine learning methods to learn the nuisance parameter in the first step but use a parametric model in the last step. This allows us to make inference and limit the degree of uncertainty in observational studies. This paper consists of three parts. First, we state the methodology for randomized experiments and second, the extensions to deliver robust results in observational studies. Third, we simulate data that include selection bias and are high-dimensional and non-linear. Through averaging of the results for each observation we report the mean absolute error (MAE) from the true heterogeneous treatment effects for both methods We show that the MAE can be decreased through the proposed extensions.
Generic Machine Learning for Group ATE
======================================
Potential Outcome Assumptions
-----------------------------
Throughout this paper, we make use of the potential outcome theorem [@rosenbaum1983central] and state four necessary assumptions. The first assumption is the ignorability of treatment, conditional on observed covariates ($X$), from the two potential outcomes. It is also known as unconfoundedness or simply conditional independence:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(Y_{i}^{1}, Y_{i}^{0}\right) {\mathrel{\text{\scalebox{1.07}{$\perp\mkern-10mu\perp$}}}}D_{i}|X_{i}. \label{PotOut}\end{aligned}$$
With $Y^1$ denoting the potential outcome under treatment and $Y^0$ if not being treated. $D$ is the treatment assignment variable.
The second assumption, the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA), guarantees that the potential outcome of an individual is unaffected by changes in the treatment assignment of others. This assumption might be violated if individuals can interact with each other (peer and social effects). In randomised controlled experiments, the first two assumptions are fulfilled by design or, at least, cancel out.
The third assumption, called overlap, guarantees that for all $x \in supp(X)$, the probability of being in the treatment group (i.e. the propensity score, $e_{0}(X)$), is bounded away from 0 and 1:
$$\begin{aligned}
\quad 0 < \operatorname{P}(D=1|X=x) < 1. \nonumber \\
e_{0}(X) = \operatorname{P}(D=1|X=x). \end{aligned}$$
We control for the common support by estimating the propensity score and balance the treatment and control group based on the distribution. We hence exclude all observations that have a propensity score lower $0.02$ or higher than $0.98$. The fundamental problem of causal inference is that we only observe one of the two potential outcomes at the same time. The counterfactual for a nontreated (treated) person, namely, what would have happened if this person were (not) treated, is always missing. We can represent this statement through a switching regression where the observed outcome ($Y_i$) depends on the two potential outcomes and the treatment assignment:
$$\begin{aligned}
Y_i = Y_i^0 + D(Y_i^1-Y_i^0).\end{aligned}$$
We further assume that, for the estimation of standard errors, the following moments exist: $\operatorname{E}\left[|Y^j|^q\right] < \infty$ for $q \geq 4$ and $j =0,1$.
Randomized Control Trial {#Sec:RCT}
------------------------
To provide valid estimation and inference for a causal interpretation of parameters, @chernozhukov2018generic focus on features of the CATE. One of the main features is the **Sorted Group Average Treatment Effect**. The idea is to find groups of observations depending on the estimated treatment effect heterogeneity. Their proposed method relies on a two-model approach in the first step. Here, two response functions are trained separately for the treated and non-treated observations. This approach can be biased if the data sample is from an observational study. In randomized control trials, the difference between the two functions provides an estimate of the treatment effect for every observation. To denote that this function might not be consistent or unbiased it is further called score-function ($S(X)$):
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau(X) &= \operatorname{E}[Y|D=1,X] - \operatorname{E}[Y|D=0,X], \label{tau_expectation} \\
{S}(X) &= {g}_{1}\left(X, {\alpha}_{1}\right)-{g}_{0}\left(X, {\alpha}_{0}\right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here $ {g}_{D}\left(X, {\alpha}_{D}\right)= \operatorname{E}(Y|D,X)$ is the regression model of the outcome variable on $X$ separately for $D \in \{0, 1\}$ and $\alpha_D$ represents the parameters for treatment and control group. The two functions can be estimated with a broad range of supervised machine learning methods. The target parameters are
$$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{E}[\tau(X)|G_{k}] && G_{k}:= \{S(X) \in I_k\}, \quad k = 1,...,K,\end{aligned}$$
where $G$ is an indicator of a group membership with $I_k = [\ell_{ k-1},\ell_k)$ and $\ell_k$ is the $k/K$-quantile of $\{{S}_i\}_{i \in M}$. Subscript $M$ denotes that these are all out-of-sample predictions. We will for readability not always refer to the sets but always make use of sample splitting when using machine learning methods. The groups are ex-post defined by the predicted score function in the first stage. If the treatment effect for the groups are consistent, it asymptotically holds that
$$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{E}[\tau(X)|G_{1}] \leqslant \operatorname{E}[\tau(X)|G_{2}] \leqslant ...\leqslant \operatorname{E}[\tau(X)|G_{k}],\end{aligned}$$
which is the monotonicity restriction. Furthermore, it can be tested whether there is a homogeneous effect if $\operatorname{E}[\tau(X)|G_{k}]$ would be equal for all $k$ groups. The weighted linear projection equation to recover the GATES parameter is:
$$\begin{aligned}
YH = {\beta}^{\top} A_{1}H + \sum_{k=1}^{K} {\gamma_k} \cdot \mathbf{I}({S}(X) \in I_k) + \nu, \label{equ:GATES}\end{aligned}$$
with $A_{1} = (1,B(X))$ and $B(X) = \operatorname{E}[Y|D=0,X]$ being the baseline function without treatment. ${S}(X) = \operatorname{E}[Y|D=1,X] - \operatorname{E}[Y|D=0,X]$ is the treatment effect projection. See pseudo-code of Algorithm \[pseudo:1\], which describes the implementation of this method. The weights $H$ represent the Horvitz-Thompson transformation [@horvitz1952generalization]:
$$\begin{aligned}
H = H(D,Z) = \frac{D-{e}(X)}{{e}(X)(1-{e}(X))}. \end{aligned}$$
This estimator, which is applied to account for different proportions of observations within strata in a target population, is equivalent to the simple inverse probability weighting estimator. These estimators, however, might exhibit a high variance if the identification (the precision) of the propensity scores is lacking [@lunceford2004stratification].
The main identification result is that the projection coefficients $\gamma_k$ can be represented in the following way:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma = (\gamma)_{k=1}^{K} = (\operatorname{E}[\tau(X) | G_{k}])_{k=1}^{K} \label{equ:gamma}.\end{aligned}$$
\[pseudo:1\] **Average** $\gamma$ over $B$ iterations: $\Tilde{\gamma} = median\{\gamma\}$\
0.5cm
There are two potential sources of uncertainty. One is estimation uncertainty regarding our parameter of interest, keeping sample splitting fixed whereas the second source is exactly due to the sample splitting. To account for this, the p-values, as well as the confidence intervals, need to be adjusted. [@chernozhukov2018generic] show, that sample-splitting-adjusted p-values can have the following form.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(p_A \leq \alpha/2 | \text{Data}) \geq 1/2\end{aligned}$$
with $p_A$ being the realized p-value given the auxiliary sample and $\alpha$ is the significance level. Given that we use medians to average the parameters $\gamma_k$ over $B$ bootstrap repetitions it holds that for at least 50% of the random data splits out of $B$, the p-value is at largest $\alpha/2$. Small values provide evidence that the group parameter is different from zero.
Observational Studies
---------------------
To use the best linear predictor for group heterogeneity in observational studies, we need to change and extend the first and second stage. First, we replace the two-model approach by a doubly-robust estimator. This means we not only weight by the inverse of the propensity score but also orthogonalize the outcome variable by subtracting the conditional mean. We also make use of sample splitting as a form of cross-fitting. The auxiliary sample is applied to estimate the score function via the doubly-robust estimator and the main sample to predict the final score function, which is used in the parametric step. In this way, we limit the danger of overfitting. The resulting function is a more robust version of the CATE for each individual as well as for the GATE function. The two steps are described in more detail in the following.
The separate estimation of the outcome conditioning on the treatment assignment only works for randomised experiments. Assume that in observational studies individual’s self-select themselves into the treatment. If this is the case, then the distribution of the covariates is different given treatment status. As a consequence, the estimated score-function might not reflect the treatment effect rather than observed differences based on the covariates. We replace the simple two-model approach by a doubly-robust estimator, which accounts for this potential bias via an extension of inverse probability weighting and by using the residuals between the outcome variable $Y_i$ and the conditional expectation functions $\hat{g}_{D}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{D}\right)$ for $D \in \{0,1\}$ (see equation \[equ:dr\_calculation\].
The function is calculated using the training data (the $I^a$ sample). In a second step, a new supervised model is trained on the transformed outcome using $I^a$ while predictions are made on the test set $M$ to get an unbiased estimate (see equation \[equ:dr\_model\]. Algorithm \[pseudo:2\] describes this process.
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{S}_{i} &= \hat{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{1}\right)-\hat{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{0}\right)+\frac{D_{i}\left(Y_{i}-\hat{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{1}\right)\right)}{\hat{e}\left(X_{i}\right)}-\frac{\left(1-D_{i}\right)\left(Y_{i}-\hat{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{0}\right)\right)}{\left(1-\hat{e}\left(X_{i}\right)\right)} \label{equ:dr_calculation} \\
\hat{S}_{i} &= l(X_i) + \omega \label{equ:dr_model}\end{aligned}$$
In equation \[equ:dr\_calculation\], $\hat{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{1}\right)-\hat{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, \widehat{\alpha}_{0}\right)$ is equivalent to the score-function from the two-model approach. Simulation evidence from @knaus2018machine suggests that estimators based on $\hat{S}_{i} $ might be more stable because of the doubly-robust property and that the performance is competitive for the estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects in observational studies. The doubly-robust property states that the estimator is consistent and unbiased if only one of the models, the regression or the propensity score, is correctly specified [@robins1994estimation; @robins1995semiparametric]. @lunceford2004stratification [@williamson2014variance; @belloni2014inference] study the theoretical properties and highlight implications for practice. One of the findings is that the variance can be decreased when using the doubly-robust estimator instead of a simple inverse probability estimator [@lunceford2004stratification]. @vira2017 show that equation \[equ:dr\_calculation\] is conditionally locally robust to the estimation error of the nuisance parameter.
Next we state some asymptotic results to recover the CATE. From equation \[tau\_expectation\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(X) &= \operatorname{E}\left\{\operatorname{E}[Y|D=1,X] - \operatorname{E}[Y|D=0,X] | X = x_i \right\} \end{aligned}$$
Let $\eta(X) := ({e}(X), {g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{1}\right),{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{0}\right))$ be the true high dimensional nuisance parameters. Following @fan2019estimation we can define
$$\begin{aligned}
\psi(D,Y,X,\eta(X)) = &{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{1}\right)- {g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{0}\right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{D_{i}\left(Y_{i}-{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{1}\right)\right)}{ {e_{0}}\left(X_{i}\right)}-\frac{\left(1-D_{i}\right)\left(Y_{i}- {g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{0}\right)\right)}{\left(1- {e_{0}}\left(X_{i}\right)\right)}\end{aligned}$$
.
**Theorem 2.1**\
(i) under Assumptions 1,2,3,4
$$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{E}&\left[{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{1}\right)+\frac{D_{i}\left(Y_{i}-{g}_{1}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{1}\right)\right)}{ {e_{0}}\left(X_{i}\right)} | X = x_i \right] = \operatorname{E}\left[Y^1 | X = x_i \right] , \\
\operatorname{E}&\left[{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{0}\right)+\frac{(1-D_{i})\left(Y_{i}-{g}_{0}\left(X_{i}, {\alpha}_{0}\right)\right)}{ 1-{e_{0}}\left(X_{i}\right)} | X = x_i \right] = \operatorname{E}\left[Y^0 | X = x_i \right] \end{aligned}$$
\
(ii)$\operatorname{E}\left[\psi(D,Y,X,\eta(X)) - \tau(X) | X = x_i \right] = 0$ given (i).\
This moment condition satisfies the Neyman-orthogonality condition. Neyman-orthogonality is a key component in ensuring that the CATE estimators are robust to the regularization bias inherent for the nuisance functions which are learned via machine learning models.\
Next, we set up a linear model for the estimation of the low-dimensional parameters of interest $\gamma_k$. Suppose that the data generating process follows a partial linear model that has the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
Y = \tau(X)&D + \mu_{0}(X) + U, &&E[U | X,D] = 0, \\
&D = e_{0}(X) + V, &&E[V | X] = 0, \\
\tau(X) &= \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\gamma_{k}(X).\end{aligned}$$
We define $\gamma$ as before as $\gamma = (\gamma)_{k=1}^{K} = (\operatorname{E}[\tau(X) | G_{k}])_{k=1}^{K}$. The outcome variable $Y$ depends not only on the treatment effect parameter but also on observed covariates through the function $\mu_{0}(X)$. The second equation displays the setting in observational studies, namely that the treatment assignment also depends on observed covariates through the function $e_{0}(X)$. In randomized control trials, it is sufficient to directly learn the regression function $\hat{\tau}(X)D$. We do not need to include the function $\mu_{0}(X)$ since in RCT the distribution of the covariates are assumed to be the same for both, the control and the treatment group. The linear model in section \[Sec:RCT\] does exactly this but also takes into account that the treatment assignment might be different for strata in the covariate space.
In observational settings confounding through covariates leads to a bias that we have to account for. We wish to partialling out the effect from $X$ on $D$ as well as the effect from $X$ on $Y$. Following [@chernozhukov2018double] we again can make use of Neyman-orthogonal moments which leads to the orthogonalized regressors $\hat{U} = Y-\hat{\mu}(X)$ and $\hat{V} = D-\hat{e}(X)$. The terms $\hat{U}$ and $\hat{V}$ are the residuals that we use in the linear projection function in Equation \[equ:GATES\_dr\]. The propensity-score estimates ($\hat{e}(X)$) can be derived by using the main sample on the already estimated propensity-score function which is used in the doubly-robust step. The function $ \hat{\mu}(X)$ is estimated using any machine learning model on the auxiliary sample. For the estimation of the average treatment effect $\hat{\tau}$ the residualized regression function has the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\tau} = \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i \in M}\hat{V}_{i}\hat{V}_{i}\right)^{-1} \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i \in M} \hat{V}_{i}(Y_{i}-\hat{\mu}(X_{i})).\end{aligned}$$
In our case, we are not specifically interested in the average treatment effect but the average effect given the quantiles of the CATE function. This leads to the linear projection equation to estimate the group average treatment effect using the main sample of observations:
$$\begin{aligned}
(Y-\mu_{0}(X))= \sum_{k=1}^{K}\gamma_{k} \cdot (D-e_{0}(X)) \cdot \mathbf{I}({S}(X) \in I_k) + \nu. \label{equ:GATES_dr}\end{aligned}$$
Let $\tilde{S}(X) = \hat{l}(X)$ and rewrite the empirical analog for the $k$ specific group as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\gamma}_k = \left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i \in M}\hat{V}_{i} \hat{V}_i \cdot \mathbf{I}(\tilde{S}(X_i) \in I_k)\right)^{-1}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i \in M}\hat{V}_i\left(Y_{i}-\hat{\mu}(X_i)\right) \cdot \mathbf{I}(\tilde{S}(X_i) \in I_k).\end{aligned}$$
Through orthogonalization, we can overcome the regularization bias, present when naively employing ML models to estimate the parameter $\gamma$ in this setting. Note that we can use different ML algorithms for each function. A trade-off to regularization bias is overfitting which we take into account by again using sample splitting to train and evaluate our models. Through sample splitting, we can only use $N-n$ observations, given that $n$ observations are in the training data. To account for the uncertainty through sample splitting we include the estimation of the functions $e_{0}(X)$ and $\mu_{0}(X)$ in the bootstrap process.
The third extension is to weight each individual based on the group inclusion probability. Instead of taking the median over $B$ repetitions for each of the $K$ groups we store the information about the group estimate for each individual $i$ over the $B$ repetitions. The median is then taken over $B$ repetitions for each individual rather than the groups. This allows us to not only have a more robust GATE for each group but also to get an estimate for each individual which can be used for comparison with other methods and to make predictions. Naturally, we can do the same in the first step and apply this weighting procedure on the score-function. Algorithm \[pseudo:2\] shows the steps to identify the group treatment effect for each individual. We also state another version on how to estimate the groups from the CATE function which can be used in the linear model. The idea is to estimate a robust version of the group membership by averaging the estimates for each individual over $b$ repetitions. The result is a density for each observation (see Figure \[fig:density\]) where we take medians to get point estimates of the group membership. We would then use this estimates in the linear model. This version is, however, experimental.
\[pseudo:2\] **Average** $\gamma$ over $B$ iterations for each $i$: $\Tilde{\gamma}_i = median\{\gamma_i\}$\
**Calculate** Density for every $i$: $\hat{\hat{S}}_i(X)$ given ${S}_{b}^{*}(X)|i$ over $b$ (experimental)\
**Calculate** Final score-function ($\bar{S}_i(X)$) given density of medians for i = 1 to N (experimental)\
Simulation Study
================
To evaluate the proposed extensions i) doubly-robust first stage ii) orthogonal parametric second stage and iii) inclusion probability weighting, we use simulated data where the true treatment effects are known. In the following we describe the data generating process (DGP) in detail and show the variations that we consider. The purpose of this simulation is first, to show that the bias which arises through the presence of observed confounders can be decreased by applying the aforementioned extensions and second, to produce benchmark error estimates for further comparison. Note that since the main purpose of the method is to stay in a linear setting which gives guidance about the efficiency of the estimator, we do not aim to get the lowest error rates. Other methods that estimate a CATE function might produce lower rates but are harder to interpret.
Data Generating Process
-----------------------
We generate the covariates $X \in \mathbb{R}^{^p}$ in a way that they are partially correlated among each other. The process is described in Algorithm \[Alg\_Correlation\_Matrix\].
\[Alg\_Correlation\_Matrix\]
**Generate** random positive definite covariance matrix $\Sigma$ based on a uniform distribution over the space $p \times p$ of the correlation matrix\
**Scale** covariance matrix. This equals the correlation matrix and can be seen as the covariance matrix of the standardised random variables $\Sigma = \frac{X}{\sigma(X)}$.\
**Generate** random normal distributed variables $X_{N \times p}$ with mean = 0 and variance = $\Sigma$
An illustration of the distribution for $p = 10$ and $N =5000$ observations is given in Figure \[Cov\_matrix\] in the Appendix. It shows the degree of correlation among the covariates. This is guaranteed through the uniform distribution of the covariance matrix which is then transformed to a correlation matrix. This assumption is more common in real datasets and helps to investigate the performance of machine learning algorithms, especially the regularization bias, in a more realistic manner.
The basic model used in this simulation study is a partially linear regression model based on @robinson1988root with extensions:
$$\begin{aligned}
Y = \tau(X)&D + \mu_{0}(X) + U, &&E[U | X,D] = 0, \\
&D = e_{0}(X) + V, &&E[V | X] = 0, \label{prop_score} \\
\tau(X) &= t_{0}(Z) + W &&E[W| Z], = 0, Z \subset X,\end{aligned}$$
with $Y$ being a continuous outcome variable. $\tau(X)$ is the true treatment effect or population uplift, while $D$ is the treatment status. The vector $X = ({X_{1},...,X_{p}})$ consists of $p$ different features, covariates or confounders, while the vector Z is a subspace of X and represents the variables on which the treatment effect is dependent. $U$, $V$ and $W$ are unobserved covariates which follow a random normal distribution = $N(0,1)$.
Equation \[prop\_score\] is the propensity score. In the case of completely random treatment assignment the propensity score $e_{0}(X_{i}) = c$ for all units ($i=1,...,N$). The scalar $c$ can take any value between the interval (0,1). Here we use $ c = 0.5$ (balanced assignment).
The function $\mu_{0}(X)$ is calculated via a trigonometric function to make the covariates non-linear and potentially complicated for estimation.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{0}(X) &= \cos(X \times b)^{2} + X_{k/2} + X_{k/4} \times X_{k/10}\end{aligned}$$
The vector $b = \frac{1}{l}$ with $l \in \{1,2,...,k\}$ represents weights for every covariate. Next, a description of how to build the function $e_{0}(X)$ as well as how to create a heterogeneous treatment effect is given. A varying treatment effect implies that its strength differs among the observations and is therefore conditioned on some covariates $Z$. Regarding the treatment assignment, two options are considered. Option 1 assumes $D$ to be completely random assigned among the observations. In this case, $D$ is just a vector of random numbers with values $0$ or $1$. In the second option, the treatment assignment is dependent on the covariates. The functions are generated as follows:\
\[Alg:Treat\_Assignment\]
Regarding the treatment effect, we consider different options. First, $\tau(X)$ is constant for every unit. Second, $\tau(X)$ depends linear on a subset $Z$ of the covariates and is continuous. The third option is a non-linear dependence of all covariates and continuous. Fourth, $\tau(X)$ again depends on some space $Z$ of the covariates and further takes only two different values. We describe the generation of the treatment effect in algorithm \[Alg:Treat\_Effect\]. Through the standardization, we approximate $\operatorname{E}(\tau(X))$ to be around 0.5, the same as for the constant effect.
\[Alg:Treat\_Effect\]
Simulation Results
------------------
Figure \[fig:density\] shows the estimates from the conditional average treatment effect over $B = 100$ bootstrap iterations (sample splittings). The simulated data, in this case, has the following properties. $N = 1000$, $X = \mathbb{R}^{20}$, $e_{0}(X) = 0.5$ and $\tau(X) \in [0.1,0.3]$. The densities for 49 randomly selected observations show that even in randomised experiments, the point estimates differ due to the sample splitting in the first step. Averaging them by taking the median leads to a more stable conditional treatment effect function.
![Distribution of scores ($\hat{\hat{S}}(X)$) for 49 randomly selected individuals.[]{data-label="fig:density"}](Figures/dist_prop_nocolor.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
For our simulation, we consider different settings as described in Table \[Scenarios\_datsets\]. Setting A:D show results for non-randomized treatment allocation with different parameters whereas in setting E and F the treatment assignment is random and balanced to $0.5$. While setting A:F might be considered as low-dimensional we multiply the number of covariates by a factor $10$ in setting G:L, leaving everything else constant.
![Comparison of Two model approach and double orthogonal. Axes show mean absolute error between estimates and true individual treatment effects. 45-degree line indicates the equality of both methods.[]{data-label="fig:two_vs_dr"}](Figures/TMA_vs_DOGATES.pdf){width="85.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:two\_vs\_dr\] shows the results from the simulation given the DGP in Table \[Scenarios\_datsets\]. We use inclusion probability weighting to assign a group average treatment effect to every observation. We use these estimates to report the mean absolute error from the true treatment effects. This is done for both methods, the two-model approach (TMA GATES) and the DO GATES (we refer to the name DO GATES as for Double Orthogonal GATES). For each data generating process, we use Monte Carlo resampling 10 times and show the single results in Figure \[fig:two\_vs\_dr\]. Points below the 45-degree line are in favour of the DO GATES method since it shows a smaller MAE compared to the two-model approach. We also state the average result (error) for each data generating process in Table \[Scenarios\_datsets\]. A two-sample Welch t-test confirms that the hypothesis of equal means can be rejected based on a significance level of $\leq 1\%$ for each setting except for the processes that mimic a randomized control trial . We find, that if the treatment effect is a constant (setting A and G) we do best among the settings. In any case, we can decrease the regularization bias. We also clearly see, that in settings with randomized treatment assignment (E, F, K and L) there is no significant difference between the methods. This is simply because, if the sample size is increasing, there is no bias since the distribution of covariates is equal in the treatment and control group. The more high-dimensional the dataset is, the more difficult it gets for this assumption to hold which is why the sample size should increase at an even higher speed. We might see such small deviations in setting K and L where for some data sets a significant difference in MAE arises. Note that K and L consist of $\mathbb{R}^{p*10}$ i.e. they are by factor 10 higher in dimension. Algorithm \[pseudo:error\_estimation\] describes the assignment of the treatment effects based on the $k$ groups from the GATES as well as the MAE estimation over $S$ datasets.
\[pseudo:error\_estimation\] **Average errors over $S$ iterations**
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose a method to estimate group average treatment effects in the combination of machine learning methods and parametric estimation for non-randomized control trials. Since flexibility in terms of the model choice, as well as interpretability of the results, is of main interest, we extend the idea of the GATES approach towards the use of a doubly-robust estimator in the first, the non-parametric, step. In the second step, the linear projection function, we use Neyman-orthogonal moments to overcome the regularization bias due to the dependency of the covariates on the outcome and the treatment assignment parameter. This ensures to control for self-selection into treatment which is a realistic challenge in observational studies. We further develop a new weighting procedure for the group estimates resulting from the CATE function. We propose inclusion probability weighting to identify the GATE value for each individual in a robust way by taking medians for each observation over $B$ bootstraps rather than medians for each group. This allows us to make inference even on the individual level which we use to evaluate our method. Note that even if we only have $k$ groups, the estimates for the observations have more levels than $k$. This results through the inclusion probability weighting which is used for comparison with the true heterogeneous treatment effects. To get only $k$ group estimates we weight each group over the $B$ iterations and take medians. These groups can then be used for empirical studies where one interesting parameter might be the difference between the most and least affected groups (as proposed by [@chernozhukov2018generic]).
We find that using a doubly-robust estimator with cross-fitting, in combination with Neyman-orthogonal moments, decreases the mean absolute error compared to the simple two-model approach significantly. The number of groups can of course be increased to e.g. 10 or even more groups. In empirical settings, it would depend on the sample size. If we want to have at least 30 observations within a group we could have $\frac{N}{30 \times \Lambda}$ groups, with $\Lambda$-splits or folds of the dataset in the first stage used for training and testing. Here we considered only two-folds. However, there is no general relationship between the number of folds in cross-fitting and the precision of the estimator (see [@chernozhukov2018double] for an example with different folds). Due to computational reasons we only use $B$ = 10 bootstrap iterations within the same sample and $S$ = 10 Monte Carlo re-samplings of the same data generating process.
Figures
=======
![Correlation Matrix of Covariates. Correlation metric is bravais-pearson.[]{data-label="Cov_matrix"}](Figures/Dist_Z_pearson.pdf)
[^1]: School of Business and Economics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Spandauer Straße 1, 10178 Berlin, Germany.
[^2]: Sim Kee Boon Institute for Financial Economics, Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road, 178899 Singapore, Singapore
[^3]: W.I.S.E. - Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics, Xiamen University, 422 Siming S Rd, 361005 Fujian, China
[^4]: Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via the IRTG 1792 “High Dimensional Non Stationary Time Series”, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, is gratefully acknowledged. All correspondence may be addressed to the author by e-mail at <[email protected]>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A multi-reflection model of grating diffraction based on the simplified modal method is proposed. Simulation results for a guided mode resonance Brewster grating using our method and rigorous coupled wave analysis are presented to verify our model. The solution of our method is in good agreement with that of rigorous coupled wave analysis. Benefiting from its clear physical view, this model helps us to better understand the diffraction process inside subwavelength gratings. On the basis of the multi-reflection model, we developed a matrix Fabry–Perot (FP) resonance condition and a single-mode resonance condition to evaluate the resonance wavelength. These resonance conditions may be helpful for simplifying design of guided mode resonance (GMR) gratings.'
address: |
Institute of Photonics Technology, Jinan University, Guangdong, 510632, China\
Zhejiang University of Science and technology, No. 318, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310023, China\
author:
- 'Changcheng Xiang, Jun Wu,, Changhe Zhou and Wei Jia,'
title: 'Multi-reflection model of subwavelength grating diffraction based on simplified modal method '
---
[99]{}
R. Magnusson and S. S. Wang, “New principle for optical filters,” **61**, 1022–1024 (1992).
H. Hsu, P. Wu, and C. Huang, “Optimization of a guided-mode resonance filter by varying the thickness of the buffer layer,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 14, 030501- (2016)
J. Feng, C. Zhou, B. Wang, J. Zheng, W. Jia, H. Cao, and P. Lv, “Three-port beam splitter of a binary fused-silica grating,” **47**, 6638 (2008).
B. Wang, C. Zhou, J. Feng, H. Ru, and J. Zheng, “Wideband two-port beam splitter of a binary fused-silica phase grating,” **47**, 4004 (2008).
J. Wang, C. Zhou, J. Ma, Y. Zong, and W. Jia, “Modal analysis of 1 $\times$ 3 reflective triangular gratings under normal incidence,” Chin. Opt. Lett. **15**, 040902- (2017)
L. Vivien, D. Pascal, S. Lardenois, D. Marris-Morini, E. Cassan, F. Grillot, S. Laval, J.-M. Fédéli, and L. E. Melhaoui, “Light injection in soi microwaveguides using high-efficiency grating couplers,” J. Lightwave Technol. **24**, 3810–3815 (2006).
J. Zhang, J. Yang, H. Lu, W. Wu, J. Huang, and S. Chang, “Polarization-independent grating coupler based on silicon-on-insulator,” **13**, 091301 (2015).
L. R. Chen, “Subwavelength grating waveguide devices in silicon-on-insulators for integrated microwave photonics (invited paper),” **15**, 010004 (2017).
M. G. Moharam, E. B. Grann, D. A. Pommet, and T. K. Gaylord, “Formulation for stable and efficient implementation of the rigorous coupled-wave analysis of binary gratings,” **12**, 1068–1076 (1995).
P. Lalanne and G. M. Morris, “Highly improved convergence of the coupled-wave method for tm polarization,” **13**, 779–784 (1996).
I. C. Botten, M. S. Craig, R. C. McPhedran, J. L. Adams, and J. R. Andrewartha, “The dielectric lamellar diffraction grating,” Opt. Acta **28**, 413–428 (1981).
T. Clausnitzer, T. K[ä]{}mpfe, E.-B. Kley, A. T[ü]{}nnermann, U. Peschel, A. V. Tishchenko, and O. Parriaux, “An intelligible explanation of highly-efficient diffraction in deep dielectric rectangular transmission gratings,” Opt. Express **13**, 10448 (2005).
A. V. Tishchenko, “Phenomenological representation of deep and high contrast lamellar gratings by means of the modal method,” Opt. and Quant. Electronics **37**, 309–330 (2005).
J. Zheng, C. Zhou, B. Wang, and J. Feng, “Beam splitting of low-contrast binary gratings under second bragg angle incidence,” , Optics, image science, and vision **25**, 1075 (2008).
J. Zheng, C. Zhou, J. Feng, and B. Wang, “Polarizing beam splitter of deep-etched triangular-groove fused-silica gratings,” **33**, 1554 (2008).
J. Feng, C. Zhou, H. Cao, and P. Lu, “Unified design of sinusoidal-groove fused-silica grating,” **49**, 5697–5704 (2010).
V. Karagodsky, F. G. Sedgwick, and C. J. Chang-Hasnain, “Theoretical analysis of subwavelength high contrast grating reflectors,” Opt. Express **18**, 16973–16988 (2010).
V. Karagodsky, C. Chase, and C. J. Chang-Hasnain, “Matrix Fabry-Perot resonance mechanism in high-contrast gratings,” **36**, 1704–1706 (2011).
J. Wu, C. Zhou, H. Cao, A. Hu, W. Sun, and W. Jia, “Simplified mode analysis of guided mode resonance gratings with asymmetric coatings,” Chin. Opt. Lett. **11**, 060501 (2013).
W. Sun, P. Lv, C. Zhou, H. Cao, and J. Wu, “Multireflection modal method for wideband fused-silica transmission gratings,” **52**, 2800–2807 (2013).
F. Yang and Y. Li, “Evaluation and improvement of simplified modal method for designing dielectric gratings,” Opt. Express **23** 31342–31356 (2015).
R. Magnusson and S. S. Wang, “New principle for optical filters,” **61**, 1022–1024 (1992).
S. S. Wang and R. Magnusson, “Theory and applications of guided-mode resonance filters,” **32**, 2606–2613 (1993).
R. Magnusson, D. Shin, and Z. S. Liu, “Guided-mode resonance Brewster filter,” **23**, 612 (1998).
R. Magnusson, “Flat-top resonant reflectors with sharply delimited angular spectra: an application of the Rayleigh anomaly,” **38**, 989–991 (2013).
M. S. Amin, J. W. Yoon, R. Magnusson, “Optical transmission filters with coexisting guided-mode resonance and Rayleigh anomaly,” Appl. Phy. Lett. **103**, 131106 (2013).
H. A. Macleod, *Thin-film optical filters*, Series in optics and optoelectronics (CRC and [London : Taylor [&]{} Francis \[distributor\]]{}, Boca Raton, Fla., 2010), 4th ed.
Introduction
============
Subwavelength gratings are simple periodic optical structures that can serve as various functional components in optical systems, such as optical filters [@filter-Magnusson.1992; @Chen:17; @Hsu:16], beam splitters [@SMM-BS-feng.2008; @SMM-BS-Wang.2008; @Wang:17], and high-efficiency waveguide couplers [@coupler-Vivien:06; @Zhang:15; @Chen:17]. Among various numerical methods, rigorous coupled wave analysis (RCWA) [@RCWA1; @RCWA2] is one of the most widely used methods to accurately analyze the diffraction properties of subwavelength gratings. Despite its high computational efficiency, RCWA has a disadvantage in that its physical interpretation is unclear, which makes it less helpful for designing functional gratings. The modal method, an alternative to RCWA proposed by Botten *et al.* [@modal-method-botten], describes the physical process of grating diffraction as propagation of grating modes inside the grating and coupling between grating modes and diffraction orders at the interfaces. For low-contrast deeply etched gratings, reflection at the interfaces and the effects of evanescent grating modes can be neglected; therefore, a simplified modal method (SMM) was introduced [@SMM; @SMM-Tishchenko.2005]. When the symmetries of the grating modes are considered, the SMM can give approximate analytical expressions for calculating the diffraction efficiencies of these gratings under Littrow incidence. These expressions can be used to solve inverse grating problems and are very helpful for designing beam splitter gratings [@SMM-BS-feng.2008; @SMM-BS-Wang.2008]. Zheng *et al.* also applied the SMM to designing subwavelength gratings under second Bragg incidence [@Zheng.2008b]. The SMM was also developed for application to the design of triangular-groove [@SMM-tri-Zheng.2008] and sinuous-groove gratings [@SMM-sin-Feng.2010].
The SMM has successfully guided the design of low-contrast subwavelength gratings. However, when the index contrast increases, the reflection at the grating interfaces must be considered; therefore, the simple expressions of the diffraction efficiencies no longer work. Karagodsky *et al.* developed a modal method to study the ultra-wideband high reflectivity in high-contrast gratings [@HCG-modal]. On the basis of the method in Ref. [@HCG-modal], he also explained how the resonance mechanism in high-contrast gratings can be understood in terms of the Fabry–Perot (FP) resonance of the grating modes [@FP-explanation] and proposed a simple mathematical expression to predict the resonance wavelength. Wu *et al.* [@Wu.2013] applied Karagodsky’s method to analysis of guided mode resonance (GMR) gratings with asymmetric coatings. However, the method developed by Karagodsky requires even symmetric grating modes, and it is applicable only for normal incidence. In 2013, Sun *et al.* first proposed a multi-reflection model of grating diffraction based on the SMM [@Sun.2013]. Sun’s model uses a Fresnel form to express the reflection and transmission coefficients by analogy to those of a flat interface. Yang and Li recently introduced an improved SMM [@Yang.2015] to deal with transverse electric (TE)-polarized incidence at arbitrary angles. In Ref. [@Yang.2015], Yang and Li discussed the relationship between the Fresnel-form-based multi-reflection model and the scatter matrices obtained by their method, and pointed out that the Fresnel-form-based multi-reflection model neglects the coupling of grating modes and works only when the incident angle is around Littrow incidence. In this letter, we propose a multi-reflection model based on the SMM with a complete matrix description to study the resonance in subwavelength dielectric gratings. This model is applicable to analyzing grating diffraction with incidence at arbitrary angles. A GMR Brewster grating filter is designed, and simulation results obtained using the RCWA and our method are compared to verify the validity of our method. Two resonance conditions based on the multi-reflection model are also proposed for evaluating the resonance wavelength.
Multi-reflection model of grating diffraction
=============================================
![Illustration of a grating and its parameters: the groove depth is $h$, and the grating period is $d$; the widths of the grating ridge and groove are $r$ and $g$, and the corresponding refractive indices are $n_r$ and $n_g$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:grating"}](figures/gmrgrating){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The grating is schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:grating\]. The diffraction process in the grating is analogous to the multi-reflection process in a thin film structure: 1. Part of the incident wave is reflected as diffraction waves by the input plane ($z=0$), and the remaining energy of the incident wave is coupled into downward-propagating modes inside the grating. 2. The downward-propagating modes travel to the output plane ($z=h$). 3. The downward-propagating modes are partially coupled into the transmitted diffraction orders on the output side ($z>h$) and partially reflected as upward-propagating modes. 4. The upward-propagating modes travel to the input plane ($z=0$). 5. The upward-propagating modes are partially coupled into the reflected diffraction orders on the input side ($z<0$) and partially reflected as downward-propagating modes. 6. Steps 2–5 repeat infinitely; the entire transmitted diffraction field is a superposition of all the fields transmitted by the downward-propagating modes in step 3, and the reflected diffraction field is a superposition of the field reflected from the incident wave in step 1 and all the fields transmitted by the up-propagating modes in step 5. The mathematical interpretation of the full process is presented below.
![Multi-reflection of grating modes during the diffraction process.[]{data-label="fig:multi-refl "}](figures/gmrrefl){width="0.5\linewidth"}
In step 1, the field of the incident wave and the diffraction orders reflected from the incident wave by the input interface ($z=0$) at $z<0$ can be written as $$\begin{split}
F(x,z) &= \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{\left[ \delta_{n0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k^{I}_{zn}z}) + r_n \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \exp{(-\mathrm{i}k^{I}_{zn}z}) \right]},\\
F &= \left\{
\begin{array} {c c}
E_y & \mathrm{TE\ polarization} \\
H_y & \mathrm{TM\ polarization}
\end{array} \right.,
\end{split}$$ where $k_{xn} = k_0 \sin{\theta_0} + 2\pi n/d$, $k^{I}_{zn} = \sqrt{(k_0 n_1)^2 - k_{xn}^2}$, and $k_0 = 2 \pi / \lambda$, $r_n$ is the complex amplitude of the $n$th reflection diffraction order reflected from incident wave in this step. The field of transmitted downward-propagating modes inside the grating ($0<z<h$) is [@modal-method-botten] $$F(x,z) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{+\infty}{ a^+_m u_m(x) \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m z}) },$$ where $\beta_m=k_0 n^m_{eff}$, $a^+_m$ is the complex amplitude of the $m$th grating mode transmitted from incident wave in this step, and $n^m_{eff}$ is the effective refractive index of the $m$th grating mode which is determined by [@modal-method-botten] $$\begin{split}
\cos{(k_g g)}\cos{(k_r r)} &- \frac{k_g^2 + \gamma^2 k_r^2}{2 \gamma k_g k_r}\sin{(k_g g)}\sin{(k_r r)} = \cos{(k_{x0}d)}, \\
k_g &= k_0 \sqrt{n_g^2 - (n^m_{eff})^2}, \\
k_r &= k_0 \sqrt{n_r^2 - (n^m_{eff})^2}, \\
\gamma &= \left\{
\begin{array} {c c}
1 & \mathrm{TE\ polarization} \\
n_g^2/n_r^2 & \mathrm{TM\ polarization}
\end{array} \right.,
\end{split}$$ $u_m(x)$ is the unified profile of the $m$th grating mode (detailed form can be found in [@modal-method-botten]) and satisfies $$\int\limits_0^d u_m(x) \frac{u^*_n(x)}{\alpha_g(x)} \,\mathbf{d}x = \delta_{mn},
\label{eq:mode-unif}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_g(x) = \left\{
\begin{array} {l l}
\mu_r = \mu_g = \mu_0 = 1 & \mathrm{TE\ polarization} \\
\epsilon_g(x) & \mathrm{TM\ polarization}
\end{array} \right., \\
\epsilon_g(x) = \left\{
\begin{array} {l l}
n_g^2 & id \leq x< r + id \\
n_r^2 & r+id \leq x<(i+1)d
\end{array} \right. ,
i = \{\dots, -1, 0, 1, 2, \dots\}.\end{gathered}$$
The boundary condition implies that $F(x,z)$ should be matched at $z=0$: $$\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{\left[ (\delta_{n0} + r_n) \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \right]} = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{+\infty}{a^+_m u_m(x)}.$$ If we multiply the left- and right-hand sides by $u^*_m(x)/\alpha_g(x)$, integrate both sides over $\left[0,d\right)$, and use Eq. , we have $$\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{J_{mn} (\delta_{n0} + r_n) } = a^+_m,
\label{eq:match-h}$$ where $$J_{mn} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\int\nolimits_0^d{\exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \frac{u^*_m(x)}{\alpha_g(x)} \,\mathbf{d}x}.
\label{eq:j-definition}$$ If we define $\alpha$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha = \left\{
\begin{array} {l l}
\mu & \mathrm{TE\ polarization} \\
\epsilon & \mathrm{TM\ polarization}
\end{array} \right., \\\end{gathered}$$ $\partial_z F(x,z)/\alpha(x,z)$ should also be matched at $z=0$: $$\frac{1}{\alpha_I}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{k^I_{zn} (\delta_{n0} - r_n) \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k^I_{xn}x)}} = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{+\infty}{\beta_m a_m^+ \frac{{u_m(x)}}{\alpha_g(x)} }.$$ If we multiply the left- and right-hand sides by $u^*_m(x)$ and integrate both sides over $\left[0,d\right)$, we have $$\frac{1}{\alpha_I}\sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{L_{mn} k^I_{zn} (\delta_{n0} - r_n) } = \beta_m a^+_m,
\label{eq:match-e}$$ where $$L_{mn} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\int\nolimits_0^d{\exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} u^*_m(x) \,\mathbf{d}x}.
\label{eq:l-definition}$$ Eqs. – can be written in matrix form: $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{J} (\mathbf{F} + \mathbf{R}) &= \mathbf{A^+}(0), \\
\frac{1}{\alpha_I} \mathbf{L} \mathbf{K_I} (\mathbf{F} - \mathbf{R}) &= \mathbf{B} \mathbf{A^+}(0),
\label{matrix-inc}
\end{split}$$ where $\mathbf{F}, \mathbf{R}, \mathbf{A^+}(0)$ are vectors: $(\mathbf{F})_n = \delta_{n0}, (\mathbf{R})_n = r_n, (\mathbf{A^+}(0))_n = a^+_n \exp{(\mathrm{i} \beta_n z) |_{z=0}}$, and $\mathbf{K_I}, \mathbf{B}$ are diagonal matrices: $(\mathbf{K_I})_{mn} = \delta_{mn} k_{zn}^I$, $\mathbf{B} = \delta_{mn} \beta_n$. The reflection and transmission matrices for incidence at $z=0$ $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{inc}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{inc}$ are defined as $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{R} &= \boldsymbol{\rho}_{inc} \mathbf{F}, \\
\mathbf{A^+} &= \boldsymbol{\tau}_{inc} \mathbf{F}.
\end{split}$$ Using the mutually inverse relation between $\mathbf{J}$ and $\mathbf{L}$ (proved in the **Appendix**), $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}} \mathbf{L} &= \mathbf{I}, \\
\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{H}} \mathbf{J} &= \mathbf{I},
\end{split}$$ we can solve $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{inc}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{inc}$: $$\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\rho}_{inc} &= \mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{H}} [2 (\alpha_I \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_I^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{I})^{-1} - \mathbf{I}] \mathbf{J}, \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_{inc} &= 2 (\alpha_I \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_I^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{I})^{-1} \mathbf{J}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:step1}$$
In step 2, downward-propagating modes travel from the input plane ($z=0$) to the output plane ($z=h$), and the weight of each mode changes with phase accumulation: $[a^+_m \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m z)}] |_{z=h} = \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m h)} [a^+_m \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m z)}] |_{z=0}$. The matrix expression of this mode propagation process is $$\mathbf{A^+}(h) = \boldsymbol{\varphi} \mathbf{A^+}(0),
\label{step2}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\varphi}$ is a diagonal matrix: $(\boldsymbol{\varphi})_{mn} = \delta_{mn} \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m h)} $.
Next, we examine step 3 at the input plane, $z=h$. The downward-propagating grating modes travel down from $z=0$, and are reflected as upward-propagating modes by the output plane ($z=h$). The superposed field $F(x,z)$ of these modes in $0<z<h$ is $$F(x,z) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{+\infty}{a^+_m u_m(x) \exp{(\mathrm{i}\beta_m z)} + a^-_m u_m(x) \exp{(-\mathrm{i}\beta_m z})}.$$ Here $a^-_m$ is the complex amplitude of the $m$th upward-propagating grating mode reflected from the downward-propagating modes in this step. The remaining energy of the downward-propagating modes is coupled into the transmitted diffraction waves. The field of diffraction orders transmitted from by the downward-propagating modes in $z>h$ can be written as $$F(x,z) = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}{ t_n \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \exp{(\mathrm{i}k^{II}_{zn} (z-h))} },$$ where $k^{II}_{zn} = \sqrt{(k_0 n_2)^2 - k_{xn}^2}$, $t_n$ is the complex amplitude of the $n$th transmissive diffraction order. As in Eq., the boundary conditions can be written in matrix form: $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{J} \mathbf{R} &= \mathbf{A^+}(h) + \mathbf{A^-}(h), \\
- \frac{1}{\alpha_I}\mathbf{L}\mathbf{K_{II}} \mathbf{T} &= \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{A^+}(h) - \mathbf{A^-}(h)),
\end{split}
\label{eq:matrix-in}$$ where $\mathbf{T}, \mathbf{A^+}(h) and \mathbf{A^-}(h)$ are vectors: $(\mathbf{T})_n = t_n, (\mathbf{A^+}(h))_n = a^+_n\exp{(\mathrm{i} \beta_n z)|_{z=h}}, (\mathbf{A^-}(h))_n = a^-_n\exp{(-\mathrm{i} \beta_n z) |_{z=h}}$. $\mathbf{K_{II}}$ is a diagonal matrix: $(\mathbf{K_{II}})_{mn} = \delta_{mn} k_{zn}^{II}$. Denoting the reflection matrix and transmission matrix at the input plane as $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{o}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{o}$, respectively: $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{A^-(h)} &= \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o} \mathbf{A^+}(h), \\
\mathbf{T} &= \boldsymbol{\tau}_{o} \mathbf{A^+}(h),
\end{split}$$ we can solve $\boldsymbol{\rho}_o$, $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{o}$ from Eq. (): $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{\rho}_o &= (\alpha_{II} \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_{II}^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{I})^{-1} (\alpha_{II} \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_{II}^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} - \mathbf{I}),\\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_o &= \mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{H}} (\boldsymbol{\rho}_o + \mathrm{I}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:step3}$$
Step 4 is similar to step 2. The modes are propagating in the opposite direction to that in step 2: $$\mathbf{A^-}(0) = \boldsymbol{\varphi} \mathbf{A^-}(h).
\label{step4}$$
Using a process similar to that in step 3, by matching $F(x,z)$ and $\partial_z F(x,z)/\alpha(x,z)$ at $z=h$, we can solve the reflection and transmission matrices $\boldsymbol{\rho}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_i$ in step 5: $$\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\rho}_i &= (\alpha_I \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_I^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} + \mathbf{I})^{-1} (\alpha_I \mathbf{J}\mathbf{K_I^{-1}}\mathbf{J}^{\mathrm{H}}\mathbf{B} - \mathbf{I}), \\
\boldsymbol{\tau}_i &= \mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{H}} (\boldsymbol{\rho}_i + \mathrm{I}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:step4}$$
After the reflection and transmission matrices are obtained, the total diffraction field can be calculated by superposing all the diffraction fields in the reflection and transmission processes in steps 1–5. The complex amplitude vectors of the total reflected and transmitted diffraction orders are $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{R}_{total} &= \rho_{inc} \mathbf{F} + \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} {\tau_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi (\rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^k \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F}} \\
&= \rho_{inc} \mathbf{F} + \tau_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi \lim_{k \to \infty} (I - \rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^{-1} [I - (\rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^k] \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F},\\
\mathbf{T}_{total} &= \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} {\tau_o \varphi (\rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^k \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F}} \\
&= \tau_o \varphi \lim_{k \to \infty} (I - \rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^{-1} [I - (\rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^k] \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F}.
\end{split}$$ If $\rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi$ is a convergent matrix, which it is in most cases, $$\begin{split}
\mathbf{R}_{total} &= \rho_{inc} \mathbf{F} + \tau_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi (I - \rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^{-1} \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F},\\
\mathbf{T}_{total} &= \tau_o \varphi (I - \rho_i \varphi \rho_o \varphi)^{-1} \tau_{inc} \mathbf{F}.
\label{eq:matrix-eq}
\end{split}$$ Then the diffraction efficiencies can be calculated as $$\begin{split}
\eta^R_{i} = \frac{\mathrm{real}[(\mathbf{K_I})_i] \left| ( \mathbf{R}_{total})_i \right|^2} {k_0 n_1 \cos{\theta_0}},\\
\eta^T_{i} = \frac{\mathrm{real}[(\mathbf{K_{II}})_i] \left| ( \mathbf{T}_{total})_i \right|^2} {k_0 n_1 \cos{\theta_0}},
\end{split}
\label{eq:efficiency}$$ where $\eta^R_{i}$ and $\eta^T_{i}$ are the efficiencies of the $i$th reflected and transmitted orders, respectively, and “real” indicates the real part of a complex number.
Similar to simplified modal method [@SMM; @SMM-Tishchenko.2005], a propagating mode approximation can be introduced in our model that the effects of evanescent modes are neglected and the modal series expansions are cut off after all the propagating modes. In this way, the matrices with infinite sizes in Eqs. become $N \times N$ matrices, where N is the number of propagating modes.
Application for GMR Brewster filter
===================================
![Reflectivity spectrum of the GMR Brewster filter with the parameters $f=0.5$, $d=270.9$nm, $h=525.9$nm, $n_1=1$, $n_g=2$, and $n_r=n_2=1.457$. The incident angle is $\theta_B=60.7\degree$. Resonance occurs at 632.8nm, where there is a sharp transition from 0% to 100%.[]{data-label="fig:rcwa"}](figures/refl-rcwa){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The guided mode resonant (GMR) grating [@GMR-grating-Magnusson.1992; @GMR-grating-Wang.1993] is a type of high-contrast grating. Most GMR gratings are used under normal incidence; therefore, Karagodsky’s method is applicable. The GMR Brewster grating [@GMR-Brewster-Magnusson.1998], which exploits the extinguished transverse magnetic (TM)-polarized reflection due to the Brewster effect, can be used to implement extremely low-reflectivity sidebands. As no symmetric grating modes exist under Brewster incidence, Karagodsky’s method no longer works.
![Comparison of simulation results obtained using RCWA and the multi-reflection modal method. When the first four modes are considered, the modal solution is in good agreement with that of RCWA.[]{data-label="fig:refl-rcwa-modal"}](figures/refl-rcwa-modal){width="0.6\linewidth"}
To verify our multi-reflection model, we designed a GMR Brewster grating filter for an incident wavelength of 632.8nm. The filter consists of a waveguide grating layer on a fused-silica substrate. The parameters of the filter are $f=0.5$, $d=270.9$nm, $h=525.9$nm, $n_1=1$, $n_g=2$, and $n_r=n_2=1.457$. The incident wave illuminates the filter at the Brewster angle of this structure, $\theta_B=60.7\degree$, which is calculated by employing thin film theory [@Macleod.2010b]. Fig. \[fig:rcwa\] shows the variation of the reflectivity calculated by RCWA. Resonance occurs at a wavelength of 632.8nm with a sharp peak. It is worth mentioning that the sharp peak is also a result of co-existence of GMR and Rayleigh anomaly [@GMR-Rayleigh-1; @GMR-Rayleigh-2], as the Rayleigh anomaly condition $k_{x,-1} = k_0\,n_2$ is meeted, where $k_{x,-1}$ is the x-component of the wave vector of the -1st order.
The first two grating modes inside the waveguide grating are propagating modes. Assuming that these two modes will dominate the process of diffraction, we introduced the propagating mode approximation and cut off the modal series expansions in Section 2 after the first two modes. The variation of the reflectivity calculated by our method and that calculated by RCWA are compared in Fig. \[fig:refl-rcwa-modal\]. Under the two-mode cutoff approximation, the resonance wavelength is located at $\lambda = 633.13$ nm. When more modes are considered, the peak of the variation moves closer to 632.8 nm, and the fourth mode has a more significant effect than the third mode on the peak shift.
\
We also plot the intensity distributions of the magnetic fields of the first four grating modes in Fig. \[fig:field-mode\]. The first two modes are propagating modes, and they form standing waves in the $z$ direction. The third and fourth modes are evanescent, and most of their energy is confined near the input and output planes ($z=0,h$). The field intensities of the first two modes are much larger than those of the other modes, and the field intensity of the fourth mode is larger than that of the third mode. These results validate our assumption that the effects of the first two modes are dominant, and confirm that the fourth mode has a larger effect than the third mode in this grating.
By using a uniform medium approximation and the slab waveguide theory, one can evaluate the resonance wavelength by solving the eigenvalue equation [@GMR-grating-Wang.1993]: $$\tan(\kappa_i h) = \frac{\epsilon_e \kappa_i (\epsilon_I \gamma_i + \epsilon_{II} \delta_i)}{\epsilon_I \epsilon_3 \kappa_i^2 - \epsilon_e^2 \gamma_i \delta_i},
\label{eq:reso-uni-slab}$$ where $\kappa_i = \sqrt{\epsilon_e k^2 - \beta_{si}^2}$, $\gamma_i = \sqrt{\beta_{si}^2 - \epsilon_1 k^2}$, and $\delta_i = \sqrt{\beta_{si}^2 - \epsilon_2 k^2}$. Further, $\beta_{si}$ is the propagation constant of the $i$th waveguide mode in the slab: $$\beta_{si} = k(\sqrt{\epsilon_e} \sin{\theta_B} - i \lambda/d).
\label{eq:beta-slab}$$ $\epsilon_e$ is the effective relative permittivity of the waveguide grating according to the effective medium theory: $$\epsilon_e = [f n_c^{-2} + (1-f) n_g^{-2}]^{-1}.
\label{eq:eff-medium}$$ In this way, the resonance wavelength is evaluated as 630.95nm.
The multi-reflection model can also give the matrix FP resonance condition to predict the resonance wavelength: resonance occurs when an assembly of modes $\mathbf{M}$ in the grating layer can constructively interfere with themselves after a full round trip according to steps 2–5. This condition can be described by the expression $\mathbf{M}= \boldsymbol{\rho}_i \boldsymbol{\varphi \rho}_o\boldsymbol{\varphi M}$, which is equivalent to $$\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{I} - \boldsymbol{\rho}_i \boldsymbol{\varphi \rho}_o\boldsymbol{\varphi})=0 .
\label{eq:det-condition}$$
![Value of $\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{I} - \boldsymbol{\rho}_i \boldsymbol{\varphi \rho}_o\boldsymbol{\varphi})$. The minimum is located at 633.1nm.[]{data-label="fig:detvalue"}](figures/detplot-2){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The values of $\mathrm{det}(\mathbf{I} - \boldsymbol{\rho}_i \boldsymbol{\varphi \rho}_o\boldsymbol{\varphi})$ for different incident wavelengths are calculated and presented in Fig. \[fig:detvalue\]. Under the two-mode cutoff approximation, the minimum of this determinant is located at 633.1nm, which is close to the resonance wavelength. Compared to the evaluation by the method in Ref. [@GMR-grating-Wang.1993], the prediction by our method is much closer to the resonance wavelength obtained using RCWA. It is also worth noting that the filter is designed by using this resonance condition and simulated annealing algorithm.
Discussion
==========
\
If one of the propagating modes can constructively interfere with itself after a full round trip in the grating, resonance may also happen. In this case, the condition Eq. can be simpler as: $$\begin{gathered}
1 - \boldsymbol{\rho}_{i,qq} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o,qq} \exp{(\mathrm{i} 2 \beta_q h)} = 0 \label{eq:one-mode-a} \\
\Rightarrow \left| \boldsymbol{\rho}_{i,qq} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o,qq} \right| = 1. \label{eq:one-mode}\end{gathered}$$ where $q$ means the $q$th mode, $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{i,qq}, \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o,qq}$ mean the $q$th diagonal element of the matrices $\boldsymbol{\rho}_i, \boldsymbol{\rho}_o$. Fig.\[fig:condition\](a,b) shows the value of $ 1- \left| \boldsymbol{\rho}_{i,qq} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o,qq} \right|$ for the first three modes when the corresponding grating parameters are in the domain: $n_1=1$, $n_g=2$, $n_r=n_2=1.457$, $f = 0.5$, $d \in [200,600]$nm, $\lambda = 632.8$nm, $\theta_0 \in [0\degree, 70\degree]$. In the dark area of Fig.\[fig:condition\](b,c), $1- \left| \boldsymbol{\rho}_{i,qq} \boldsymbol{\rho}_{o,qq} \right|$ is very close to zero, implying resonance may happen when the grating depth $h$ satisfies Eq..
We can also anticipate the occurrence of resonance in the same domain with the condition Eq. (by checking whether there is an $h$ can satisfy Eq.), since its validity has already been proved (Fig.\[fig:detvalue\]). To find whether such an $h$ exists for a certain point in this domain, we have checked if the minimum of the determinant among $h \in [0,3000]$nm for that point is close to 0, and these minima for all the points in this domain are shown in Fig.\[fig:condition\](d) (all the determinants are calculated under 6 modes cutoff approximation). The dark area in Fig.\[fig:condition\](d) almost coincides with those in Fig.\[fig:condition\](b) and Fig.\[fig:condition\](c), indicating that Eq. successfully anticipates the occurrence of resonance in this domain. However, it is not expected that there isn’t any other dark areas in Fig.\[fig:condition\](c). It needs a further investigation that whether the first mode and other modes can constructively self interfere and result resonances in other cases.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we introduced a multi-reflection model based on the simplified modal method (SMM) for analyzing diffraction in subwavelength gratings. Our method is successfully applied to analyze GMR gratings under non-normal incidence. The simulation result for a GMR Brewster filter obtained by using our method is compared with that using RCWA. Even when only two modes are used in this specified cases, the multi-reflection modal solution is in good agreement with the RCWA solution. Our multi-reflection model also provides a matrix FP resonance condition to evaluate the resonance wavelength. A single-mode resonance condition is also developed from the matrix resonance condition. The expression of the single-mode resonance condition is simple and its clear physics view for GMR inside the grating and may be useful for designing GMR gratings. Simulation results also infer that the second mode may play a special role in the resonance inside the grating. This interesting fact needs further study to confirm and explain.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge the support of the Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (15JC1403500, 16DZ2290102) and Chinese Academy of Sciences (QYZDJ-SSW-JSC014).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
$$\frac{1}{d}\int\nolimits_0^d{\exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} \exp{(-\mathrm{i}k_{xp}x)} \,\mathbf{d}x} = \delta_{np}
\label{eq:pw-unif}$$
Eqs. – are equivalent to $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\exp{(\mathrm{i}k_{xn}x)} = \sum\limits_q{ j_{qn} u_q(x)},
\label{eq:expansion1}$$
$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\exp{(-\mathrm{i}k_{xp}x)} = \sum\limits_m{ l^*_{mp} \frac{u^*_m(x)}{\epsilon_g(x)}}.
\label{eq:expansion2}$$
Substituting Eqs. and into the left side of Eq. yields $$\begin{split}
\int\nolimits_0^d{\sum\limits_q{ j_{qn} u_q(x)} \sum\limits_m{ l^*_{mp} \frac{u^*_m(x)}{\epsilon_g(x)}} \,\mathbf{d}x} &= \sum\limits_q \sum\limits_m j_{qn} l^*_{mp} \int\nolimits_0^d u_q(x) \frac{u^*_m(x)}{\epsilon_g(x)} \,\mathbf{d}x \\
&= \sum\limits_q \sum\limits_m j_{qn} l^*_{mp} \delta_{mq} \\
&= \sum\limits_m l^*_{mp} j_{mn} .
\end{split}$$
And this is equal to the right side: $$\sum\limits_m l^*_{mp} j_{mn} = \delta_{np} .$$
The matrix form is $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{L^H}\boldsymbol{J} &= \boldsymbol{I}, \\
\Leftrightarrow\ \boldsymbol{J^H}\boldsymbol{L} &= \boldsymbol{I}.
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\int\nolimits_0^d{u_m(x) \frac{{u^*_n(x)}}{\epsilon_g(x)}\,\mathbf{d}x} &= \delta_{mn} \nonumber \\
\Rightarrow\ \boldsymbol{L}\boldsymbol{J^H} &= \boldsymbol{I} \\
\Leftrightarrow\ \boldsymbol{J}\boldsymbol{L^H} &= \boldsymbol{I}.
\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We establish the first nonasymptotic error bounds for Kaplan-Meier-based nearest neighbor and kernel survival probability estimators where feature vectors reside in metric spaces. Our bounds imply rates of strong consistency for these nonparametric estimators and, up to a log factor, match an existing lower bound for conditional CDF estimation. Our proof strategy also yields nonasymptotic guarantees for nearest neighbor and kernel variants of the Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazards estimator. We experimentally compare these methods on four datasets. We find that for the kernel survival estimator, a good choice of kernel is one learned using random survival forests.'
bibliography:
- 'nn\_survey.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Survival analysis arises in numerous applications where we want to reason about the amount of time until some critical event happens. For example, in health care, we may be interested in using electronic health records to predict how long a patient with a particular disease will live (e.g., @botsis2010secondary [@ganssauge2016exploring]), or how much time a patient has before a disease relapses (e.g., @zupan2000machine). In criminology, we may be interested in predicting the time until a convicted criminal reoffends [@chung_1991]. A fundamental task in survival analysis is estimating the survival probability over time for a specific subject (for ease of exposition, we stick to using standard survival analysis terminology in which the critical event of interest is death). Formally, suppose a subject has feature vector ${X}$ (a random variable that takes on values in a feature space ${\mathcal{X}}$) and survival time ${T}$ (a nonnegative real-valued random variable). For a given feature vector ${x}\in{\mathcal{X}}$, our goal is to estimate the conditional survival function ${S}({t}| {x}) := \mathbb{P}({T}> {t}| {X}={x})$ for time ${t}\ge0$. To estimate ${S}$, we assume that we have access to $n$ training subjects. For the $i$-th subject, we have the subject’s feature vector ${X}_i \in {\mathcal{X}}$ as well as two observations: ${\delta}_i\in\{0,1\}$ indicates whether we observe the survival time for the $i$-th subject, and ${Y}_i\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$ is the survival time for the $i$-th subject if ${\delta}_i=1$ or the “censoring time” if ${\delta}_i=0$. The censoring time gives a lower bound for the $i$-th subject’s survival time (e.g., when we stop collecting training data, the $i$-th subject might still be alive, in which case that is when the subject’s true survival time is “censored” and we only know that the subject survives beyond the time of censoring).
Many approaches have been devised for estimating the conditional survival function ${S}$. Most standard approaches impose strong structural assumptions on ${S}$ via constraining the hazard function ${h}({t}|{x}) := -\frac{\partial}{\partial {t}}\log {S}({t}|{x})$. For example, the Cox proportional hazards model decouples the effects of time ${t}\ge0$ and of feature vector ${x}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ by assuming the factorization ${h}({t}|{x}) = {h}_0({t})\exp(\beta^\top {x})$, where positive-valued function ${h}_0$ and vector $\beta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ are parameters [@cox_1972]. After estimating ${h}_0$ and $\beta$ from training data, then for any feature vector ${x}$, we can estimate the hazard function ${h}({t}|{x})$ by plugging in estimates for ${h}_0$ and $\beta$. Integrating the estimate for ${h}({t}|{x})$ thus yields an estimate for ${S}({t}|{x})=\exp(-\int_0^{t}{h}(s|{x})ds)$. Other standard approaches such as the Aalen additive model [@aalen_1989] and accelerated failure time models [@kalbfleisch_2002 Chapter 7] also impose structure on hazard function ${h}({t}|{x})$ and are typically used with parametric assumptions. More recent approaches include, for instance, modifying the Cox proportional hazards model by replacing the inner product $\beta^\top x$ with a nonlinear function of $x$ that is encoded as a deep net [@katzman2018deepsurv], or completely specifying $S$ via a hierarchical generative model [@ranganath2016deep].
Rather than making structural assumptions on ${S}$, @beran_1981 takes a nonparametric approach using nearest neighbors and kernels. The idea is simple: there already is a nonparametric estimator for the marginal survival function ${S}_{\text{marg}}({t}):=\mathbb{P}({T}>{t})$ known as the Kaplan-Meier estimator [@kaplan_meier_1958]. This estimator does not use feature vectors. We can incorporate feature vectors in a straightforward manner. For a test subject with feature vector ${x}$, we first find training subjects whose feature vectors are sufficiently close to ${x}$ (e.g., pick the $k$ closest). We apply the Kaplan-Meier estimator to just these nearby subjects to estimate the conditional survival probability function ${S}({t}|{x})$ (the kernel variant can weight training subjects differently). @beran_1981 provided consistency results for these $k$-NN and kernel estimates for ${S}$, while @dabrowska_1989, @van_1996, and @van_1998 established nonasymptotic error bounds for the kernel variant when feature vectors are Euclidean. In this paper, we present the first nonasymptotic error bounds for nearest neighbor and kernel estimators for ${S}$ where feature vectors reside in the general setting of separable metric spaces (Euclidean space is a special case). Our error bounds lead to rates of strong consistency for both estimators across a wide range of distributions. Furthermore, our bounds are essentially optimal with respect to the number of training data $n$. In particular, note that $1-{S}(\cdot|{x})$ is a conditional CDF. If there is no right-censoring, the problem reduces to conditional CDF estimation. Up to a log factor, our error rates match an existing conditional CDF estimation error lower bound by @chagny_2014.
Our proof strategy also yields nonasymptotic error bounds for Nelson-Aalen-based nearest neighbor and kernel estimates of the conditional cumulative hazard function $-\log{S}({t}|{x})$. These bounds turn out to be crucial in how we derive generalization guarantees for automatic parameter selection (choosing the number of nearest neighbors or the kernel bandwidth) via a validation set.
Despite our theory handling a wide range of distances and kernels, both of these still have to be pre-specified by the user and, in practice, can lead to large prediction accuracy differences. As a simple heuristic, we propose using random survival forests [@ishwaran_2008] to learn a kernel for the kernel survival estimator. We experimentally show that the resulting *adaptive* kernel estimator has prediction accuracy on par with regular random survival forests and is, in particular, typically as good as or better than other methods tested.
Model and Nonparametric Estimators {#sec:problem-setup}
==================================
**Model.** The training data $({X}_1,{Y}_1,{\delta}_1),\dots,({X}_n,{Y}_n,{\delta}_n)$ $\in{\mathcal{X}}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+\times\{0,1\}$ are assumed to be generated i.i.d. by the following process, stated for a generic data point $({X},{Y},{\delta})$:
1. Sample feature vector ${X}\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$.
2. Sample nonnegative survival time ${T}\sim\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}}$.
3. Sample nonnegative censoring time ${C}\sim\mathbb{P}_{{C}|{X}}$. (Note that ${T}$ and ${C}$ are independent given ${X}$.)
4. Set ${Y}=\min\{{T},{C}\}$, and ${\delta}={\mathds{1}}\{{T}\le{C}\}$.
We refer to ${Y}$ as the *observed time*, and ${\delta}$ as the *censoring indicator* (0 means censoring happened). For test feature vector ${x}\in{\mathcal{X}}$, we aim to estimate the conditional survival function ${S}({t}|{x}) = {\mathbb{P}({T}>{t}|{X}={x})}$ using the training data. **Nonparametric survival function estimators.** All nonparametric estimators for ${S}$ in this paper are based on the Kaplan-Meier estimator [@kaplan_meier_1958], restricted to a subset of the $n$ training subjects. This estimator works as follows. Let $[n]:=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ denote the set of all training subjects. For any subset of training subjects ${\mathcal{I}}\subseteq[n]$, the Kaplan-Meier estimator first identifies the unique times when death occurred, given by the set ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}:=\{{Y}_j : j\in{\mathcal{I}}\text{~s.t.~}\delta_j=1\}$ (repeated observed times get counted once). Next, we keep track of how many deaths and how many subjects are at risk at any given time $t\ge0$: $$d_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}) := \sum_{j\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\delta}_j{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_j = {t}\},
\quad
n_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}) := \sum_{j\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_j \ge {t}\}.$$ Then the Kaplan-Meier estimator restricted to training subjects ${\mathcal{I}}$ is given by $$\widehat{{S}}^{\text{KM}}({t}|{\mathcal{I}})
:=
\prod_{{t}'\in {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}} \Big(1 - \frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}')}{n_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}')}\Big)^{{\mathds{1}}\{{t}' \le {t}\}}.
$$ This equation has a simple interpretation: if we sort the unique death times ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}$ as ${t}_1 < {t}_2 < \cdots < {t}_{|{\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}|}$, then the terms being multiplied above are estimated probabilities of a subject surviving from time 0 to ${t}_1$, from ${t}_1$ to ${t}_2$, and so forth until reaching time ${t}$. The standard Kaplan-Meier estimator has ${\mathcal{I}}=[n]$. We now state four nonparametric estimators for the conditional survival function ${S}$. The first two are by @beran_1981 and are the estimators that we provide theoretical analysis for in the next section. Distances between feature vectors are measured via a user-specified metric $\rho:{\mathcal{X}}\times{\mathcal{X}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$.
*$k$-NN survival estimator.* For a test feature vector ${x}\in{\mathcal{X}}$, we first find the $k$ training subjects with feature vectors closest to ${x}$ according to metric $\rho$, breaking ties uniformly at random. Let ${\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})\subseteq[n]$ denote these $k$ subjects’ indices. Then the $k$-NN estimate for ${S}$ is $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) := \widehat{{S}}^{\text{KM}}({t}|{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x}))$.
*Kernel survival estimator.* For a user-specified kernel function $K:{\mathbb{R}}_+\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$ and bandwidth $h>0$, we can measure how similar training subject $j\in[n]$ is to ${x}$ by the weight $K(\frac{\rho({x}, {X}_j)}h)$. We generalize the unique death times, death counts, and survivor counts as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{Y}}_K({x};h) \!&:=\! \Big\{ {Y}_j \text{~for~}j\in\mathcal[n]\text{~s.t.~}{\delta}_j K\Big(\frac{\rho({x}, {X}_j)}{h}\Big)\!>\!0 \Big\}, \\
d_K({t}|{x};h) \!&:=\! \sum_{j=1}^n K\Big(\frac{\rho({x}, {X}_j)}{h}\Big) {\delta}_j{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_j = {t}\}, \\
n_K({t}|{x};h) \!&:=\! \sum_{j=1}^n K\Big(\frac{\rho({x}, {X}_j)}{h}\Big) {\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_j \ge {t}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the kernel estimate for ${S}$ is given by $$\widehat{{S}}^K({t}|{x};h)
:= \prod_{{t}'\in {\mathcal{Y}}_K({x};h)} \Big(1 - \frac{d_K({t}'|{x};h)}{n_K({t}'|{x};h)}\Big)^{{\mathds{1}}\{{t}' \le {t}\}}.
\label{eq:kernel-survival}$$ In our numerical experiments later, we benchmark the above methods against the random survival forests method by @ishwaran_2008 along with our proposed variant of it that combines it with the kernel survival estimator. *Random survival forests.* Random survival forests are much like standard random forests. During training, each tree is grown using a survival-analysis-based splitting rule. Each leaf is associated with some subset of the training data for which a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate is produced. In other words, for each tree, each leaf is associated with a particular survival function estimate. Then, for a test point ${x}$, we find the tree leaves that ${x}$ belongs to. We average these leaves’ survival function estimates to produce the final random survival forest estimate for ${S}(\cdot|{x})$.
*Adaptive kernel survival estimator.* We propose an alternative approach to making predictions using random survival forests without changing their training procedure. For a test point ${x}$, to make a final prediction, we instead use the kernel survival estimator given by equation , where we replace the expression $K(\frac{\rho(x, X_j)}h)$ by $\widehat{K}(x, X_j)$, defined as the fraction of trees for which $x$ and training point $X_j$ show up in the same leaf node in the learned forest. Note that interpreting standard random forests as learning kernels was originally done by @lin_random_forests.
**Relating to the Nelson-Aalen estimator.** The Nelson-Aalen estimator estimates the marginal cumulative hazard function ${H}_{\text{marg}}({t}):=
-\log{S}_{\text{marg}}({t})={-\log\mathbb{P}({T}>{t})}$ [@nelson_1969; @aalen_1978]. The Nelson-Aalen estimator restricted to training subjects ${\mathcal{I}}$ is given by $$\widehat{{H}}^{\text{NA}}({t}|{\mathcal{I}})
:=
\sum_{{t}'\in {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}} \frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}')}{n_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}')}{{\mathds{1}}\{{t}' \le {t}\}},$$ using the same variables introduced for the Kaplan-Meier estimator. We can relate the Nelson-Aalen estimator to the Kaplan-Meier one: the first-order Taylor approximation of $-\log\widehat{{S}}^{\text{KM}}({t}|{\mathcal{I}})$ is $\widehat{{H}}^{\text{NA}}({t}|{\mathcal{I}})$. Because our theoretical analysis of $k$-NN and kernel variants of the Kaplan-Meier survival estimator is in terms of Taylor series expansions of $\log{S}$, our proofs extend (with small changes) to $k$-NN and kernel variants of the Nelson-Aalen estimator.
For exposition clarity, the rest of the paper uses $k$-NN and kernel estimators to refer to the Kaplan-Meier versions rather than the Nelson-Aalen ones unless stated otherwise.
Theoretical Guarantees
======================
We first introduce some notation used throughout the paper. We denote closed and open balls centered at ${x}\in{\mathcal{X}}$ with radius $r>0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_{{x},r} & :=\{{x}'\in\mathcal{X}\,:\,\rho({x},{x}')\le r\},\\
\mathcal{B}_{{x},r}^o & :=\{{x}'\in\mathcal{X}\,:\,\rho({x},{x}')<r\}.\end{aligned}$$ We define the “support” of feature distribution ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ as $$\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}):=\{{x}\in{\mathcal{X}}\,:\,{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},r})>0\text{ for all }r>0\},$$ where ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},r})$ is the probability that a feature vector sampled from distribution ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ lands in $\mathcal{B}_{{x},r}$.
Since ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ and ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ are Hölder continuous with common exponent ${\alpha}$, then so are ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ and ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$, which appear in our analysis. With a bit of algebra, one can show that ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters ${({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}})t}$ and ${\alpha}$. Meanwhile, ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters $({\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}{t})$ and ${\alpha}$, where $${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*:=\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}],{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})}{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x}).$$ Our $k$-NN result depends on the constant $${\Lambda}:=\max\Big\{ \frac{2{\tau}}\theta({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}),\,
{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}{\tau}+ \frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}{\tau}^2}{2}
\Big\}.$$ As we explain shortly, the $k$-NN survival estimator is closely related to two subproblems: $k$-NN CDF estimation and a special case of $k$-NN regression. In the definition of ${\Lambda}$ above, the two parts of the maximization correspond precisely to the CDF estimation and regression components.
We state each of our main theoretical guarantees as a pointwise result, i.e., for any point ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and error tolerance $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, how to guarantee $\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$ with high probability using estimator $\widehat{{S}}$. Translating pointwise guarantees to account for randomness in sampling ${X}={x}$ from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ can easily be done using standard proof techniques, as we discuss momentarily.
$\bm{k}$-NN estimator results {#bmk-nn-estimator-results .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
We begin with the nonasymptotic $k$-NN estimator guarantee. Proofs are deferred to the appendix. As a disclaimer, no serious attempt has been made to optimize constants.
\[thm:kNN-survival\] Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance and define critical distance ${h^*:=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}}$. For any feature vector ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and any choice of number of nearest neighbors $k\in[\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}},\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}{2}]$, we have, over randomness in training data, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(
\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}
|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})
-{S}({t}|{x})|
> \varepsilon
\Big) \nonumber \\[-3\jot]
& \quad
\le
\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big)
+ \exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}{8}\Big) \nonumber \\[-0.5\jot]
& \quad\quad
+ 2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)
+ \frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big).
\label{eq:kNN-ptwise-bound}\end{aligned}$$
The four terms in the above bound correspond to penalties for the following bad events:
1. Too few of the $k$ nearest neighbors survive beyond time ${\tau}$ (in the worst case, none do, so from the data alone, we would suspect Assumption A3 to not hold)
2. The $k$ nearest neighbors are not all within critical distance $h^*$ of ${x}$ (by Assumption A4, the nearest neighbors should be close to ${x}$ to guarantee that they provide accurate information about ${S}(\cdot|{x})$)
3. The number of nearest neighbors $k$ is too small such that when we form an empirical distribution using their ${Y}_i$ values, this empirical distribution has not converged to its expectation, which is a CDF (note that when the previous bad event does not happen, then this CDF is approximately $1-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$)
4. The $k$-NN survival estimator can be viewed as solving a specific $k$-NN regression problem, which averages over the $k$ nearest neighbors’ “labels” (if ${X}_i$ is one of the $k$ nearest neighbors of ${x}$, then its label is taken to be $-\frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le t\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}$, i.e., this label depends on an accurate estimate for ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$, which the previous bad event is about). This last bad event is that the average of these $k$ labels is not close to its expectation due to $k$ being too small.
In our analysis, preventing bad event \#1 is pivotal to upper-bounding the $k$-NN survival estimator’s error by those of the $k$-NN CDF estimation and $k$-NN regression problems. Subsequently, bad event \#2 is about controlling the bias of these $k$-NN CDF and $k$-NN regression estimators, i.e., making sure their expectations are close to desired target values. Bad events \#3 and \#4 relate to controlling the variances of these $k$-NN CDF and $k$-NN regression estimates.
The observation that CDF estimation and regression subproblems arise is based on nonasymptotic analysis of the standard Kaplan-Meier estimator by @foldes_1981. For controlling the bias and variance of $k$-NN CDF and $k$-NN regression estimators, we use proof techniques by @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014.
To understand the consequences of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\], especially how it relates to the rate of convergence for the $k$-NN survival estimator, we examine sufficient conditions for which the RHS of bound is at most a user-specified error probability ${\gamma}\in(0,1)$. To achieve this, we can ask that each of the four terms be bounded above by ${\gamma}/4$. In doing so, a simple calculation reveals that the theorem’s conditions on $k$ and $n$ are met if $$k\ge\frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32}{\varepsilon{\gamma}},
\quad\text{and}\quad n\ge\frac{2k}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,h^*})}.
\label{eq:kNN-sufficient}$$ This pointwise guarantee highlights a key feature of nearest neighbor methods in that they depend on the *intrinsic* dimension of the data [@samory_2011; @samory_2013]. For example, consider when the feature space is ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbb{R}}^d$. Even though the data have *extrinsic* dimension $d$, it could be that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})$ scales as $(h^*)^{d'}$ for some $d'<d$. This could happen if the data reside in a low dimensional portion of the higher dimensional space (e.g., $\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ is a convex polytope of $d'<d$ dimensions within ${\mathbb{R}}^d$). Thus, examining the second inequality of , the number of training data $n$ sufficient for guaranteeing a low error in estimating ${S}(\cdot|{x})$ scales exponentially in the intrinsic dimension at $x$ (roughly, the smallest $d'>0$ for which ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},r})\sim r^{d'}$ for all small enough $r$).
Sufficient conditions also tell us when we can consistently estimate ${S}(\cdot|{x})$ for a fixed ${x}$. Specifically for any error tolerance $\varepsilon>0$, to have the error probability ${\gamma}$ go to 0, the condition on $k$ suggests that we take $k\rightarrow\infty$, which also means that $n\rightarrow\infty$. At the same time, the condition relating $n$ and $k$ says that we should have $k/n \le {\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})/2$. Recall that $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$, so if we pick $\varepsilon$ to be arbitrarily small, then ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})\rightarrow0$, so we want $k/n\rightarrow0$. We remark that choosing $k$ as a function of $n$ to satisfy $k\rightarrow\infty$ and $k/n\rightarrow0$ are the usual conditions on $k$ for $k$-NN classification and regression to be weakly consistent [@cover_1967; @stone_1977]. As for how $k$ should scale with $n$, this depends on ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})$. For example, if ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})\sim (h^*)^d$, then the second inequality of sufficient conditions says that $k$ should scale at most as $(h^*)^d n \sim \varepsilon^{d/{\alpha}} n$. In this case, our next result shows that the $k$-NN estimator is strongly consistent. Since $h^*$ is a function of $\varepsilon$, which we now take to go to 0, formally we shall assume that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,r})\ge p_{\min}r^d$ for all $r\in(0,r^*]$ for some positive constants $p_{\min}$, $d$, and $r^*$. Thus, as we shrink $\varepsilon$ toward 0, once $\varepsilon$ becomes small enough (namely $\varepsilon \le \frac{18{\Lambda}(r^*)^{\alpha}}\theta$), then $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}\in(0,r^*]$ and so ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,h^*})\ge p_{\min}(h^*)^d$.
\[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\] Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $x\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, and suppose that there exist constants $p_{\min} > 0$, $d > 0$, and $r^*>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,r})\ge p_{\min}r^d$ for all $r\in(0,r^*]$. Then there are positive numbers $c_1=\Theta\big( \frac1{(\theta{\Lambda})^{2d/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \big)$, $c_2=\Theta\big( \frac{\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/(5{\alpha}+2d)}}{{\Lambda}^{d/(5{\alpha}+2d)}} \big)$, and $c_3=\Theta\big( \frac{{\Lambda}^{d/(2{\alpha}+d)}}{\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \big)$ such that by choosing the number of nearest neighbors to be $
k_n:=\lfloor c_1 n^{2{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}\big(\log(c_2 n)\big)^{d/(2{\alpha}+d)}\rfloor,
$ with probability 1, $$\begin{aligned}
& \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\bigg\{
\frac{
\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}
|\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})
-{S}({t}|{x})|}{c_3 \big(\frac{\log(c_2 n)}{n}\big)^{{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}}
\bigg\}
< 1. $$
The above corollary follows from setting error probability ${\gamma}=1/n^2$ in sufficient conditions , solving the inequalities in the sufficient conditions for $\varepsilon$, $n$, and $k$ (and thus finding coefficients $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$ above), and finally applying the Borel-Cantelli lemma. Closed-form equations for $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$ are in Appendix \[sec:pf-kNN-strong-consistency\].
**Near-optimality.** Our nonasymptotic bound turns out to essentially be optimal. Consider when the censoring times always occur after the survival times, i.e., nothing is censored. Then the problem reduces to conditional CDF estimation ($1-S(\cdot|x)$ is a conditional CDF), for which the minimax lower bound for *expected squared error* under slightly more assumptions than we impose is $n^{-2{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}$ [@chagny_2014 Theorem 3]. Our result implies an upper bound on the expected squared error. First, note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}\Big[\int_0^{\tau}(\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x}))^2 dt\Big] \nonumber \\
&\quad \le {\tau}\mathbb{E}\Big[\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|^2\Big].
\label{eq:near-optimality1}\end{aligned}$$ Next, sufficient conditions say that with probability at least $1-{\gamma}$, none of the bad events happen so ${\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|} \le \varepsilon$ (for which we can square both sides and bring the square into the supremum); otherwise the supremum norm error is at worst 1. Hence, $$\mathbb{E}\Big[\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|^2\Big]
\le \varepsilon^2\cdot1 + 1\cdot{\gamma},
\label{eq:near-optimality2}$$ where on the RHS, the first term is the worst-case squared supremum norm error $\varepsilon^2$ when none of the bad events happen (this happens with probability at least ${1-{\gamma}}\le1$), and the second term is the worst-case squared supremum norm error of 1 (this happens with probability at most ${\gamma}$).
It suffices to set ${\gamma}=\varepsilon^2$ and find precise conditions on $k$, $n$, and $\varepsilon$ so that sufficient conditions hold (the calculation is similar to the one for deriving Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\]). By doing this calculation and combining inequalities and , we get that the survival estimator has expected squared error $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(n^{-2{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)})$, even if there is right-censoring.
**Results for random test feature vectors.** As there are a number of standard approaches for translating pointwise guarantees to ones accounting for randomness in sampling ${X}={x}\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$, we only focus on one such technique and briefly mention some others. Specifically, we consider a simple approach in which we partition the feature space ${\mathcal{X}}$ into a “good” region ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}$ with sizable probability mass (where many training data are likely to be), and a bad region ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{bad}}$ where we tolerate error (where there are likely to be too few training data). Using the same idea as described in Section 3.3.1 of @george_devavrat_book, we define the *sufficient mass region* as $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,r^{*})\\
& :=\{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})\,\!:\,\!{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},r})\ge p_{\min}r^{d}\;\,\forall r\in(0,r^*]\}, $$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{bad}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,r^{*})={\mathcal{X}}\setminus{\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,r^{*})$. The sufficient mass region for feature distribution ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ corresponds to portions of $\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ that behave like they have dimension $d$. Returning to the previous example, if ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ is a full-dimensional convex polytope, then there exists a $p_{\min}>0$ and $r^*>0$ such that ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,r^*) = \text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$. In general, when feature vector ${X}\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ lands in ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,h^*)$, then the conditions of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] are satisfied and, moreover, ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*}) \ge p_{\min}(h^*)^d$. We readily obtain the following corollary.
Under the same conditions as Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] except now sampling test point ${X}\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$, then over randomness in the training data and ${X}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(
\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}
|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})-{S}({t}|{X})|
> \varepsilon
\Big)\\[-2.7\jot]
& \quad
\le
\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big)
+ \exp\Big(-\frac{np_{\min}(h^*)^d}{8}\Big) \\[-0.7\jot]
& \quad\quad
+ 2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)
+ \frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big) \\
& \quad\quad
+ {\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}\big({\mathcal{X}}_{\text{bad}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,h^*)\big).\end{aligned}$$
Thus, if there exists $p_{\min}>0$, $d>0$, and $r^*>0$ such that ${\mathcal{X}}_{\text{good}}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}};p_{\min},d,r^*) = \text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, then strong consistency of $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(\cdot|{X})$ at the rate of Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\] holds over randomness in training data and $X\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$.
Other approaches are possible to obtain guarantees over randomness in both training data and ${X}$ from guarantees for fixed ${X}={x}$. For example, there are notions similar to the sufficient mass region specific to Euclidean space such as the *strong minimal mass assumption* of @gadat_2016 and the *strong density assumption* of @audibert_2007. An alternative strategy that stays in separable metric spaces is to use covering numbers from metric entropy. For details, see Section 3.3.3 of @george_devavrat_book.
Kernel estimator results {#kernel-estimator-results .unnumbered}
------------------------
Our kernel result uses an additional decay assumption:
- *The kernel function $K$ monotonically decreases, and there exists a standardized distance ${\phi}>0$ such that $K(s)>0$ for all $s\in[0,{\phi}]$ and $K(s)=0$ for $s>{\phi}$.* This assumption ensures that training data sufficiently far from $x$ have no impact on our estimation of ${S}(\cdot|x)$. (Small proof changes can be made to allow ${K({\phi})=0}$, e.g., to handle triangle and Epanechnikov kernels.)
Our kernel result depends on the kernel function’s maximal and minimal positive values, namely $K(0)$ and $K({\phi})$. We let $\kappa := K({\phi})/K(0)$, and define $${\Lambda}_K
:=\max\Big\{ \frac{2{\tau}}{\theta\kappa}({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}),\,
{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}{\tau}+ \frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}{\tau}^2}{2}
\Big\}.$$ The first term in the maximization (related to CDF estimation) has an extra $1/\kappa$ factor compared to ${\Lambda}$.
As our kernel survival estimator guarantee is similar to that of the $k$-NN estimator, we only present its pointwise version. Deriving a corresponding strong consistency rate, accounting for randomness in sampling ${X}\sim{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$, and showing near-optimality can be done as before. In particular, the two methods have similar asymptotic behavior.
\[thm:kernel-survival\] Under Assumptions A1–A5, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance. Suppose that the threshold distance satisfies $h\in(0,\frac1{\phi}(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_K})^{1/{\alpha}}]$, and the number of training data satisfies $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\kappa}$. For any ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^K({t}|{x};h)-{S}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\le\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\theta}{16}\Big) + \exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})}{8}\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\quad+\frac{216}{\varepsilon\theta^2\kappa}\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}\kappa^4}{11664}\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\quad+\frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}\kappa^2}{324}\Big). \label{eq:kernel-ptwise-bound}\end{aligned}$$
As with the $k$-NN analysis, the kernel estimator analysis involves two subproblems, a kernel CDF estimation (i.e., using weighted samples to construct an empirical distribution function) and a kernel regression. We remark that $k$-NN CDF estimation is straightforward to analyze because the different data points have equal weight, so we can apply the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz (DKW) inequality. To handle weighted empirical distributions, we establish the following nonasymptotic bound.
\[lem:weighted-edf\]Let real-valued random variables $Z_{1},\dots,Z_{\ell}$ be i.i.d. samples drawn from a continuous CDF $F$. Let ${w}_{1},\dots,{w}_\ell$ be any sequence of nonnegative constants such that $\sum_{i=1}^\ell {w}_i > 0$. Consider the following weighted empirical distribution function: $$\widehat{F}({t})
:= \sum_{i=1}^\ell
\frac{{w}_i}
{\sum_{j=1}^\ell {w}_j}
{\mathds{1}}\{Z_i\le {t}\}
\quad\text{for }{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ For every $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$, $$\mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}}|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|\!>\!\varepsilon\Big)\\
\! \le \! \frac6\varepsilon \exp\!\Big(-\!\frac{2\varepsilon^{2}(\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}{w}_j)^{2}}{9\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}{w}_i^{2}}\Big). $$
**Box kernel, weighted $\bm{k}$-NN.** If instead the kernel survival estimator is used with a box kernel (uniform weights), then we can use the DKW inequality instead of Proposition \[lem:weighted-edf\], leading to a slightly stronger pointwise guarantee (Theorem \[thm:h-near-survival\] in the appendix). We remark that proof ideas for our $k$-NN and kernel survival estimators can be combined to derive results for weighted $k$-NN survival estimators.
**Choosing $\bm{k}$ and $\bm{h}$ via a validation set.** Our main results choose $k$ and $h$ in a way that depends on unknown model parameters. In practice, validation data could be used to select $k$ and $h$ via minimizing the IPEC score [@gerds_2006; @lowsky_2013]. We obtain a nonasymptotic guarantee for a slight variant of the validation strategy by @lowsky_2013 in Appendix \[sec:validation\]. The high-level proof idea is simple. For example, for the $k$-NN estimator $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$, suppose we have an independent validation set of size $n$. Provided that the choices of $k$ that the user sweeps over for validation include one good choice according to Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\], then for large enough $n$, estimator $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ has a validation error that approaches that of ${S}$. Our proof is a bit nuanced and requires controlling both additive and multiplicative error in tail probability estimates, using our analysis for Nelson-Aalen-based nearest neighbor and kernel estimators (given in Appendix \[sec:Nelson-Aalen\]).
Distributions satisfying Assumptions A1–A4 {#distributions-satisfying-assumptions-a1a4 .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
We now provide example models that satisfy Assumptions A1–A4. In these examples, the feature space ${\mathcal{X}}$ and distance $\rho$ are Euclidean, and the Hölder exponent is ${\alpha}=1$ (so ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}$ and ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}$ are Lipschitz constants).
\[ex:exp-regress\] Let ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbb{R}}^d$, and ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ be any Borel probability measure with compact, convex support (so Assumption A1 is met). We define conditional survival function ${S}({t}|{x})$ using the hazard function ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}({t}|{x})=-\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\log{S}({t}|{x})={h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0} \exp({x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}})$ with parameters ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}>0$ and ${\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{S}({t}|{x})
&= \exp\Big(-\int_0^{t}{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}\exp({x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}})ds\Big) \\
&= \exp(-{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}{t}),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}={x}}$ $($which has CDF $1-{S}(\cdot|{x}))$ is exponentially distributed with parameter ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}$. We could similarly define the censoring time conditional distribution through the hazard function ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}({t}|{x})={h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}} \exp({x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}})$, with ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0}>0$ and $\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$. In this case, distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{C}|{X}={x}}$ is exponentially distributed with parameter ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$. At this point, Assumption A2 is also met since for any ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, distributions $\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}=x}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{{C}|{X}=x}$ correspond to continuous random variables.
We now present valid choices for $\theta$ and ${\tau}$ for Assumption A3. Recall that the observed time is ${Y}=\min\{{T},{C}\}$. Conditioned on ${X}={x}$, the minimum of independent exponential random variables is exponential. In particular, distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{Y}|{X}={x}}$ is exponentially distributed with parameter $\omega({x}):={h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}} + {h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$. Thus, if we pick $\theta=1/2$, then a valid choice for ${\tau}$ would be the smallest possible median of distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{Y}|{X}={x}}$ across all ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$. Note that the median of $\mathbb{P}_{{Y}|{X}={x}}$ is $({\log2})/{\omega({x})}$. Thus, we can pick ${\tau}=\min_{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})}\{({\log2})/{\omega({x})}\}$.
Lastly, for Assumption A4, due to $\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ being compact and convex, the conditional survival time density ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ has finite Lipschitz constant $${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}=\sup_{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}),{t}\in[0,{\tau}]} \Big\|\frac{\partial {f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})}{\partial {x}}\Big\|_2,$$ where $\|\cdot\|_2$ is Euclidean norm, and $\frac{\partial {f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})}{\partial {x}}
= {f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})(1-{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}{t})\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}.
$ We could similarly choose Lipschitz constant ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}$ for the conditional censoring time density ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$.
This exponential regression example can easily be generalized to Weibull regression, which is another proportional hazards model (see Appendix \[sec:weibull-regression\]).
To give an example that is not a proportional hazard model that satisfies Assumptions A1–A4, consider an integer-valued one-dimensional feature vector ${X}\sim\text{Uniform}\{1,2,\dots,100\}$. For a threshold ${\nu\in(1,100)}$, if ${X}\le\nu$, then we sample survival time ${T}$ from a Weibull distribution with shape parameter $q>0$ and scale parameter $\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},1}>0$. Otherwise if ${X}>\nu$, then we sample ${T}$ from a Weibull distribution still with shape parameter $q$ but a different scale parameter $\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},2}>0$. Thus, the marginal distribution of ${T}$ is a mixture of two Weibull distributions. We similarly define the censoring time ${C}$ to be a mixture of two Weibull distributions with common shape parameter $q$ and different scale parameters $\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},1}>0$ and $\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},2}>0$; we sample ${C}$ from the first component using the same threshold $\nu$ as before, i.e., when ${X}\le\nu$.
Conditioned on ${X}$, the distribution of observed time ${Y}=\min\{{T},{C}\}$ is now one of two possible Weibull distributions (the minimum of independent Weibull distributions with shape parameter $q$ is still Weibull with shape $q$): if ${{X}\le\nu}$, then ${Y}$ is Weibull with shape $q$ and scale ${(\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},1}^{-q}+\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},1}^{-q})^{-1/q}}$. Otherwise ${Y}$ is Weibull with shape $q$ and scale ${(\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},2}^{-q}+\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},2}^{-q})^{-1/q}}$. For Assumption A3, we can choose $\theta=1/2$ and ${\tau}$ to be the smaller median of the two possible Weibull distributions for ${Y}$, i.e., ${\tau}=\big[ \min\big\{\frac1{\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},1}^{-q}+\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},1}^{-q}},\frac1{\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},2}^{-q}+\psi_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},2}^{-q}}\big\}\log2\big]^{1/q}.$ Lastly, for Assumption A4, since $|\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})|$ is finite, we can set the Lipschitz constant ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}$ to be $${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}=\!\!\sup_{{x},{x}'\in\{1,2,\dots,100\}\text{ s.t.~}{x}\ne{x}',{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}\!\!\frac{|{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})-{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x}')|}{|{x}-{x}'|}.$$ Lipschitz constant ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}$ can be chosen similarly.
Experimental Results {#sec:experiments}
====================
We benchmark the four nonparametric estimators stated in Section \[sec:problem-setup\] against two baselines: the Cox proportional hazards model [@cox_1972], and a second baseline that explicitly solves the $k$-NN CDF estimation and $k$-NN regression subproblems (in succession) that arise in the theoretical analysis for the $k$-NN survival estimator (we refer to this method as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span>; for simplicity we only consider the $k$-NN variant and not the kernel variant). According to our theory, the $k$-NN survival estimator’s error should be upper-bounded by that of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span>. For the $k$-NN, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span>, and kernel methods, we standardize features and use $\ell_2$ and $\ell_1$ distances. For the $k$-NN and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span> methods, we also consider their weighted versions using a triangle kernel.[^1] For the kernel method, we use box and triangle kernels. We also have results for more kernel choices in Appendix \[sec:experiment-details\] (the Epanechnikov kernel performs as well as the triangle kernel, and truncated Gaussian kernels tend to perform poorly).
Dataset Description \# subjects \# dim.
------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------- ---------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span> primary biliary cirrhosis 276 17
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span> breast cancer 686 8
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span> recidivism 1445 14
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> dialysis 1044 53
: Characteristics of the survival datasets used.[]{data-label="tab:datasets"}
{width="0.44\linewidth"} {width="0.44\linewidth"}\
{width="0.44\linewidth"} {width="0.44\linewidth"}
We run the above methods on four datasets. Three are publicly available: the Mayo Clinic primary biliary cirrhosis dataset (abbreviated <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span>) [@fleming_1991], the German Breast Cancer Study Group 2 dataset (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span>) [@schumacher_1994], and the recidivism dataset (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span>) from @chung_1991. The fourth dataset we use is from a study on dialysis patients (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span>) by @ganssauge2016exploring. For <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span>, the survival time refers to time until death whereas for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span>, the “survival time” refers to time until a convicted criminal reoffends. The dataset sizes and number of features are reported in Table \[tab:datasets\]. In all cases, subjects with any missing features are removed. For the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> dataset, features with too many missing entries are also removed.
For each dataset, the basic experiment we run is as follows. We randomly divide the dataset into a 70%/30% train/test split. Using the training portion, for all methods except Cox proportional hazards, we run 5-fold cross-validation to select algorithm parameters before training on the full training set and predicting on the test set; prediction error is measured using the standard survival analysis accuracy metric of concordance index (c-index) [@harrell_1982] (details on c-index calculation and the parameter grids used are in Appendix \[sec:experiment-details\]). This basic experiment is repeated 10 times, so that every dataset gets randomly divided into train/test sets 10 different ways. Results are shown in Figure \[fig:cindices\].
We find that random survival forests and the adaptive kernel method (with a kernel learned using random survival forests) tend to have similar performance per dataset. These two methods have the best performance in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> datasets. However, on the smallest dataset considered (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span> with 276 subjects), while random survival forests and the adaptive kernel method outperform nearly all the other methods, their concordance indices are noticeably lower than those of the weighted $k$-NN and kernel survival estimators (both using triangle kernels). Separately, we find that the $k$-NN survival estimator always outperforms its corresponding <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span> variant. This agrees with our theory in which the $k$-NN estimator’s error is upper-bounded by that of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span>.
Conclusions
===========
By combining contemporary metric-space-based nearest neighbor theory by @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014 with the classic Kaplan-Meier analysis of @foldes_1981, we have established new guarantees for nearest neighbor and kernel variants of Kaplan-Meier and Nelson-Aalen estimators. We suspect that other recent theoretical developments in nearest neighbor and kernel methods also carry over to the survival analysis setting, such as adaptive methods for choosing the number of nearest neighbors $k$ or kernel bandwidth $h$ [@goldenshluger_lepski_2011; @samory_2011; @goldenshluger_lepski_2013; @samory_2013; @anava_2016], and error bounds that are uniform over test feature vectors rather than only over a randomly chosen test vector [@samory_2011; @samory_2013]. However, these developments do not explain the success of random survival forests and the proposed adaptive kernel variant. When and why do these nonparametric survival estimators work well, and how does their theory differ from that of standard random forests for regression and classification? Are there better ways of learning a kernel for use with kernel survival estimation? These questions outline promising directions for future exploration.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks Donald K.K. Lee for extremely helpful discussions.
Supplemental Material
=====================
These appendices cover all the proofs for the paper. We begin with a high-level analysis outline (Appendix \[sec:analysis-overview\]) followed by more detailed proofs (Appendices \[sec:pf-kNN-survival-lemmas\]–\[sec:pf-weighted-edf\]). An additional example model (Weibull regression) satisfying Assumptions A1–A4 is presented in Appendix \[sec:weibull-regression\]. Guarantees for nearest neighbor and kernel variants of the Nelson-Aalen estimator are in Appendix \[sec:Nelson-Aalen\]. Additional information on experimental results is in Appendix \[sec:experiment-details\].
Before presenting the proof of the kernel survival estimator result, we present an intermediate result for what we call the fixed-radius NN survival estimator.
*Fixed-radius NN survival estimator.* We find all training subjects with feature vectors at most a user-specified distance $h>0$ from ${x}$. Let ${\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}}({x})\subseteq[n]$ denote their indices. Then the fixed-radius NN estimator is $\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x}) := \widehat{{S}}^{\text{KM}}({t}|{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}}({x}))$.
This estimator is a special case of the kernel survival estimator with kernel $K(s)={{\mathds{1}}\{s \le 1\}}$. However, because this estimator weights all neighbors found within radius $h$ equally, we can actually derive a stronger guarantee than for the kernel estimator.
\[thm:h-near-survival\] Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance. Suppose that the threshold distance satisfies $h\in(0,h^*]$ with $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$, and the number of training data satisfies $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$. For any ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big)\nonumber\\
& \!\le\exp\!\Big(\!-\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\theta}{16}\Big)\!+\exp\!\Big(\!-\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}{8}\Big)\nonumber\\
& \!\;\,\! +\!2\exp\!\Big(\!-\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{1296}\!\Big)\hspace{-.07em}\!+\!\hspace{-.07em}\frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\!\Big(\!-\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{324}\!\Big). \label{eq:h-near-ptwise-bound}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if there exist constants $p_{\min}>0$, $d>0$, and $r^*>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,r})\ge p_{\min}r^d$ for all ${r\in(0,r^*]}$, then using the numbers $c_2=\Theta\big( \frac{\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/(5{\alpha}+2d)}}{{\Lambda}^{d/(5{\alpha}+2d)}} \big)$ and $c_3=\Theta\big( \frac{{\Lambda}^{d/(2{\alpha}+d)}}{\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \big)$ as in Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\], letting $c_1' := (\frac{\theta c_3}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}} = \Theta( \frac{1}{(\theta{\Lambda})^{2/(2{\alpha}+d)}} )$, and choosing threshold $$h_n := c_1'\Big(\frac{\log(c_2 n)}{n}\Big)^{\frac1{2{\alpha}+d}},$$ we have, with probability 1, $$\begin{aligned}
& \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\bigg\{\frac{\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}
|\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h_n)}({t}|{x})
-{S}({t}|{x})|}{c_3 \big(\frac{\log(c_2 n)}{n}\big)^{{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \bigg\}
< 1.\end{aligned}$$
Bound matches that of the $k$-NN estimator (bound ) with $k$ replaced by $\frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})$, and every instance of $h^*$ in the $k$-NN bound replaced by user-specified threshold $h$, which we ask to be at most $h^*$. The main change is that we now directly control how close training subjects must be to $x$ to be declared as neighbors, but we lose control over how many of them there are. The second term in bound is the penalty for not having at least $\frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})$ neighbors.
The technical core of the paper resides in the analysis of the $k$-NN survival estimator (proofs of Theorems \[thm:kNN-survival\] and Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\]). Our proofs for the analogous fixed-radius NN and kernel estimator guarantees primarily focus on aspects that differ from the case.
Analysis Outline {#sec:analysis-overview}
================
We outline the proof strategy for establishing the nonasymptotic estimator result (Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\]). The fixed-radius NN and kernel analyses are similar. We denote $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({t})$ to be the number of training subjects in ${\mathcal{I}}\subseteq[n]$ who survive beyond time ${t}$, i.e., $
d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({t}):=\sum_{j\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_j>{t}\}.
$ As with the analysis of the Kaplan-Meier estimator by @foldes_1981, we decompose the log of the estimate $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})$ into three terms with the help of a Taylor expansion. By Assumption A2, two deaths happen at the same time with probability 0, so $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) & =\prod_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\Big(\frac{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)}{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1}\Big)^{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the log of both sides, and noting that for any positive real number $z$, we have $\log(1+z)=\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell}(\frac{z}{z+1})^{\ell}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \log\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})\nonumber \\
& =-\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\!\!\!\!{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\log\Big(1+\frac{1}{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)}\Big)\nonumber \\
& =-\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\!\!\!\!{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1)^{\ell}}. \nonumber \\ & = U_1({t}|{x})+U_2({t}|{x})+U_3({t}|{x}), \label{eq:kNN-main-decomp}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
U_1({t}|{x}) & =\frac{1}{k}\!\!\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\!\!\!\!
-\frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})},\\
U_2({t}|{x}) & = - \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\!\!
\frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1} - U_1(t|x),\\
U_3({t}|{x}) & =-\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\!\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\!\frac{1}{\ell(d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1)^{\ell}}.\end{aligned}$$ For large enough $k$ and $n$, it turns out that $U_1({t}|{x})$ converges to $\log{S}({t}|{x})$ while $U_2({t}|{x})$ (first-order Taylor approximation error) and $U_3({t}|{x})$ (sum of higher-order Taylor series terms) both go to 0.
The first term $U_1({t}|{x})$ corresponds to a $k$-NN regression estimate that averages the “label” variable $\xi_i:=-\frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}$ across the $k$ nearest neighbors. Note that the label variable $\xi_i$ perfectly knows the observed time ${Y}$’s tail distribution ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$. Provided that the $k$ nearest neighbors have feature vectors within distance $h^*$ of ${x}$, then it turns out that $\mathbb{E}[\xi_i]\approx\log{S}(t|x)$. Thus, having the nearest neighbors close to $x$ aims to control the bias of the $k$-NN regression estimator $U_1({t}|{x})$.
To control the variance of regression estimator $U_1({t}|{x})$, i.e., for the $k$ labels being averaged to be close to its expectation, intuitively we want $k$ to be sufficiently large. However, how fast the average label converges to its expectation depends on whether the label variables $\xi_i$’s are correlated. The joint distribution of these $k$ label variables $\xi_i$’s is not straightforward to analyze. To circumvent this issue, we use a key proof technique by @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014. Specifically, let $\widetilde{X}$ denote the feature vector of the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$. Then conditioned on $\widetilde{X}$, the $k$ nearest neighbors’ feature vectors appear as i.i.d. samples from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ restricted to the open ball $\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$. Thus, upon conditioning on $\widetilde{X}$, regression estimate $U_1(t|x)$ indeed becomes the average of $k$ label variables $\xi_i$’s that appear i.i.d., so Hoeffding’s inequality tells us how fast their average converges to their expectation. Since the regression estimate $U_1({t}|{x})$ assumes perfect knowledge of the distribution of the $Y_i$’s (encoded in the tail probability ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$), unsurprisingly the first-order Taylor approximation error $U_2({t}|{x})$ is about how well we can estimate ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$. In particular, it turns out that $|U_2({t}|{x})|$ can be upper-bounded by how close the empirical distribution of the $k$ nearest neighbors’ ${Y}$ values is to the CDF $1-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$. Thus, the problem boils down to one of CDF estimation, for which there is once again a bias-variance sort of decomposition. The bias term is controlled by making sure that the $k$ nearest neighbors’ feature vectors are within distance $h^*$ of ${x}$. To control the variance, once again, we apply Chaudhuri and Dasgupta’s proof technique of conditioning on the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor’s feature vector $\widetilde{X}$. By doing this conditioning, the $k$ nearest neighbors’ observed times $Y_i$’s become i.i.d., so the DKW inequality can be applied to bound the empirical distribution’s deviation from its expectation.
In analyzing both $U_2({t}|{x})$ and $U_3({t}|{x})$, we remark that a key ingredient needed for our proof is that among the $k$ nearest neighbors, the number of them that survive beyond time ${\tau}$ (which is precisely $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})$) is sufficiently large. In the equations for $U_2({t}|{x})$ and $U_3({t}|{x})$, note that $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i) \ge d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})$ whenever ${Y}_i \le {\tau}$. Thus by making $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})$ large, the denominator terms of $U_2({t}|{x})$ and $U_3({t}|{x})$ are becoming big. This shrinks $|U_3({t}|{x})|$ to 0, and only partially helps in controlling $|U_2({t}|{x})|$, with the CDF estimation discussion above fully bringing $|U_2({t}|{x})|$ to 0.
**Relating to the Nelson-Aalen estimator.** When there are no ties in survival and censoring times, the Nelson-Aalen estimator is given by $$\widehat{{H}}^{\textsc{NA}}(t) := \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le{t}\}}{d_{[n]}^+({Y}_i)+1}.$$ Note that the first term in the definition of $U_2({t}|{x})$ is precisely a negated version of a $k$-NN variant of the Nelson-Aalen estimator! By showing that $U_1({t}|{x})+U_2({t}|{x})$ converges to $\log{S}({t}|{x})$, we can readily establish a nonasymptotic error bound for a Nelson-Aalen-based estimator for ${H}({t}|{x}):=-\log{S}({t}|{x})$. We state guarantees for $k$-NN and kernel Nelson-Aalen-based estimators in Appendix \[sec:Nelson-Aalen\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] {#sec:pf-kNN-survival-lemmas}
=====================================
To keep the exposition of the overall proof strategy clear, we defer proofs of supporting lemmas to the end of this section (in Appendices \[sec:pf-lem-kNN-bad-T\]–\[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R3\]). Much of the high-level proof structure is based on the nonasymptotic analysis of the Kaplan-Meier estimator by @foldes_1981. In addition to making changes to incorporate nearest neighbor analysis, we also make some technical changes to Földes and Rejtö’s proof, which we mention in Appendix \[sec:technical-changes\].
Following our analysis outline of Section \[sec:analysis-overview\], we denote $\widetilde{{X}}$ to be the feature vector of the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor to $x$. We will be using this variable throughout this section.
As we discussed after the presentation of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\], there are four key bad events. We now precisely state what these bad events are. For each bad event, we also show how to control its probability to be arbitrarily small. After presenting these probability bounds, we explain why none of these bad events happening implies that $|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$. This factor of $1/3$ is important in the argument by @foldes_1981 that translates an error guarantee for a fixed ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$ to one that holds simultaneously across all ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, i.e., ${\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})|}\le\varepsilon$.
The first bad event is that not enough of the $k$ nearest neighbors survive beyond the time horizon ${\tau}$. Note that our convergence arguments for $U_2({t}|{x})$ and $U_3({t}|{x})$ later require that $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})>k\theta/2$. Thus, our first bad event is $${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}):=\{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le k\theta/2\}.$$ We control $\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}))$ to be arbitrarily small by having the number of nearest neighbors $k$ be sufficiently large, which in turn requires the number of training data $n\ge k$ to be sufficiently large.
\[lem:kNN-bad-T\]Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. We have $$\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\big)\le\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big).$$
Next, for the terms $U_1({t}|{x})$ to converge to $\log {S}({t}|{x})$ and $U_2({t}|{x})$ to 0, we ask that the $k$ nearest neighbors found for ${x}$ be within a critical distance $h^*$ that will depend on Hölder continuity constants of Assumption A4. This leads us to the next bad event: $${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}):=\{\rho({x},\widetilde{X})\ge h^*\}.$$ Of course, if the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor is less than distance $h^*$ away from ${x}$, then so are the $k$ nearest neighbors. We control $\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}))$ to be arbtrarily small by making the number of training subjects $n$ sufficiently large. By sampling more training data, the $k$ nearest neighbors found for ${x}$ will gradually get closer to ${x}$.
\[@chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014, Lemma 9\]\[lem:chaudhuri\_dasgupta\_far\_neighbors\]Under Assumption A1, if $k\le\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})$, then $$\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}))\le\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}{8}\Big).$$
This lemma holds for any choice of distance $h^*>0$ although for our analysis, we will choose $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$. This particular choice of $h^*$ is explained later on in Lemmas \[lem:kNN-R1-bias\] and \[lem:kNN-R2-bias\].
To get to our next bad event, we first relate $U_2({t}|{x})$ to a CDF estimate. Specifically, the function $${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x}):=\frac{d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}(s)}{k}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i> s\}$$ is one minus an empirical distribution function. The next lemma bounds $|U_2({t}|{x})|$ in terms of ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$.
\[lem:kNN-R2-bound\] Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. When event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, $$\begin{aligned}
& |U_2({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\frac{2}{k\theta^{2}}+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|.\label{eq:kNN-R2-bound}\end{aligned}$$
The third bad event corresponds to the empirical distribution function being too far from its expectation: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\\
& \;:=\Big\{\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36}\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where importantly the expectation is, as with handling $U_1({t}|{x})$, a function of the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor $\widetilde{X}$. We control $\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x}))$ to be arbitrarily small by making the number of nearest neighbors $k$ sufficiently large. The rate of convergence for the empirical distribution function is given by the DKW inequality.
\[lem:kNN-bad-EDF\] Under Assumptions A1–A3, for any ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, $$\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\big)\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big).$$
The last bad event is that $U_1({t}|{x})$ is not close to its expectation $\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]$: $${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}(t,x):=\{|U_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\ge\varepsilon/18\}.$$ We control $\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}(t,x))$ to be small by making the number of nearest neighbors $k$ is sufficiently large.
\[lem:kNN-bad-R1\]Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. Then $$\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}(t,x))\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big).$$
At this point, we have collected all four main bad events. When none of these bad events happen, then starting from equation , applying the triangle inequality a few times, and using inequality , we get $$\begin{aligned}
& |\log\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& =|U_1({t}|{x})-\log {S}({t}|{x})+U_2({t}|{x})+U_3({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& \le|U_1({t}|{x})-\log {S}({t}|{x})|+|U_2({t}|{x})|+|U_3({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& \le |U_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]| \nonumber \\
& \quad+|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})| +|U_2({t}|{x})|+|U_3({t}|{x})| \nonumber\\
& \le|U_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber\\
& \quad+|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\nonumber\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{k\theta^{2}}+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber\\
& \quad+|U_3({t}|{x})|. \label{eq:kNN-6-term-bound}\end{aligned}$$ We show that the RHS is at most $\varepsilon/3$ by ensuring that each of its six terms is at most $\varepsilon/18$. The 1st and 5th terms are at most $\varepsilon/18$ since bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}(t,x)$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ do not happen. The 3rd term is at most $\varepsilon/18$ by recalling that the theorem assumes $k\ge\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^2}$, so $
\frac{2}{k\theta^2}
\le\frac{2}{(\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^2})\theta^2}
=\frac{\varepsilon}{36}
<\frac{\varepsilon}{18}
$.
The 2nd, 4th, and 6th RHS terms of inequality remain to be bounded. We tackle these in the next three lemmas. Note that these lemmas are deterministic. The first two lemmas ask that the $k$ nearest neighbors be sufficiently close to ${x}$ and make use of Hölder continuity; these lemmas explain why critical distance $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$ and why ${\Lambda}$ is defined the way it is.
\[lem:kNN-R1-bias\] Under Assumptions A1–A4 $($this lemma uses Hölder continuity of ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot))$, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, and $h^*\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2)/2 )}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, then $$|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
\[lem:kNN-R2-bias\] Under Assumptions A1–A4 $($this lemma uses Hölder continuity of ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|\cdot))$, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, and $h^*\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, then $$\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
\[lem:kNN-R3\] Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, and $k\ge\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}$, then $|U_3({t}|{x})|\le {\varepsilon}/{18}$.
Putting together the pieces so far, provided that all the bad events do not happen, then we have bounded all six RHS terms of inequality by $\varepsilon/18$: $$|\log\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\le6\cdot\frac{\varepsilon}{18}=\frac{\varepsilon}{3}.$$ For any $a,b\in(0,1]$, we have $|a-b|\le|\log a-\log b|$, so the above inequality implies that we also have $$|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{3}.$$ To establish Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\], we need to guarantee that $\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$. A sufficient condition that accomplishes this task is to ask that ${|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|}\le\varepsilon/3$ for a finite collection of times ${t}$ within the interval $[0,{\tau}]$. Specifically, we partition the interval $[0,{\tau}]$ into $L(\varepsilon)$ pieces such that $0=\eta_{0}<\eta_{1}<\cdots<\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}={\tau}$, where:
- ${S}(\eta_{j-1}|{x})-{S}(\eta_j|{x})\le\varepsilon/3$ for $j=1,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$,
- $L(\varepsilon)\le4/\varepsilon$.
We can always produce a partition satisfying the above conditions because the most ${S}$ can change from 0 to ${\tau}$ is by a value of 1 (${S}$ is one minus a CDF and is continuous). In this worst case scenario of ${S}$ changing by 1, by placing the points $\eta_j$’s at times where ${S}$ drops by exactly $\varepsilon/3$ in value (except across the last piece $[\eta_{L(\varepsilon)-1}, \eta_{L(\varepsilon)}]$, where ${S}$ could drop by less than $\varepsilon/3$), then $L(\varepsilon)=\lceil\frac{1}{\varepsilon/3}\rceil=\lceil3/\varepsilon\rceil\le4/\varepsilon$ where the last inequality holds for $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$. When ${S}$ changes by less than 1, $L(\varepsilon)$ could be smaller.
We shall ask that $|\widehat{{S}}(\eta_j|{x})-{S}(\eta_j|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$ for each $j=1,2,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$. Note that $\widehat{{S}}(\cdot|{x})$ is piecewise constant and monotonically decreasing. Moreover, $\widehat{{S}}(0|{x})={S}(0|{x})=1$ (the probability of a death happening at $t=0$ is 0). Thus, by having $\widehat{{S}}(\cdot|{x})$ differ from ${S}(\cdot|{x})$ by at most $\varepsilon/3$ at each $\eta_j$ for $j=1,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$, we are guaranteed that $|\widehat{{S}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$ for any time ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. In summary, here are all the bad events of interest:
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({t},{x})$ for ${t}=\eta_{1},\eta_{2},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$
The lemmas require $\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}\le k\le\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})$, and $h^*\le[\min\big\{\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2)/2 )},\,\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}}\big\}]^{1/{\alpha}}$. Union bounding over all the bad events, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}(\text{at least one bad event happens})\\
& \quad \le\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\big)+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})\big)+\sum_{\ell=1}^{L(\varepsilon)}\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_1}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}(\eta_{\ell},{x})\big)\\
& \quad \le\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big)+\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}{8}\Big)\\
& \quad \quad+2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)+\frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big). \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-T\] {#sec:pf-lem-kNN-bad-T}
--------------------------------
The key idea is that regardless of where each nearest neighbor $x'\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})$ lands in feature space ${\mathcal{X}}$, the probability that its observed time (the corresponding ${Y}$ variable) exceeds ${\tau}$ is ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({\tau}|{x}')\ge\theta$ (Assumption A3). This means that $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})$ stochastically dominates a $\text{Binomial}(k,\theta)$ random variable. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})) & =\mathbb{P}\Big(d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le\frac{k\theta}{2}\Big)\\
& \le\mathbb{P}\Big(\text{Binomial}(k,\theta)\le\frac{k\theta}{2}\Big)\\
& \le\exp\Big(-\frac{1}{2\theta}\cdot\frac{(k\theta-\frac{k\theta}{2})^{2}}{k}\Big)\\
& =\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality uses a Chernoff bound for the binomial distribution.$\square$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:chaudhuri\_dasgupta\_far\_neighbors\]
----------------------------------------------------------
This proof is by @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014 [Lemma 9]. Let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $h^*>0$. Let $\widetilde{X}$ denote the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$, and $N_{x,h^*}\sim\text{Binomial}(n,{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*}))$ denote the number of training data that land within distance $h^*$ of ${x}$. Note that $\rho({x}, \widetilde{X})\ge h^*$ implies that $N_{x,h^*}\le k$. Therefore, with the help of a Chernoff bound for the binomial distribution (with the assumption $1\le k\le\frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})$), $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}(\rho({x}, \widetilde{X})\ge h^*) \\
& \quad \le \mathbb{P}(N_{x,h^*}\le k) \\
& \quad \le \exp\Big(-\frac{(n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*}) - k)^2}{2n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}\Big) \\
& \quad \le \exp\Big(-\frac{(n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*}) - \frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*}))^2}{2n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}\Big) \\
& \quad = \exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*})}{8}\Big). \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R2-bound\]\[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R2-bound\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We abbreviate the set of $k$ nearest training subjects ${\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})$ as the set ${\mathcal{I}}$. We frequently use the fact that the function $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}$ monotonically decreases. Provided that bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, then we have $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({t})>k\theta/2$ for all ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& |U_2({t}|{x})|\\
& \; =\bigg|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\Big[\frac{k}{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({Y}_i)+1}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}\Big]\bigg|\\
& \; \le\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\Big|\frac{k}{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({Y}_i)+1}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}\Big|\\
& \; \le\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|\frac{k}{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)+1}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\Big|\\
& \; \le\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|\frac{k}{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)+1}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\Big|\\
& \; = \sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|\frac{k {S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x}) - d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s) - 1}{(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)+1){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\Big|\\
& \; \le\frac{k}{(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({\tau})+1){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({\tau}|{x})}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}{k}-\frac{1}{k}\Big|\\
& \; \le\frac{k}{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({\tau})\theta}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}{k}-\frac{1}{k}\Big|\\
& \; <\frac{2}{k\theta}\cdot\frac{k}{\theta}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}{k}-\frac{1}{k}\Big|\\
& \; =\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}{k}-\frac{1}{k}\Big|\\
& \; \le\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\Big(\frac{1}{k}+\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\Big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}{k}\Big|\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Using abbreviation ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s):={\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})={d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}(s)}/{k}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)| \nonumber\\
& \le\!\!\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}\!\!|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})\!-\!\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)|\widetilde{{X}}]| \!+\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)\!-\!\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)|\widetilde{{X}}]|.\end{aligned}$$ Putting together the two inequalities above, $$\begin{aligned}
|U_2({t}|{x})|
& \le\frac{2}{k\theta^{2}}+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)|\widetilde{{X}}]|\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s)|\widetilde{{X}}]|. \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-EDF\]
----------------------------------
This proof technique is from @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014 [Lemma 10], modified to handle the survival analysis setup. The randomness can be described as follows:
1. Sample a feature vector $\widetilde{X}\in{\mathcal{X}}$ from the marginal distribution of the $(k+1$)-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$.
2. Sample $k$ feature vectors i.i.d. from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ conditioned on landing in the ball $\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$.
3. Sample $n-k-1$ feature vectors i.i.d. from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ conditioned on landing in ${\mathcal{X}}\setminus\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$.
4. Randomly permute the $n$ feature vectors sampled.
5. For each feature vector ${X}_i$, sample its corresponding observed time ${Y}_i$ and censoring indicator ${\delta}_i$.
As a technical remark, the above description of randomness requires Assumption A1 to hold in addition to using randomized tie breaking when finding the $k$ nearest neighbors. Moreover, to incorporate this tie breaking into the theory, the definition of the open ball needs to be changed slightly, upon which the proof strategy still carries through. For details, see Section 2.7 in the Appendix of @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014.
The points sampled in step 2 are precisely the $k$ nearest neighbors of ${x}$. Thus, using the ${Y}_i$ variables corresponding specifically to the feature vectors generated in step 2 (let’s call these $k$ variables ${Y}_{(1)},\dots,{Y}_{(k)}$), construct the function $\Psi_{s}(\widetilde{X}):=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(\ell)}>s\}$.
Note that ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})=\Psi_{s}(\widetilde{X})$, and after conditioning on $\widetilde{X}$, empirical distribution function $1-\Psi_{s}(\widetilde{X})$ is constructed from i.i.d. samples from the CDF $$1-\mathbb{E}[\Psi(s)\,|\,\widetilde{X}]=1-\underbrace{\mathbb{P}({Y}>s\,|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}_{:=\overline{\Psi}(\widetilde{X})}.$$ Letting $\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}$ refer to the marginal distribution of $\widetilde{X}$ (from step 1 of the procedure above), then by the DKW inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36}\Big)\\
& =\mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{s\ge0}|\Psi_{s}(\widetilde{X})-\overline{\Psi}(\widetilde{X})|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36}\Big)\\
& =\int_{{\mathcal{X}}}\mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{s\ge0}|\Psi_{s}(\widetilde{X})-\overline{\Psi}(\widetilde{X})|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36}\,\Big|\,\widetilde{X}=\widetilde{x}\Big)d\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}(\widetilde{x})\\
& \le\int_{{\mathcal{X}}}2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)d\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}(\widetilde{x})\\
& =2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big). \tag*{$\square$} $$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-R1\]
---------------------------------
Again, we use the proof technique by @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014 [Lemma 10], slightly modified. The randomness can be described as follows:
1. Sample a feature vector $\widetilde{X}\in{\mathcal{X}}$ from the marginal distribution of the $(k+1$)-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$.
2. Sample $k$ feature vectors i.i.d. from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ conditioned on landing in the ball $\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$.
3. Sample $n-k-1$ feature vectors i.i.d. from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ conditioned on landing in ${\mathcal{X}}\setminus\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$.
4. Randomly permute the $n$ feature vectors sampled.
5. For each feature vector ${X}_i$, sample its corresponding observed time ${Y}_i$ and censoring indicator ${\delta}_i$.
6. Let $\xi_i=-\frac{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}$ for each $i$.
The points sampled in step 2 are the $k$ nearest neighbors of ${x}$. In particular, $U_1({t}|{x})$ is the average of $k$ terms that become i.i.d. after we condition on the $(k+1$)-st nearest neighbor $\widetilde{X}$: $$U_1({t}|{x})=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X}),$$ where $\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X})$ is the $\xi_i$ variable corresponding to one of the feature vectors drawn in step 2 (which depends on $\widetilde{X}$). Each $\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X})$ has expectation $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\xi}(\widetilde{X})
&:=\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,\Big|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o\Big] \nonumber \\
&\hspace{.25em}=\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}],
\label{eq:Ek-U1}\end{aligned}$$ which is a function of random variable $\widetilde{X}$. Moreover, each $\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X})$ is bounded in $[-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})},0]$.
Letting $\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}$ refer to the marginal distribution of the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor (from step 1 of the procedure above), then by Hoeffding’s inequality, ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$ monotonically decreasing, and Assumption A3, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(|U_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{12}\Big)\\
& =\mathbb{P}\Big(\Big|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X})-\overline{\xi}(\widetilde{X})\Big|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{12}\Big)\\
& =\int_{{\mathcal{X}}}\mathbb{P}\Big(\Big|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\xi_{\ell}(\widetilde{X})-\overline{\xi}(\widetilde{X})\Big|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\,\Big|\,\widetilde{X}=\widetilde{x}\Big)d\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}(\widetilde{x})\\
& \le\int_{{\mathcal{X}}}2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})]^2}{162}\Big)d\mathbb{P}_{\widetilde{X}}(\widetilde{x})\\
& =2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})]^2}{162}\Big)\\
& \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^2}{162}\Big). \tag*{$\square$} $$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R1-bias\]\[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R1-bias\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recall from equation in Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-R1\]’s proof that $$\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]
= \mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,\Big|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o\Big],$$ where $\widetilde{X}$ is the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$. With abbreviation $\mathcal{B}^o:=\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o$, $$\begin{aligned}
&|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}] -\log {S}({t}|{x})| \nonumber \\
& = |\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x}) -\log {S}({t}|{x})\,|\,\widetilde{{X}}]| \nonumber \\
& = \Big| \frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}^o} \{\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,| {X}={x}'] - \log {S}({t}|{x})\} d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}') }{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}^o)} \Big|\nonumber \\
& \le \frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}^o} |\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,| {X}={x}'] - \log {S}({t}|{x})| d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}') }{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}^o)} \label{eq:k-nn-survival-ptwise-R1-helper2b}\end{aligned}$$ As we show next, for any $x'\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^*},$ $$\Big|\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,\Big|\,{X}={x}'\Big] -\log {S}({t}|{x})\Big|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18},\label{eq:k-nn-survival-ptwise-helper3}$$ which, combined with inequality and noting that $\rho({x},\widetilde{X})\le (h^*)^{{\alpha}}$, implies that $$|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$ This means that conditioning on event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ not happening, we deterministically have ${|\mathbb{E}[U_1({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|}\le\varepsilon/18$.
We now just need to show that inequality holds. First, note that $\log {S}({t}|{x})$ is equal to the following expectation: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\bigg[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,\bigg|\,{X}={x}\bigg]\nonumber\\
& \quad =-\int_0^{{t}}\Big[\int_{s}^{\infty}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}d\mathbb{P}_{C|{X}={x}}(c)\Big]d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}={x}}(s)\nonumber\\
& \quad =-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\Big[\int_{s}^{\infty}d\mathbb{P}_{C|{X}={x}}(c)\Big]d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}={x}}(s)\nonumber\\
& \quad =-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})ds\nonumber\\
& \quad =-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S}(s|{x}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})ds\nonumber\\
& \quad =-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S}(s|{x})}{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})ds\nonumber\\
& \quad =\log {S}({t}|{x})-\log\underbrace{{S}(0|{x})}_{1}\nonumber\\
& \quad =\log {S}({t}|{x})\label{eq:logF-integral},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\frac{d}{dx}\log {S}({t}|{x})=-\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})}{{S}({t}|{x})}$ since ${S}$ is 1 minus the CDF and $f$ is the PDF of distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}={x}}$.
For any ${x}'$ within distance $h^*$ of ${x}$, using an integral calculation similar to the one above, $$\begin{aligned}
& \bigg|\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\bigg[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\;\bigg|\;{X}={x}'\bigg]-\log {S}({t}|{x})\bigg|\\
& =\bigg|-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}'){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}')ds\\
& \quad\quad+\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})ds\bigg|\\
& =\bigg|\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}({S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}'){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}'))ds\bigg|\\
& \le\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}'){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}')\big|ds.\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(\cdot|{x})$ monotonically decreases, Assumptions A3 and A4 (in particular, recall that ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters $({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s)$ and ${\alpha}$), and the choice of critical distance $h^*\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2})/2 )}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}\big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}'){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}')\big|ds\\
& \quad \le\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\int_0^{{t}}\big|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}'){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}')\big|ds\\
& \quad \le\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\int_0^{{t}}( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s )\rho({x},{x}')^{\alpha}ds\\
& \quad \le\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\int_0^{{t}} ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s) (h^*)^{\alpha}ds\\
& \quad =\frac{(h^*)^{\alpha}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\Big({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{t}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{t}^2}2\Big)\\
& \quad \le\frac{(h^*)^{\alpha}}{\theta}\Big({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2}2\Big) \\
& \quad \le \frac{\big([\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2})/2 )}]^{1/{\alpha}}\big)^{\alpha}}{\theta}\Big({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2}2\Big) \\
& \quad =\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.\end{aligned}$$ which establishes inequality .$\square$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R2-bias\]\[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R2-bias\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recall the description of randomness in the proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-R1\]. Let $\widetilde{X}$ denote the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor. Since bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, we know that $\rho({x},\widetilde{X})\le (h^*)^{{\alpha}}$. This means that, using the fact that ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters $({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}})s$ and ${\alpha}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& |{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber \\
& \quad = |{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{P}({Y}>s\,|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)|\nonumber \\
& \quad =\Bigg|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x}')d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}')}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}\Bigg|\nonumber \\
& \quad =\Bigg|\frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x}')]d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}')}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}\Bigg|\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x}')|d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}')}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\frac{\int_{\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o} ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}})s \rho({x},{x}')^{\alpha}d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}')}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\frac{ ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}})s (h^*)^{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o}d{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}({x}')}{{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},\rho({x},\widetilde{X})}^o)}\nonumber \\
& \quad = ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}})s(h^*)^{\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the supremum of both sides over $s\in[0,{\tau}]$, multiplying through by $\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}$, and noting that $h^*\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\\
& \quad \le\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}(h^*)^{\alpha}\\
& \quad \le\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}\Big(\Big[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}}\Big]^{1/{\alpha}}\Big)^{\alpha}=\frac{\varepsilon}{18}. \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R3\] {#subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R3}
-----------------------------
We abbreviate the set of $k$ nearest training subjects ${\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})$ as the set ${\mathcal{I}}$. Since bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ does not happen, we have $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({\tau})>k\theta/2$. Note that $|U_3({t}|{x})|=\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}\Xi_i$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_i & :={\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({Y}_i)+1)^{\ell}}. $$ Using the fact that $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}$ monotonically decreases, and that $\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(z+1)^{\ell}}=\log(1+\frac{1}z)-\frac{1}{z+1}\le\frac{1}{(z+1)^{2}}$ for all $z\ge0.46241$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_i &\le \sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({t})+1)^{\ell}} \le \frac{1}{(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({t})+1)^{2}} \\
&\le \frac{1}{(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({\tau})+1)^{2}} \le\frac{1}{(d_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{+}({\tau}))^{2}} \le\frac{4}{k^{2}\theta^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Lastly, using the assumption that $k\ge\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|U_3({t}|{x})|&=\sum_{i\in{\mathcal{I}}}\Xi_i\le\frac{4|{\mathcal{I}}|}{k^{2}\theta^{2}}=\frac{4k}{k^{2}\theta^{2}}=\frac{4}{k\theta^{2}}\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}. \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Technical Changes to the Analysis by @foldes_1981 {#sec:technical-changes}
-------------------------------------------------
Our event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ not happening ensures that $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})>k\theta/2$. Földes and Rejtö instead condition on two separate bad events, the first being $\{\max_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}{Y}_i\le {\tau}\}$. When this bad event does not happen, then the number of survivors beyond time ${\tau}$ satisfies $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\ge1$. This is a bit too weak of a requirement on $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})$. As a result, Földes and Rejtö condition on a second bad event not happening to guarantee that (slightly rephrased to be in our setup’s context) $d_{{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}^{+}({\tau})>k [{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({\tau}|{x})]^2$ (they ensure that this holds with high probability using Bernstein’s inequality). Effectively this means that they have an extra bad event that they condition on not happening.
Next, in the partitioning of $[0,{\tau}]$ into $L(\varepsilon)$ pieces, Földes and Rejtö actually have all bad events except $\{\max_{i\in{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})}{Y}_i\le {\tau}\}$ being repeated for $t=\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$. Put another way, their final bound is looser since they multiply many more terms by $L(\varepsilon)$.
Lastly, Földes and Rejtö use versions of the DKW and Bernstein’s inequalities with vintage constants that have since been improved. Notably, nowadays the DKW inequality generally refers to the refinement by @massart_1990.
Proof of Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\] {#sec:pf-kNN-strong-consistency}
=================================================
The basic idea of the proof is to solve for $\varepsilon$ and $n$ that satisfy both: i) sufficient conditions with error probability set to be equal to ${\gamma}=1/n^2$, and ii) $\varepsilon\le\frac{18{\Lambda}(r^*)^{\alpha}}{\theta}$. The choice of ${\gamma}$ is not special and is chosen so that summing it from $n=1$ to $n=\infty$ results in a finite number, upon which the Borel-Cantelli lemma finishes the proof. (This proof would still work but with different constants if ${\gamma}=1/n^{\nu}$ for any $\nu>1$ due to convergence of hyperharmonic series.) There is a small technical hiccup of making sure that there is a valid integer to set $k$ to be. The rest is a fair amount of algebra involving the Lambert W function. We provide the details for just the $k$-NN case below.
Let ${\gamma}=1/n^{2}$. Recall that $h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$. Then one can easily check that each of the terms in bound is at most ${\gamma}/4$ when $k$ and $n$ satisfy $$\frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32n^{2}}{\varepsilon}\le k\le\frac{np_{\min}}{2}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}.$$ We shall show how to set $\varepsilon\in(0, \frac{18{\Lambda}(r^*)^{\alpha}}\theta]$ as a function of $n$ (along with additional conditions on $n$) such that $$\frac{649}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32n^{2}}{\varepsilon}\le\frac{np_{\min}}{2}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}.\label{eq:kNN-almost-sure-helper1}$$ Having the constant 649 is intentional. When inequality holds, then $$\frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32n^{2}}{\varepsilon}+1
\!<\!
\frac{649}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32n^{2}}{\varepsilon}
\!\le\!
\frac{np_{\min}}{2}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}},$$ which guarantees there to be at least one integer between $\frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\frac{32}{\varepsilon{\gamma}}$ and $\frac{np_{\min}}{2}(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{d/{\alpha}}$. Hence, a valid choice for $k$ is $$k=\Big\lfloor\frac{np_{\min}}{2}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}\Big\rfloor.$$ The following pair of lemmas help us obtain a choice for $\varepsilon$ as well as conditions on how large $n$ should be; these lemmas are fundamentally about the Lambert W function.
\[Lemma 3.6.11 of @george_devavrat_book, combined with Theorem 2.1 of @hoorfar_2008\] \[lem:W0-conditions\] Let $W_{0}$ be the principal branch of the Lambert W function. For any $a>0,b>0,c>0$, and $z\in(0,b)$, we have $$z^{c}\ge a\log\frac{b}{z}$$ if either of the following is true:
- We have $$z\ge b\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{c}W_{0}\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)\bigg).
\label{eq:Chen-Shah-Lem-3-6-11-sufficient-condition}$$
- We have $$\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\ge e\quad\text{and}\quad z\ge\Big[\frac{a}{c}\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)\Big]^{1/c}.$$
This lemma with only part (a) is precisely Lemma 3.6.11 of @george_devavrat_book. Under the assumption that $\frac{cb^c}{a}\ge e$, then applying Theorem 2.1 of @hoorfar_2008, $$W_{0}\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)\ge\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)-\log\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big).$$ Thus, a sufficient condition to guarantee that inequality holds is to ask that $$\begin{aligned}
z & \ge b\exp\bigg(-\frac{1}{c}\Big[\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)-\log\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)\Big]\bigg)\\
& =\Big[\frac{a}{c}\log\Big(\frac{cb^{c}}{a}\Big)\Big]^{1/c}.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:W-1-conditions\] Let $W_{-1}$ be the lower branch of the Lambert W function. For any $a>0$, $b>0$, and $z>0$, $$z\ge a\log z+b$$ if any of the following is true:
- We have $\frac{b}{a}+\log a\le1$.
- We have $\frac{b}{a}+\log a>1$ and $$z\ge-aW_{-1}\Big(-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}\Big).$$
- We have $\frac{b}{a}+\log a>1$ and $$z\ge a\big(1+\sqrt{2\log(ae^{b/a-1})}+\log(ae^{b/a-1})\big).$$
To prove (a), using the assumption that $\frac{b}{a}+\log a\le1$, and recalling that $\log z\le z-1$ for all $z>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
a\log z+b & =a\Big(\log\frac{z}{a}+\frac{b}{a}+\log a\Big)\\
& \le a\Big(\log\frac{z}{a}+1\Big)\\
& \le a\Big(\frac{z}{a}-1+1\Big)\\
& =z.\end{aligned}$$ To prove (b), first off, note that under the assumption that $\frac{b}{a}+\log a>1$, then $-\frac{1}{e}<-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}<0$, so $W_{-1}(-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}})$ is well-defined. Next, assumption $z\ge-aW_{-1}\big(-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}\big)$ can be rewritten as $$-\frac{z}{a}\le W_{-1}\Big(-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}\Big).\label{eq:W-1-sufficient-condition}$$ At this point, noting that the inverse of $W_{-1}$ (namely $W_{-1}^{-1}(s)=se^{s}$, where $s\in(-\infty,-1]$) is a monotonically decreasing function, applying the inverse of $W_{-1}$ to both sides of the above inequality yields $$-\frac{z}{a}e^{-z/a}\ge-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}.$$ Rearranging terms yields $z\ge a\log z+b$, as desired.
Lastly, the proof for (c) just builds on (b). Using Theorem 1 of @lambert_w, $$W_{-1}\Big(-\frac{1}{ae^{b/a}}\Big)>-1-\sqrt{2\log(ae^{b/a-1})}-\log(ae^{b/a-1}).$$ A sufficient condition that guarantees inequality to hold is that $$-\frac{z}{a}\le-1-\sqrt{2\log(ae^{b/a-1})}-\log(ae^{b/a-1}),$$ i.e., $$z\ge a\big(1+\sqrt{2\log(ae^{b/a-1})}+\log(ae^{b/a-1})\big).\qedhere$$
Using Lemma \[lem:W0-conditions\] (with $a=\frac{2\cdot649}{n \theta^4 p_{\min} (\frac{\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{d/{\alpha}} }$, $b=32n^{2}$, $c=\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2$, and $z=\varepsilon$) and a bit of algebra, inequality holds if $$\begin{aligned}
n & \ge\Big(\frac{e}{\chi}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5}},\\
\varepsilon & \ge \Big[ \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2) \theta^4 p_{\min} (\frac{\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}} \cdot\frac{1}{n}\cdot\log(\chi^{\frac{1}{\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5}}n)\Big]^{\frac{1}{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\chi := \frac{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}} + 2) (32)^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2} \theta^4 p_{\min} (\frac{\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}}{2\cdot649}.\label{eq:kNN-almost-sure-main-constant}$$ In particular, we shall choose $$\varepsilon=\Big[ \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2) \theta^4 p_{\min} (\frac{\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}} \cdot\frac{1}{n}\cdot\log(\chi^{\frac{1}{\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5}}n)\Big]^{\frac{1}{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2}}.$$ To make sure that $\varepsilon\le\frac{18{\Lambda}(r^*)^{\alpha}}\theta$, we require that $$\begin{aligned}
n & \!\ge\! \frac{2\cdot649}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}} \big[({\textstyle \frac{2d}{{\alpha}}\!+\!5})\log n\!+\!\log\chi\big].\label{eq:kNN-almost-sure-helper2}\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:W-1-conditions\] (with $a=\frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}}$, $b=\frac{2\cdot649\cdot\log\chi}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}}$, and $z=n$), and defining $$u:=\log\Big(\Big[ \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}} \Big]\frac{\chi^{\frac{1}{\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5}}}{e}\Big),$$ then condition holds if $u\le0$ or, in the event that $u>0$, if we further constrain $n$ to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
n & \ge \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}} (1+\sqrt{2u}+u).\end{aligned}$$ In summary, define $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 &:= \frac12 p_{\min}^{\frac{2{\alpha}}{2{\alpha}+d}} \Big( \frac{649(5{\alpha}+2d)}{162(2{\alpha}+d)} \Big)^{\frac{d}{2{\alpha}+d}} \Big( \frac1{{\Lambda}\theta} \Big)^{\frac{2d}{2{\alpha}+d}}, \\
c_2 &:= \chi^{\frac{1}{2d+5}} = \Big[\frac{512(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}\theta^4}{649{\alpha}}\Big(\frac{16\theta}{9{\Lambda}}\Big)^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}\Big]^{\frac{{\alpha}}{5{\alpha}+2d}}, \\
c_3 &:= \Big[ \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2) \theta^4 p_{\min} (\frac{\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}} \Big]^{\frac{1}{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2}} \\
&\hspace{.25em}= \Big[\frac{1298(5{\alpha}+2d)}{(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}\theta^4}\Big(\frac{18{\Lambda}}{\theta}\Big)^{\frac{d}{{\alpha}}}\Big]^{\frac{{\alpha}}{2{\alpha}+d}} \\
c_4 &:= \frac{2\cdot649\cdot(\frac{2d}{{\alpha}}+5)}{(\frac{d}{{\alpha}}+2)p_{\min}(18\theta{\Lambda})^2(r^*)^{2\alpha+d}} \\
&\hspace{.25em}= \frac{649(5{\alpha}+2d)}{162(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}(r^*)^{2{\alpha}+d}\theta^2{\Lambda}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $u=\log (c_2 c_4 / e)$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
n_{0} & \!:=\!\begin{cases}
\big\lceil\frac{e^{{\alpha}/(5{\alpha}+2d)}}{c_2}\big\rceil & \!\text{if }\frac{c_2 c_4}e \!\le\! 1,\\
\big\lceil\max\big\{\frac{e^{{\alpha}/(5{\alpha}+2d)}}{c_2},\\
\quad c_4(1+\sqrt{2\log\frac{c_2 c_4}{e}}+\log\frac{c_2 c_4}{e})\big\}\big\rceil & \!\text{if }\frac{c_2 c_4}e \!>\! 1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $n\ge n_{0}$, the conditions that we discussed for $n$ are met, so we can choose $$\begin{aligned}
k_n & :=\Big\lfloor c_1 n^{\frac{2{\alpha}}{2{\alpha}+d}}\big(\log(c_2 n)\big)^{\frac{d}{2{\alpha}+d}}\Big\rfloor, \nonumber \\
\varepsilon_n & := c_3 \Big(\frac{\log(c_2 n)}{n}\Big)^{\frac{{\alpha}}{2{\alpha}+d}} \label{eq:kNN-almost-sure-how-to-choose-eps}\end{aligned}$$ to achieve $$\mathbb{P}\Big( \sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]} |\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})| \ge\varepsilon_n\Big)\le\frac{1}{n^{2}}.$$ As a result, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}\Big( \sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]} |\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})| \ge\varepsilon_n\Big)\\
& \le n_0 + \sum_{n=n_{0}}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{2}}\le n_0 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{2}}= n_0 + \frac{\pi^{2}}{6}<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ so by the Borel-Cantelli lemma, $$\mathbb{P}\Big(\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big\{ \sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]} |\widehat{{S}}^{k_n\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) - {S}({t}|{x})| \ge\varepsilon_n\Big\}\Big)=0.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:h-near-survival\] {#sec:pf-thm-h-near-survival}
========================================
The proof of the fixed-radius NN estimator is similar to that of the $k$-NN estimator and actually does not require the more nuanced analysis of @chaudhuri_dasgupta_2014. In particular, in proving the $k$-NN estimator guarantee, we took the expectation $\mathbb{E}[\,\cdot\,|\widetilde{{X}}]$, where $\widetilde{{X}}$ was the feature vector of the nearest neighbor of ${x}$. This conditioning made the $k$ nearest neighbors appear i.i.d. The analysis for the fixed-radius NN estimator is simpler in that with the threshold distance $h>0$ fixed, the training data that land within distance $h$ are i.i.d. as is. However, the bad events do slightly change since now there could be no neighbors found within distance $h$ of ${x}$. Whereas previously the number of neighbors was fixed, now the number of neighbors being random. Thus, instead of conditioning on the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor, we now condition on the number of neighbors.
We focus on the proof of the main fixed-radius NN estimator nonasymptotic bound . The proof of the strong consistency result is the same as that of the $k$-NN estimator with the only change being that we do not need to worry about $k$ (in proving the $k$-NN strong consistency result, Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\], we had a short extra step that makes sure that $k$ can be chosen to be a valid integer; for establishing the fixed-radius NN strong consistency result, we do not need this extra step although even if we use it, the choices for $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $n_0$ still work). We then pick the threshold distance to be $h=h^*=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}$, where $\varepsilon$ is chosen as in equation .
We proceed to proving the nonasymptotic bound . Let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $N_{x,h}=|\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})|$ denote the number of neighbors found within distance $h$ of ${x}$. Using the same reasoning as for the $k$-NN estimator, $$\begin{aligned}
& \log\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})\\
& \quad =\log\prod_{i\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}\Big(\frac{d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)}{d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1}\Big)^{{\delta}_i{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_i\le {t}\}}\\
& \quad =V_1({t}|{x})+V_2({t}|{x})+V_3({t}|{x}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V_1({t}|{x}) & =-\frac{1}{N_{x,h}}\!\sum_{\substack{i\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})\\
\text{s.t.~}{Y}_i\le {t}}
}\!\!\!\!{\delta}_i\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})},\\
V_2({t}|{x}) & =-\frac{1}{N_{x,h}}\!\sum_{\substack{i\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})\\
\text{s.t.~}{Y}_i\le {t}}
}\!\!\!\!{\delta}_i\Big[\frac{N_{x,h}}{d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1}\!\\
&\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;-\!\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_i|{x})}\Big],\\
V_3({t}|{x}) & =-\sum_{\substack{i\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})\\
\text{s.t.~}{Y}_i\le {t}}
}\!\!\!\!{\delta}_i\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({Y}_i)+1)^{\ell}}.\end{aligned}$$ Defining ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x}):=\frac{d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}(s)}{N_{x,h}}$, then the bad events are:
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x}):=\{N_{x,h}\le\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}{2}\}$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x}):=\{d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le\frac{N_{x,h}\theta}{2}\}$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x}):=$\
$\big\{{\underset{s\ge0}{\sup}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})|N_{x,h}]|}>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36}\big\}$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x):=\{|V_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})|N_{x,h}]|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\}$
Once all of these bad events do not happen, then applying a very similar proof to the $k$-NN estimator yields Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\]. Note that as before, we actually want ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)$ to hold for a finite collection of times $t=\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$ within interval $[0,{\tau}]$.
=10000
We remark that the union bounding over the bad events is done slightly differently for the fixed-radius NN estimator. In particular, at least one of the bad events happening can actually be written as the union over the following events:
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}$ for $t=\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$
We use the fact that for any two events $\mathcal{E}_1$ and $\mathcal{E}_2$, $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_1\cap\mathcal{E}_2)=\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_1)\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_2|\mathcal{E}_1)\le\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_2|\mathcal{E}_1)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}(\text{at least one bad event happens})\\
& \quad \le\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\sum_{\ell=1}^{L(\varepsilon)}\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(\eta_{\ell},x)\cap[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \le\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \quad+\sum_{\ell=1}^{L(\varepsilon)}\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(\eta_{\ell},x)\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big).\end{aligned}$$ The rest of this section is on giving upper bounds for the four different probability terms that appear on the RHS, and also on why when all of these bad events do not happen, we indeed have $|\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$ for any ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, which using the argument from proving Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] with carefully chosen points $\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$ is sufficient to guarantee that $\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$.
Under Assumption A1, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$. Let $N_{x,h}$ be the number of nearest neighbors found within distance $h$ of ${x}$. Then $$\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\big)\le\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}{8}\Big).$$
Since $N_{x,h}\sim\text{Binomial}(n,{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}))$, the claim follows from applying Chernoff’s inequality for the binomial distribution.
\[lem:h-near-bad-T\]Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \le\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\theta}{16}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
By conditioning on $N_{x,h}=k$ for any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, then a proof similar to that of Lemma \[lem:kNN-bad-T\] yields $$\mathbb{P}\Big(d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le\frac{k\theta}{2}\,\Big|\,N_{x,h}=k\Big)\le\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big).$$ We now use a worst-case argument that appears many times in later proofs. Let $k_{0}$ be the smallest integer larger than $\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad =\mathbb{P}\Big(d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le\frac{N_{x,h}\theta}{2}\,\Big|\,N_{x,h}\ge k_{0}\Big)\\
& \quad =\frac{\begin{bmatrix}\sum_{k=k_{0}}^{n}\mathbb{P}(N_{x,h}=k)\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\
\times\mathbb{P}\big(d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})}^{+}({\tau})\le\frac{k\theta}{2}\,\big|\,N_{x,h}=k\big)
\end{bmatrix}}{\mathbb{P}(N_{x,h}\ge k_{0})}\\
& \quad \le\frac{\sum_{k=k_{0}}^{n}\mathbb{P}(N_{x,h}=k)\exp\big(-\frac{k_{0}\theta}{8}\big)}{\mathbb{P}(N_{x,h}\ge k_{0})}\\
& \quad =\exp\big(-\frac{k_{0}\theta}{8}\big)\\
& \quad \le\exp\big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\theta}{16}\big).\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. When bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, $$\begin{aligned}
& |V_2({t}|{x})|\\
& \le\frac{2}{N_{x,h}\theta^{2}}\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|,\end{aligned}$$ where the RHS is a function of random variable $N_{x,h}$ (which is greater than 0 since bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ does not happen).
See the proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R2-bound\] as given in Appendix \[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R2-bound\], where we replace ${\mathcal{I}}={\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})$ with ${\mathcal{I}}={\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}}({x})$, $k$ with $N_{x,h}$, and bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ with ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$. Also instead of using expectation $\mathbb{E}[\,\cdot\,|\widetilde{{X}}]$ (i.e., conditioning on the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor), we use $\mathbb{E}[\,\cdot\,|N_{x,h}]$.
\[lem:h-near-bad-EDF\] Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{1296}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
By conditioning on $N_{x,h}=k$ for any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, then $1-{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})$ is an empirical distribution with samples drawn i.i.d. from CDF $1-{\mathbb{P}({Y}>s\,|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$. By the DKW inequality, $$\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,N_{x,h}=k\big)\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big).$$ A worst-case argument similar to the one in the ending of Lemma \[lem:h-near-bad-T\]’s proof says that ${\mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})\,\big|\,N_{x,h}>\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\big)}$ satisfies the above inequality with $k$ replaced by $\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})$.
\[lem:h-near-bad-V1\]Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{324}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $V_1({t}|{x})$ and $\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]$ can both be written as functions of random variable $N_{x,h}$, provided that $N_{x,h}$ is positive. Specifically, $$V_1({t}|{x}) = \frac{1}{N_{x,h}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{x,h}} \xi_\ell,$$ where random variables $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{N_{x,h}}$ are sampled i.i.d. from the same distribution as random variable $-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}$ (where feature vector $X$ is sampled from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ restricted to ball $\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}$, and observed time ${Y}$ and censoring indicator ${\delta}$ as sampled as usual conditioned on $X$). Each $\xi_\ell$ is bounded in $[-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})},0]$ and has expectation $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\xi}(N_{x,h})
&:=\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,\Big|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}\Big] \nonumber \\
&\hspace{.25em}=\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]. \nonumber
$$ Thus, using Hoeffding’s inequality, for any $k \in \{1,\dots,n\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(|V_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\,\Big|\,N_{x,h}=k\Big) \\
& \quad = \mathbb{P}\Big(\Big|\frac{1}{N_{x,h}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{N_{x,h}} \xi_\ell - \overline{\xi}(N_{x,h})\Big|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\,\Big|\,N_{x,h}=k\Big) \\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})]^2}{162}\Big)\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ A worst-case argument similar to the one in the ending of Lemma \[lem:h-near-bad-T\]’s proof yields $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \le\exp\big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{324}\big).\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Then when none of the bad events happen, $$\begin{aligned}
& |\log\widehat{{S}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\\
& \le|V_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|\\
& \quad+|\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|+\frac{2}{N_{x,h}\theta^{2}}\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|\\
& \quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|,\\
& \quad+V_3({t}|{x}).\end{aligned}$$ The 1st and 5th terms on the RHS are at most $\frac{\varepsilon}{18}$ since bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ do not happen (these bad events also rely on ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ not happening so that $N_{x,h}>0$). The theorem assumes that $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$, so the 3rd term is at most $\frac{2}{N_{x,h}\theta^{2}}<\frac{4}{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\theta^{2}}\le\frac{\varepsilon}{36}<\frac{\varepsilon}{18}$. The 2nd, 4th, and 6th terms can be bounded in a similar manner as we did for the $k$-NN estimator.
Under Assumptions A1–A4 $($this lemma uses Hölder continuity of ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot))$, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ does not happen, and the threshold distance satisfies $h\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{{\lambda}}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2)/2)}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, then $$|\mathbb{E}[V_1({t}|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
See the proof for Lemma \[lem:kNN-R1-bias\] as given in Appendix \[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R1-bias\]. The main change is that we don’t have to condition on the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$. Instead, conditioning on $N_{x,h}=k$ for integer $k$ in $(\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}),n]$, then $V_1({t}|{x})$ is the average of $k$ i.i.d. bounded random variables each with expectation $\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[-\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}|{x})}\,|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}]$.
Under Assumptions A1–A4 $($this lemma uses Hölder continuity of ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|\cdot))$, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ does not happen, and the threshold distance satisfies $h\le[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau})}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, then $$\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}]|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
See the proof for Lemma \[lem:kNN-R2-bias\] as given in Appendix \[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R2-bias\]. Once again, the main change is that we don’t have to condition on the $(k+1)$-st nearest neighbor of ${x}$. Instead, conditioning on $N_{x,h}=k$ for integer $k$ in $(\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h}),n]$, then $1-{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})$ is an empirical distribution constructed based on i.i.d. samples from CDF ${1-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}(s|{x})\,|\,N_{x,h}=k]}={1-\mathbb{P}({Y}>s\,|\,{X}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$.
Under Assumptions A1–A3, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, and $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$, then $|V_3({t}|{x})|\le {\varepsilon}/{18}.$
See the proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R3\] as given in Appendix \[subsec:pf-lem-kNN-R3\], where we replace ${\mathcal{I}}={\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x})$ with ${\mathcal{I}}=\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}({x})$, $k$ with $N_{x,h}$, and bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ with ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:kernel-survival\] {#sec:pf-thm-kernel-survival}
========================================
First off, we state a longer version of the kernel pointwise theorem that includes a strong consistency result. This is the version of the theorem we prove in this section.
\[thm:kernel-survival-long\] Under Assumptions A1–A5, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance. Suppose that the threshold distance satisfies $h\in(0,\frac1{\phi}(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_K})^{1/{\alpha}}]$, and the number of training data satisfies $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\kappa}$. For any ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^K({t}|{x};h)-{S}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\le\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\theta}{16}\Big) + \exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})}{8}\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\quad+\frac{216}{\varepsilon\theta^2\kappa}\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}\kappa^4}{11664}\Big) \nonumber \\
& \;\quad+\frac{8}{\varepsilon}\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}\kappa^2}{324}\Big). \nonumber $$ Moreover, if there exist constants $p_{\min}>0$, $d>0$, and $r^*>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,r})\ge p_{\min}r^d$ for all $r\in(0,r^*]$, then we get the same strong consistency behavior as in Theorem \[thm:h-near-survival\] with the numbers $c_1'$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ replaced by $c_1''=\Theta\big( \frac{1}{{\phi}(\theta{\Lambda}_K\kappa^2)^{2/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \big)$, $c_2''=\Theta\big( \frac{1}{(\theta{\Lambda}_K)^{d/(5{\alpha}+2d)}\kappa^{(d-2{\alpha})/(5{\alpha}+2d)}} \big)$, and $c_3''=\Theta\big( \frac{({\Lambda}_K)^{d/(2{\alpha}+d)}}{\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/(2{\alpha}+d)}\kappa^{4{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}} \big)$.
For the kernel estimator, there is a fair amount more notation to keep track of. To keep the equations from becoming unwieldy, we adopt the following abbreviations. First off, the training subjects with nonzero kernel weight are precisely the ones with feature vectors landing in the ball $\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}$. We denote the number of these subjects as $N:=N_{x,{\phi}h}\sim\text{Binomial}(n,{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}))$. We denote their data points as $({X}_{(1)},{Y}_{(1)},{\delta}_{(1)})$, $\dots$, $({X}_{(N)},{Y}_{(N)},{\delta}_{(N)})$; we treat the ordering of these points as uniform at random (the points could be thought of as being generated i.i.d. first by sampling a feature vector $X$ from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ restricted to $\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}$, and then sampling observed time ${Y}$ and censoring indicator ${\delta}$ as usual). We use the abbreviations $K_{(i)}:=K(\frac{\rho({x},{X}_{(i)})}{h})$, $d_{K}^{+}({t}):=\sum_{j=1}^N K_{(j)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(j)}>{t}\}$, and $${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t}):=\frac{d_{K}^{+}({t})}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(j)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(j)}>t\}.$$ Let $\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}$ denote the expectation only over the nearest neighbors’ observed times ${Y}_{(1)},\dots,{Y}_{(N)}$ (so we are conditioning on $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots {X}_{(N)}$). Similarly, we let $\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}$ denote the expectation only over only the nearest neighbors’ observed times and censoring indicators $({Y}_{(1)},{\delta}_{(1)}),\dots,({Y}_{(N)},{\delta}_{(N)})$.
Using the same reasoning as for the $k$-NN estimator, $$\begin{aligned}
\log\widehat{{S}}^{K}({t}|x;h)
& =\log\prod_{i=1}^{N}\Big(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})}{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}}\Big)^{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}}\\
& =W_1({t}|{x})+W_2({t}|{x})+W_3({t}|{x}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& W_1({t}|{x}) =-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(i)}{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}, \\
& W_2({t}|{x})\\
& =-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(i)}{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\big[\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\big]}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}, $$$$\begin{aligned}
W_3({t}|{x}) & =-\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})}{K_{(i)}}+1)^{\ell}}.\end{aligned}$$ The bad events are as follows:
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ is the same bad event as for the fixed-radius NN estimator except using threshold distance ${\phi}h$ instead of $h$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ is another bad event borrowed from the fixed-radius NN estimator
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad weighted EDF}}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}({x}):=\big\{\sup_{s\ge0}\big|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}\big[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})\big]\big|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}{36K(0)}\big\}$ is analogous to event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}({x})$
- ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }W_1}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}(t,x):=\{|W_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\}$ is analogous to event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }V_1}}^{{\textsc{NN}(h)}}}(t,x)$, and as before we ask that this holds at specific points $t=\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$ (using the same construction as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\])
We show how to prevent bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad weighted EDF}}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }W_1}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}(t,x)$in the next two lemmas.
\[lem:kernel-bad-wEDF\]Under Assumptions A1–A3 and A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad weighted EDF}}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}({x})\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \le \frac{216 K(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}
\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}K^{4}({\phi})}{11664 K^{4}(0)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
Conditioned on $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(N)}$ with $N$ positive (recall that $K_{(i)}$ depends on ${X}_{(i)}$), then ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^K({t})$ appears to be constructed from independent weighted samples, where the weights are deterministic and, moreover, $1-{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^K({t})$ is precisely a weighted empirical distribution with samples drawn i.i.d. from CDF $1-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]$. Thus, by conditioning on the event $$\mathcal{A}:=\{N=k,{X}_{(1)}=x_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(k)}=x_{(k)}\}$$ for any integer $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, and any choices for $x_{(1)},\dots,x_{(k)}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}$, we can then apply Proposition \[lem:weighted-edf\] (with $\ell=k$ and noting that $\sum_{i=1}^k {w}_i \ge k K({\phi})$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k {w}_i^2 \le k K^2(0)$) to get $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}{36K(0)}\,\Big|\,\mathcal{A}\Big)\\
& \quad \le \frac{216 K(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}\exp\Big(-\frac{k \varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}K^{4}({\phi})}{5832 K^{4}(0)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ This inequality holds for all ${x}_{(1)},\dots,{x}_{(k)}\in\mathcal{B}_{x,{\phi}h}$, so we can marginalize over ${X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(k)}$ to get: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]|>\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}{36K(0)}\,\Big|\,N=k \Big)\\
& \quad \le \frac{216 K(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}\exp\Big(-\frac{k \varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}K^{4}({\phi})}{5832 K^{4}(0)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, conditioned on $[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})]^{c}=\{N>\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\}$, a worst-case argument similar to the one used at the end of Lemma \[lem:h-near-bad-T\]’s proof yields the claim.
\[lem:kernel-bad-W1\]Under Assumptions A1–A3 and A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\big({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }W_1}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}(t,x)\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})]^{c}\big)\\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}K^{2}({\phi})}{324 K^{2}(0)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \[lem:h-near-bad-V1\]. Note that $$W_1({t}|{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{N}\underbrace{-\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{k}K_{(j)}}\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}}_{\text{bounded in }\big[-\big(\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}\big)\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})},\,0\big]}.$$ Conditioned on $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(N)}$ with $N$ positive, then $W_1({t}|{x})$ becomes a sum over independent random variables. Meanwhile, $\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]$ is precisely the expectation of $W_1({t}|{x})$ conditioned on $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(N)}$. Hence, by conditioning on the event $$\mathcal{A}:=\{N=k,{X}_{(1)}=x_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(k)}=x_{(k)}\}$$ for any $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, and any choices of $x_{(1)},\dots,x_{(k)}\in\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}$, and denoting ${w}_{(i)}:=K(\frac{\rho({x},x_{(i)})}h)$, Hoeffding’s inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(|W_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]|\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{18}\,\Big|\,\mathcal{A}\Big)\\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{\varepsilon^{2}(\sum_{j=1}^{k}{w}_{(j)})^{2}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})]^2}{162\sum_{i=1}^{k}{w}_{(i)}^{2}}\Big)\\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}K^{2}({\phi})[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})]^2}{162K^{2}(0)}\Big)\\
& \quad \le2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}K^{2}({\phi})\theta^{2}}{162K^{2}(0)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ We complete the proof the same way as in Lemma \[lem:kernel-bad-wEDF\]’s proof, marginalizing over ${X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(k)}$ and using a worst-case analysis argument to replace $k$ with $\frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})$.
Now that we have the bad events sorted out, the argument for why them not happening guarantees that $\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{K}({t}|x;h)-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$ proceeds in the same manner as for the $k$-NN and fixed-radius NN analyses. We first upper-bound $|W_2({t}|{x})|$.
\[lem:kernel-W2-decomp\]Under Assumptions A1–A3 and A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$. When bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, $$\begin{aligned}
|W_2({t}|{x})|
& \le\frac{2K(0)}{NK({\phi})\theta^{2}}\\
& \quad+\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})|\\
& \quad+\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}\sup_{{t}\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]|.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, when bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, $$\begin{aligned}
& |\widehat{{S}}^{K}({t}|x;h)-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& \quad \le|W_1({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]|\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad+|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|
+\frac{2K(0)}{NK({\phi})\theta^{2}}\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad+\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})|\nonumber \\
& \quad \quad+\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}\sup_{{t}\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]|\nonumber\\
& \quad \quad+|W_3({t}|{x})|.\label{eq:kernel-decomp}\end{aligned}$$ If we can upper-bound each of the RHS terms by ${\varepsilon}/{18}$, then we would be done since the rest of the proof is identical to the ending of the $k$-NN proof.
On the RHS of inequality , the 1st and 5th terms are at most $\frac{\varepsilon}{18}$ when bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }W_1}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}(t,x)$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad weighted EDF}}}^{{\text{kernel}}}}({x})$ do not happen. The 5th term is less than $\frac{\varepsilon}{18}$ when $n\ge\frac{144K(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})K({\phi})}$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ does not happen (so $N>\frac12 n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})$).
The rest of the section is on proving Lemma \[lem:kernel-W2-decomp\] and then bounding the 2nd, 4th, and 6th RHS terms (Lemmas \[lem:kernel-W1-bias\], \[lem:kernel-Hk-bias\], and \[lem:kernel-W3\]).
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:kernel-W2-decomp\]\]When bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, we are guaranteed that $N$ is an integer within $(\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h}),n]$, and $d_{K}^{+}({\tau})\ge K({\phi})d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}^{+}({\tau})>K({\phi})\frac{N\theta}{2}$. Using Hölder’s inequality and a bit of algebra, $$\begin{aligned}
& |W_2({t}|{x})|\\
& =\Bigg|\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Big({\textstyle \frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}\Big)}{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\\
& \quad\quad\quad\;\times\bigg[\frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\bigg]\Bigg| \\
& \le\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\bigg|{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\Big[{\textstyle \frac{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}}-\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}}\Big]\bigg| \\
& =\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\bigg|\varUpsilon_{(i)}\bigg[\varPhi({Y}_{(i)})+\varPsi({Y}_{(i)})+\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}\bigg]\bigg|,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\varUpsilon_{(i)} &:=\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}, \\
\varPhi({t}) & :={\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})-\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})],\\
\varPsi({t}) & :=\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x}).\end{aligned}$$ We can keep upper-bounding to get: $$\begin{aligned}
|W_2({t}|{x})|
& \le\Big[\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\varUpsilon_{(i)}\Big]\sup_{s\ge0}|\varPhi(s)|\nonumber \\
& \quad+\Big[\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\varUpsilon_{(i)}\Big]\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|\varPsi(s)|\nonumber \\
& \quad+\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\frac{\varUpsilon_{(i)}K_{(i)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}.\label{eq:pf-lem-W2-decomp-helper1}\end{aligned}$$ We upper-bound $\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\varUpsilon_{(i)}$ by upper-bounding $\varUpsilon_{(i)}$ for every $i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\varUpsilon_{(i)} & =\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({t})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({\tau})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({\tau}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({\tau})+K_{(i)})\theta}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})\theta}\nonumber \\
& <\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}NK(0)}{K({\phi})\frac{N\theta}{2}\theta}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}.\label{eq:pf-lem-W2-decomp-helper2}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we bound $\frac{\varUpsilon_{(i)}K_{(i)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varUpsilon_{(i)}K_{(i)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}
& =\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}K_{(i)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}K_{(i)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({t})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{K_{(i)}}{(d_{K}^{+}({t})+K_{(i)}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{K_{(i)}}{d_{K}^{+}({t}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{K_{(i)}}{d_{K}^{+}({\tau}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({\tau}|{x})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{K_{(i)}}{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})\theta}\nonumber \\
& <\frac{K(0)}{K({\phi})\frac{N\theta}{2}\theta}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}N}.\label{eq:pf-lem-W2-decomp-helper3}\end{aligned}$$ Combining inequalities , , and finishes the proof.
\[lem:kernel-W1-bias\] Under Assumptions A1–A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. When bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ does not hold, and the threshold distance satisfies $h\le \frac1{{\phi}}[\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18 ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{{\lambda}}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2)/2)}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, $$|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]-\log {S}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
Note that $\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[W_1({t}|{x})]$ is a function of random variables $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(N)}$. Since bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ does not happen, we know $N>\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]\\
& =\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}\bigg[-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\bigg]\\
& =\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}}\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_{(i)},{\delta}_{(i)}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{{Y}_{(i)},{\delta}_{(i)}}\Big[-\frac{{\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({Y}_{(i)}|{x})}\Big]\\
& =-\int_0^{{t}}\Big[\int_{s}^{\infty}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}d\mathbb{P}_{C|{X}={x}_{(i)}}(c)\Big]d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|X={X}_{(i)}}(s)\\
& =-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)})ds.\end{aligned}$$ Recall from equation that $$\log {S}({t}|{x})=-\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})ds.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})] - \log {S}({t}|{x}) \\
& \!=\! \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(i)}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}K_{(j)}} \\
& \;\, \times \!\!\! \int_0^{{t}}\!\!\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x}) \!-\! {S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)})]ds.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using Hölder’s inequality and since ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|\cdot){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters $({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s)$ and ${\alpha}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \big|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y},{\delta}\}}[W_1({t}|{x})]-\log {S}({t}|{x})\big|\\
& \le\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\bigg|\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}[{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})\\
& \quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)})]ds\bigg|\\
& \le\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\int_0^{{t}}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{x})\\
& \quad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)}){f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}(s|{X}_{(i)})|ds\\
& \le\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\int_0^{{t}}( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s )\rho({x},{X}_{(i)})^{\alpha}ds\\
& \le\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\max_{i=1,\dots,N}\int_0^{{t}}( {\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}s )({\phi}h)^{\alpha}ds\\
& =\frac{({\phi}h)^{\alpha}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})}\Big({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{t}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{{\lambda}}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{t}^2}2\Big)\\
& \le\frac{({\phi}h)^{\alpha}}{\theta}\Big({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{{\lambda}}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2}2\Big)\\
& \le\frac{\varepsilon}{18},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality uses the fact that $
h\le\frac1{{\phi}}[\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18 ({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}{\tau}+({f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^*{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}{\tau}^2)/2)}]^{1/{\alpha}}
$.
\[lem:kernel-Hk-bias\]Under Assumptions A1–A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. When bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ does not happen, and the threshold distance satisfies $h\le\frac1{{\phi}}[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}K(0)}]^{1/{\alpha}}$, $$\frac{2K(0)}{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})|\le\frac{\varepsilon}{18}.$$
Note that $\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]$ is a function of random variables $N,{X}_{(1)},\dots,{X}_{(N)}$. Since bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ does not happen, we know $N>\frac{1}{2}n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]
& =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(j)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}\mathbb{E}_{{Y}_{(j)}}[{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(j)}>t\}]\\
& =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(j)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{X}_{(j)}).\end{aligned}$$ Using Hölder’s inequality and since ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ is Hölder continuous with parameters $({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){t}$ and ${\alpha}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& |\mathbb{E}_{\{{Y}\}}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{K}({t})]-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})|\\
& \quad =\bigg|\sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{K_{(j)}}{\sum_{\ell=1}^{N}K_{(\ell)}}({S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{X}_{(j)})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x}))\bigg|\\
& \quad \le\max_{j=1,\dots,N}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{X}_{(j)})-{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{x})| \\
& \quad \le\max_{j=1,\dots,k}({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){t}\rho({x},{X}_{(j)})^{\alpha}\\
& \quad \le({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){t}({\phi}h)^{\alpha}\\
& \quad \le({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}({\phi}h)^{\alpha}\\
& \quad \le\frac{K({\phi})\theta^{2}}{2K(0)}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon}{18},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality uses the assumption that $h\le\frac1{{\phi}}[\frac{\varepsilon\theta^{2}K({\phi})}{36({\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}+{\lambda}_{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}){\tau}K(0)}]^{1/{\alpha}}$.
\[lem:kernel-W3\]Under Assumptions A1–A3 and A5, let ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$, ${t}\in[0,{\tau}]$, and $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$. If bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, and the number of training subjects satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
n & \ge\frac{144K^{2}(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})K^{2}({\phi})},\end{aligned}$$ then $|W_3({t}|{x})|\le{\varepsilon}/{18}$.
We have $|W_3({t}|{x})|=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Xi_{(i)}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{(i)} & :={\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({Y}_{(i)})}{K_{(i)}}+1)^{\ell}}\\
& \le {\delta}_{(i)}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{(i)}\le {t}\}\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({t})}{K_{(i)}}+1)^{\ell}}\\
& \le\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})}{K_{(i)}}+1)^{\ell}}\\
& \le\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})}{K(0)}+1)^{\ell}},\end{aligned}$$ using the facts that $d_{K}^{+}$ monotonically decreases and $K(\frac{\rho({x},{X}_i)}{h})\le K(0)$. Since bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{few neighbors}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}}}({x})$ do not happen, we have $$\begin{aligned}
d_{K}^{+}({\tau}) & \ge K({\phi})d_{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}({\phi}h)}({x})}^{+}({\tau}) \\
& >K({\phi})\frac{N\theta}{2}\\
& >K({\phi})\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\theta}{4}.\end{aligned}$$ Since we assume that $n\ge\frac{144K^{2}(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})K^{2}({\phi})}\ge\frac{1.84964K(0)}{\theta{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})K({\phi})}$, then using the above inequality, we have $\frac{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})}{K(0)}\ge0.46241$, which is needed to apply the reasoning from the proof of Lemma \[lem:kNN-R3\] to get $$\Xi_i \le\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\ell(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})}{K(0)}+1)^{\ell}} \le\frac{1}{(\frac{d_{K}^{+}({\tau})}{K(0)})^{2}}\le\frac{4K^{2}(0)}{K^{2}({\phi})N^{2}\theta^{2}}.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|W_3({t}|{x})| & =\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Xi_{(i)} \le\frac{4K^{2}(0)N}{K^{2}({\phi})N^{2}\theta^{2}} =\frac{4K^{2}(0)}{K^{2}({\phi})N\theta^{2}}\\
& <\frac{8K^{2}(0)}{K^{2}({\phi})n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\theta^{2}} \le\frac{\varepsilon}{18},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality uses the assumption that $n\ge\frac{144K^{2}(0)}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})K^{2}({\phi})}$.
Lastly, for the strong consistency result, the calculation is nearly the same as for the $k$-NN case in Appendix \[sec:pf-kNN-strong-consistency\]. To have each of the four terms in bound be at most $\frac{1}{4n^2}$, it suffices to have $$n \ge \frac{11664}{p_{\min}\varepsilon^2\theta^4\kappa^4}\Big(\frac{18{\Lambda}_K}{\varepsilon\theta}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}\log\frac{864n^2}{\varepsilon\theta^2\kappa},$$ where $$\varepsilon \le \frac{18{\Lambda}_K ({\phi}r^*)^{\alpha}}{\theta}.$$ Then with a fair bit of algebra, one can show that the constants that show up in the theorem statement are $$\begin{aligned}
c_1'' &:= \frac{1}{{\phi}}\Big[\frac{36(5{\alpha}+2d)}{(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}(\theta{\Lambda}_K)^2\kappa^4}\Big]^{1/(2{\alpha}+d)}, \\
c_2'' &:= \Big[\frac{64(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}}{{\alpha}\kappa^{(d-2{\alpha})/{\alpha}}}\Big(\frac{48}{\theta{\Lambda}_K}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}\Big]^{{\alpha}/(5{\alpha}+2d)}, \\
c_3'' &:= \Big[ \frac{11664(5{\alpha}+2d)(18{\Lambda}_K)^{d/{\alpha}}}{(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}\theta^{(4{\alpha}+d)/{\alpha}}\kappa^4} \Big]^{{\alpha}/(2{\alpha}+d)}
$$ In particular, define $u'':=\log(\frac{c_2'' c_4''}{e})$, where $$c_4'' := \frac{36(5{\alpha}+2d)}{(2{\alpha}+d)p_{\min}(\theta{\Lambda}_K)^2\kappa^4({\phi}r^*)^{2{\alpha}+d}}.$$ Then for $$n\ge
n_0'' :=
\begin{cases}
\lceil\frac{e^{1/(2d+5)}}{c_2''}\rceil
& \text{if }c_2''c_4''\le e, \\
\max\{\lceil\frac{e^{1/(2d+5)}}{c_2''}\rceil, \\ \quad c_4''(1+\sqrt{2u}+u)\}
& \text{if }c_2''c_4''>e,
\end{cases}$$ if we choose $$h_n := c_1'' \Big(\frac{\log(c_2'' n)}{n}\Big)^{1/(2{\alpha}+d)},$$ then $$\mathbb{P}\Big(
\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}\!\!
|\widehat{{S}}^K\!({t}|{x};\!h_n)
-{S}({t}|{x})|
\!\ge\! c_3''\Big(\frac{\log(c_2'' n)}{n}\Big)^{\!\frac{\alpha}{2{\alpha}+d}}
\Big)
\!\le\! \frac1{n^2}.$$ As with the end of the proof of Corollary \[thm:kNN-strong-consistency\] as provided in Appendix \[sec:pf-kNN-strong-consistency\], applying the Borel-Cantelli lemma completes the proof.
Proof of Proposition \[lem:weighted-edf\] {#sec:pf-weighted-edf}
=========================================
The proof strategy is similar to that of proving the estimator guarantee in terms of how the supremum is handled. Let $a:=\sup\{{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}:F({t})={\varepsilon}/{3}\}$ and $b:=\inf\{{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}:F({t})=1-{\varepsilon}/{3}\}$; these exist due continuity of $F$. We partition interval $[a,b]$ at points $a=\eta_{1}<\eta_{2}<\cdots<\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}=b$, where:
- $F(\eta_j)-F(\eta_{j-1})\le\varepsilon/3$ for $j=2,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$,
- $L(\varepsilon)\le3/\varepsilon$.
We can always produce $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$ satisfying the above conditions since if we take them to be at points in which $F$ increases by exactly $\varepsilon/3$ in value starting from $a$ (except for the last point $\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}$, where the increase from $\eta_{L(\varepsilon)-1}$ could be less than $\varepsilon/3$), then the most number $L(\varepsilon)$ of interval pieces needed is $\lceil\frac{(1-{\varepsilon}/{3})-{\varepsilon}/{3}}{\varepsilon/3}\rceil+1 = \lceil3/\varepsilon\rceil - 1 \le 3/\varepsilon$. Then since $\widehat{F}$ is piecewise constant, if we can guarantee that $|\widehat{F}(\eta_j)-F(\eta_j)|\le\varepsilon/3$ for $j=1,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$, then at any point ${t}\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we indeed will have $|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|\le\varepsilon$.
Thus, the main task is in showing, for any given ${{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}}$, how to guarantee $|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|\le\varepsilon/3$ with high probability, i.e., we want to upper-bound ${\mathbb{P}(|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|>\varepsilon/3)}$. Once we have an upper bound for this probability, then by a union bound, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}}|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|>\varepsilon\Big)\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\mathbb{P}\Big(\bigcup_{j=1}^{L(\varepsilon)}\{|\widehat{F}(\eta_j)-F(\eta_j)|>\varepsilon/3\}\Big)\nonumber \\
& \quad \le\sum_{j=1}^{L(\varepsilon)}\mathbb{P}(|\widehat{F}(\eta_j)-F(\eta_j)|>\varepsilon/3). \label{eq:lem-wEDF-helper1}\end{aligned}$$ We now upper-bound $\mathbb{P}(|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|>\varepsilon/3)$. Fix ${t}\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Note that $\widehat{F}({t})$ is the sum of $\ell$ independent variables, where the $i$-th variable is bounded in $[0,\frac{{w}_i}{\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}{w}_j}]$ Moreover, by linearity of expectation, $\mathbb{E}[\widehat{F}({t})]=F({t})$. Then applying Hoeffding’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}(|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|>\varepsilon/3)
& \le 2\exp\Big(-\frac{2\varepsilon^{2}(\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}{w}_j)^{2}}{9\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}{w}_i^{2}}\Big) \label{eq:lem-wEDF-helper2} $$ Putting together inequalities and , and noting that $L(\varepsilon)\le3/\varepsilon$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in{\mathbb{R}}}|\widehat{F}({t})-F({t})|>\varepsilon\Big)\\
& \quad \le \frac6\varepsilon \exp\Big(-\frac{2\varepsilon^{2}(\sum_{j=1}^{\ell}{w}_j)^{2}}{9\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}{w}_i^{2}}\Big). \tag*{$\square$}\end{aligned}$$
Choosing $\bm{k}$ Using a Validation Set {#sec:validation}
========================================
We now present a guarantee that chooses $k$ based on a validation set of size $n$, sampled in the same manner as the training set. A similar approach can be used to select bandwidth $h$ for the fixed-radius NN and kernel estimators. We denote the validation set as $(X_{1}',Y_{1}',\delta_{1}'),\dots,(X_{n}',Y_{n}',\delta_{n}')$. For the validation data, we minimize a variant of the IPEC score [@gerds_2006; @lowsky_2013], which requires conditional survival and censoring time tail estimates $\widehat{{S}}$ and ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ for ${S}$ and ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$. The IPEC score estimates the following mean squared error of $\widehat{{S}}$, which cannot be directly computed from training and validation data: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{MSE}(\widehat{{S}}) & :=\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}[({\mathds{1}}\{{T}>{t}\}-\widehat{{S}}({t}|{X}))^{2}]d{t}.\end{aligned}$$ Provided that estimators $\widehat{{S}}$ and ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ are consistent, then the IPEC score is a consistent estimator of $\text{MSE}({S})$ [@gerds_2006].
For any two estimators $\widehat{{S}}$ and ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ of ${S}$ and ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$, and user-specified time horizon ${\tau}>0$ and lower bound $\theta_{\text{LB}}>0$ for $\theta$ in Assumption A3, our IPEC score variant is $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{IPEC}(\widehat{{S}},{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}};{\tau},\theta_{\text{LB}}) \nonumber \\
& \quad:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\widehat{W}_{i}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}_{i}'>{t})-\widehat{{S}}({t}|{X}_{i}'))^{2}d{t},
\label{eq:our-magic-IPEC}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{W}_{i}({t}) & :=\begin{cases}
\frac{{\delta}_{i}'{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{i}'\le{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}_{i}'-|{X}_{i}')}+\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}_{i}'>{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X}_{i}')} & \text{if }{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X}_{i}')\ge\theta_{\text{LB}},\\
\frac{1}{\theta_{\text{LB}}} & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}-|{x})=\lim_{s\rightarrow{t}^{-}}{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{x})$ (for our estimators, ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ is piecewise constant so ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}-|{x})$ is straightforward to compute). The only difference between this score and the original IPEC score is that in the original IPEC score, there is no parameter $\theta_{\text{LB}}$ (put another way, $\theta_{\text{LB}}=0$). We introduce $\theta_{\text{LB}}$ to prevent division by 0 and so that in our analysis, the worst-case IPEC score is finite (note that $\widehat{W}_{i}({t})\le1/\theta_{\text{LB}}$, so the worst-case IPEC score is ${\tau}/\theta_{\text{LB}}$, assuming that estimate ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ monotonically decreases and $\widehat{{S}}$ takes on values between 0 and 1). In practice, $\theta_{\text{LB}}$ could simply be set to an arbitrarily small but positive constant. Due to the inherent symmetry in the problem setup, we can readily use the same $k$-NN estimator devised for estimating ${S}$ to instead estimate ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$. The only difference is that we replace the censoring indicator ${\delta}$ by $1-{\delta}$. In terms of the theory, the survival and censoring times swap roles. Thus, we can readily obtain estimates $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ and ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ of ${S}$ and ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$.
Note that in practice, often the number of censored data can be quite small compared to $n$, which can make estimating the conditional censoring tail function ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ difficult. There may be reason to believe that the censoring mechanism is actually independent of the feature vector, i.e., ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{x})=\mathbb{P}({C}>{t}|{X}={x})=\mathbb{P}({C}>{t})$. In this case, we can estimate ${S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ using, for instance, the standard Kaplan-Meier estimator (with ${\delta}$ replaced by $1-{\delta}$). Our validation guarantee will not be making this simplifying assumption; however, it can easily be modified to handle the case when the censoring time is independent of the feature vector.
The validation strategy we analyze is as follows: for a user-specified collection $\mathcal{K}$ of number of nearest neighbors to try (e.g., $\mathcal{K}=\{2^{j}:j=0,1,\dots,\lceil\log n\rceil\}$, or $\mathcal{K}=[n]$), choose $k\in\mathcal{K}$ that minimizes $\text{IPEC}(\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}},{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}};{\tau},\theta_{\text{LB}})$. Denote the resulting choice of $k$ as $\widehat{k}$. We have the following guarantee.
\[prop:validation-result\]Under Assumptions A1–A4, suppose that there exists $p_{\min}>0$, $d>0$, and $r^{*}>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},r})\ge p_{\min}r^{d}$ for all ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and $r\in[0,r^{*}]$. Let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a desired error tolerance and ${\gamma}\in(0,1)$ be a error probability tolerance in estimating $\widehat{{S}}$. Define ${\Lambda}_{\text{val}}:=\max\big\{\frac{2{\tau}}{\theta}({\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}+{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}),{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}{\tau}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}^{*}{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}{\tau}^{2}}{2},{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}{\tau}+\frac{{f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{*}{\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}{\tau}^{2}}{2}\big\},$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}^{*} & :=\bigg\{ k\in[n]:\frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\bigg[\frac{4}{{\gamma}}\Big(\frac{8}{\varepsilon}+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\Big)\bigg]\\
& \quad\quad\quad\le k\le\frac{1}{2}np_{\min}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}}\Big)^{d/\alpha}\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the above procedure for selecting $\widehat{k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}},{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}};{\tau},\theta_{\text{LB}})]\\
& \le2e^{\varepsilon}\text{MSE}({S})+2e^{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{2}{\tau}\\
& \quad+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\bigg[{\gamma}+\sqrt{\frac{\log(2|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}+{\mathds{1}}\{\theta_{\text{LB}}>\theta\}\\
& \quad\quad\;+{\mathds{1}}\{\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}=\emptyset\}+{\mathds{1}}\Big\{\varepsilon>\frac{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}(r^{*})^{\alpha}}{\theta}\Big\}\bigg].\end{aligned}$$
As with our rate of strong consistency results, the desired error tolerance $\varepsilon$ and error probability ${\gamma}$ should be set to decrease to 0 as a function of $n$. Also, unsurprisingly the terms in the bound involve parameters in the underlying model that the user does not know in practice. Note that by choosing $\mathcal{K}=\{2^{j}:j=0,1,\dots,\lceil\log n\rceil\}$, $\varepsilon$ and ${\gamma}$ to decrease with $n$ toward 0, and assuming that $\theta_{\text{LB}}>\theta$, then as $n\rightarrow\infty$, the bound above converges to $\text{MSE}(S)$.
In the bound, the first two terms correspond to approximation error in the IPEC score estimating $\text{MSE}({S})$. Next, ${\tau}/\theta_{\text{LB}}$ is the worst-case IPEC score. The terms that it is multiplied by are as follows:
- ${\gamma}$ is the error probability in estimating ${S}$ and $\log{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$
- The two $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(n^{-1/2})$ terms both have to do with the $|\mathcal{K}|$ empirical IPEC scores not being close to their means (over randomness in validation data)
- $\theta_{\text{LB}}>\theta$ happens when the user-specified $\theta_{\text{LB}}$ is not a lower bound for the true $\theta$
- $\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}=\emptyset$ means one of two things: either the number of training data $n$ is too small, or $\mathcal{K}$ is chosen poorly so that it does not contain any members of $\mathcal{K}^{*}$, which consists of good choices for the number of nearest neighbors $k$ (e.g., if $\mathcal{K}=\{2^{j}:j=0,1,\dots,\lceil\log n\rceil\}$, then by having the number of training data $n$ be large enough that $\mathcal{K}^*$ contains a power of 2, we can ensure $\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}$ to be nonempty)
- $\varepsilon>\frac{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}(r^{*})^{\alpha}}{\theta}$ happens when the error tolerance chosen is too large
Note that our analysis requires that we simultaneously have an additive error guarantee for $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ and a multiplicative error guarantee for ${\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$. We use the following lemma.
\[lem:e-IPEC-ptwise-bad-bound\]Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance and define critical distance $h^{*}=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}})^{1/\alpha}$. For any feature vector ${x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})$ and any choice of number of nearest neighbors $k\in[\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}},\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^{*}})}{2}]$, we have, over randomness in the training data, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\bigg(\Big\{\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big\}\nonumber \\
& \quad\cup\Big\{\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\log{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-\log{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big\}\Big)\nonumber \\
& \quad\le\exp\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big)+\exp\Big(-\frac{np_{\min}}{8}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}}\Big)^{d/{\alpha}}\Big)\nonumber \\
& \quad\quad+2\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)\nonumber \\
& \quad\quad+\Big[\frac{8}{\varepsilon}+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\Big]\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big).\label{eq:e-IPEC-ptwise-bad-bound}\end{aligned}$$
This lemma follows readily from the proof of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] and the remark at the end of Appendix \[sec:Nelson-Aalen\] for how to modify the proof of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\] to handle log. By carefully examining the proof for Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\], we see that bad events ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }{\tau}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$, ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{far neighbors}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$, and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad EDF}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$ for the $k$-NN estimate $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ of ${S}$ can actually be shared with the bad events for the $k$-NN estimate $\log{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ of $\log{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$, with the small change that we now replace ${\Lambda}$ with ${\Lambda}_{\text{val}}$ within the choice of $h^{*}$ (note that ${\Lambda}_{\text{val}}$ is now symmetric in the survival and censoring time terms, which naturally happens because we estimate tail functions for both).
With the above explanation, note that the first three RHS terms in bound are the same as those of Theorem \[thm:kNN-survival\]. However, bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad }U_{1}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({t},{X})$ (which is controlled at no larger than $8/\varepsilon$ time points) has to be changed for estimating $\log{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}$ instead (as discussed in Appendix \[sec:Nelson-Aalen\], the number of time points for controlling the log is at most $2(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1)$ instead of $8/\varepsilon$). Thus, the fourth RHS term in bound union bounds over the final $k$-NN regression pieces of estimators $\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$ and $\log{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}$.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:validation-result\] {#proof-of-proposition-propvalidation-result .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------
Bound is at most ${\gamma}$ (by making each of the four RHS terms at most ${\gamma}/4$) when $k$, $n$, and $\varepsilon$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{648}{\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}\log\bigg[\frac{4}{{\gamma}}\Big(\frac{8}{\varepsilon}+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\Big)\bigg]\nonumber \\
& \quad\le k\le\frac{1}{2}np_{\min}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}}\Big)^{d/\alpha},\label{eq:val-guarantee-sufficient-k}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \varepsilon\le\frac{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}(r^{*})^{\alpha}}{\theta}.\label{eq:val-guarantee-sufficient-eps}\end{aligned}$$ We refer to the bad event of Lemma \[lem:e-IPEC-ptwise-bad-bound\] as ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{k\textsc{-NN}}}}({x})$. The set $\mathcal{K}^{*}$ precisely corresponds to choices for the number of nearest neighbors that satisfy sufficient condition . If $\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}$ is nonempty, then the validation procedure could potentially select some $k\in\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}$. If, furthermore, $\theta_{\text{LB}}\le\theta$, and $\varepsilon$ satisfies condition , then our performance guarantee comes into effect. For the rest of the proof, we assume that these nice conditions happen; otherwise, we assume a worst-case IPEC score of ${\tau}/\theta_{\text{LB}}$.
Throughout the proof, we use the abbreviation $\text{IPEC}(k):=\text{IPEC}(\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}},{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}};{\tau},\theta_{\text{LB}})$. We denote $\mathbb{E}_{n}$ to be the expectation over the $n$ training data, and $\mathbb{E}_{n'}$ to be the expectation over the $n$ validation data.
We introduce a bad event for when at least one of the IPEC scores we compute during validation is not sufficiently close to its expectation over randomness in the validation data: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad IPEC}}}^{{}}}:=\bigcup_{k\in\mathcal{K}}\Bigg\{\text{IPEC}(k)\ge\mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(k)]\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\sqrt{\frac{\log(|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, over randomness in the validation data, $\text{IPEC}(k)$ is the average of $n$ independent terms each bounded in $[0,{\tau}/\theta_{\text{LB}}]$. Thus, by Hoeffding’s inequality and a union bound over $k\in\mathcal{K}$, we have $\mathbb{P}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad IPEC}}}^{{}}})\le1/\sqrt{n}$.
Let $\widetilde{k}\in\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}$. We will show shortly that $\mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]$ is close to $\text{MSE}({S})$. When bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad IPEC}}}^{{}}}$ does not happen, then $$\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})\le\mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\sqrt{\frac{\log(|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}.$$ Moreover, by how $\widehat{k}$ is chosen, $\text{IPEC}(\widehat{k})\le\text{IPEC}(k)$ for all $k\in\mathcal{K}$. In particular, $\text{IPEC}(\widehat{k})\le\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})$. Therefore, $$\text{IPEC}(\widehat{k})\le\mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\sqrt{\frac{\log(2|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}.$$ Taking the expectation $\mathbb{E}_{n}$ of both sides above over randomness in the training data, $$\mathbb{E}_{n}[\text{IPEC}(\widehat{k})]\le\mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\sqrt{\frac{\log(2|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}.\label{eq:validation-helper0}$$ Much of the rest of the proof is in upper-bounding $\mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]$ in terms of the mean squared error achieved by ${S}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{MSE}({S}) & =\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\big[\mathbb{E}_{{T}}[({\mathds{1}}\{{T}>{t}\}-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}]\big]d{t}.\end{aligned}$$ As it will be helpful to know what this is equal to, we compute it now. The inner-most expectation inside the integral is $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{{T}}[({\mathds{1}}\{{T}>{t}\}-S({t}|{X}))^{2}]\\
& \quad =\mathbb{E}_{{T}}[{\mathds{1}}\{{T}>{t}\}-2{\mathds{1}}\{{T}>{t}\}{S}({t}|{X})+({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}]\\
& \quad ={S}({t}|{X})-2({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}\\
& \quad ={S}({t}|{X})(1-{S}({t}|{X})).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\text{MSE}({S})=\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}[{S}({t}|{X})(1-{S}({t}|{X}))]d{t}.\label{eq:MSE-S}$$ We proceed to upper-bounding $\mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]$ in terms of $\text{MSE}({S})$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]\\
& \!=\!\frac{1}{n}\!\sum_{i=1}^{n}\!\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\!\!\!\mathbb{E}_{{X}_{i}',{Y}_{i}',{\delta}_{i}'}[\widehat{W}_{i}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}_{i}'>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}_{i}'))^{2}]d{t}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the validation data are i.i.d., let ${X}$ denote a feature vector sampled from ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ and denote its observed time and censoring indicator as ${Y}$ and ${\delta}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})] \\
&\quad=\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}_{{X},{Y},{\delta}}[\widehat{W}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}))^{2}]d{t},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{W}({t}) & :=\begin{cases}
\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}-|{X})}+\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})} & \text{if }{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})\ge\theta_{\text{LB}},\\
\frac{1}{\theta_{\text{LB}}} & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]\nonumber \\
& \!=\mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\mathbb{E}_{n'}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]\big]\nonumber \\
& \!=\!\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\!\!\!\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\Big[\mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[\widehat{W}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}))^{2}]\big]\Big]d{t}\nonumber \\
& \!=\!\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\!\!\!\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\big[\mathbb{E}_{n}[\Xi]\big]d{t},\label{eq:E-IPEC-actual}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Xi:=\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}[\widehat{W}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}))^{2}].$$ Note that $\Xi$ is a function of test point ${X}$ and the training data, and $\Xi$ is upper-bounded by $1/\theta_{\text{LB}}$. The expectation $\mathbb{E}_{n}[\Xi]$ is a function of ${X}$, which we are conditioning on (so we treat it as fixed). Then, denoting $\mathbb{P}_{n}$ to be probability over the training data, and noting that bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})$ is also a function of training data, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{n}[\Xi]
& =\underbrace{\mathbb{E}_{n}[\Xi\,|\,{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]}_{\le1/\theta_{\text{LB}}}\underbrace{\mathbb{P}_{n}({\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X}))}_{\le{\gamma}}\nonumber \\
& \quad+\mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\Xi\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\underbrace{\mathbb{P}_{n}([{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c})}_{\le1}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\gamma}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}+\mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\Xi\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big].\label{eq:E-IPEC-helper0}\end{aligned}$$ When bad event ${\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})$ does not happen, we simultaneously have $$\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{S}}^{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})-{S}({t}|{X})|\le\varepsilon, $$ and $$\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\log{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})-\log{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})|\le\varepsilon. $$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
& ({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}))^{2}\nonumber \\
& \quad\le(|{\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-{S}({t}|{X})|+|{S}({t}|{X})-\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})|)^{2}\nonumber \\
& \quad\le(|{\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-{S}({t}|{X})|+\varepsilon)^{2}\nonumber \\
& \quad\le2(({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}), $$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{W}({t}) & =\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({Y}-|{X})}+\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})}\nonumber \\
& \le\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({Y}|{X})}+\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X})}\nonumber \\
& \le e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}+e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})}. $$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{W}({t})({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{X}))^{2}\\
& \le e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}2(({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\\
& \quad+e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})}2(({\mathds{1}}({Y}>{t})-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\\
& =2e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}(({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\\
& \quad+2e^{\varepsilon}\frac{{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})}((1-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\Xi\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\nonumber \\
& =2e^{\varepsilon}({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})\nonumber\\
& \quad\qquad\times\mathbb{E}_{n}\bigg[\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}\,\Big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\Big]\bigg]\nonumber \\
& \quad+\frac{2e^{\varepsilon}((1-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X})}\nonumber\\
&\quad\qquad\times\mathbb{E}_{n}\Big[\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\big[{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}\,\Big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\Big].\label{eq:E-IPEC-helper3}\end{aligned}$$ Next, note that we are currently conditioning on ${X}$ and $[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}$. With this conditioning, $\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}$ (which does not depend on training data) is independent of $[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n}\bigg[\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}\,\Big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\Big]\bigg]\nonumber \\
& \quad=\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\Big[\frac{{\delta}{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}\le{t}\}}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({Y}|{X})}\Big]\nonumber \\
& \quad=\int_{0}^{t}\int_{s}^{\infty}\frac{1}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X})}d\mathbb{P}_{{C}|{X}}(c)d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}}(s)\nonumber \\
& \quad=\int_{0}^{t}\frac{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X})}{{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}(s|{X})}d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}}(s)\nonumber \\
& \quad=\int_{0}^{t}d\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}}(s)\nonumber \\
& \quad=1-{S}(t|{X}).\label{eq:E-IPEC-helper4}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n}\Big[\mathbb{E}_{{Y},{\delta}}\big[{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}\,\Big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\Big]\nonumber \\
& \quad=\mathbb{E}_{{Y}}[{\mathds{1}}\{{Y}>{t}\}] ={S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}({t}|{X}) ={S}({t}|{X}){S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|{X}).\label{eq:E-IPEC-helper5}\end{aligned}$$ Putting together inequality with equations and ,
$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\Xi\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\nonumber \\
& \quad\le2e^{\varepsilon}({S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2})(1-{S}({t}|{X}))\nonumber \\
& \qquad+2e^{\varepsilon}((1-{S}({t}|{X}))^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}){S}({t}|{X}).\nonumber \\
& \quad=2e^{\varepsilon}{S}({t}|{X})(1-{S}({t}|{X}))+2e^{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{2}.\label{eq:E-IPEC-helper6}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, putting together equation with inequalities and and also using equation , $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}[\text{IPEC}(\widetilde{k})]\\
& =\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\big[\mathbb{E}_{n}[\Xi]\big]d{t}\\
& \le\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\Big[\frac{{\gamma}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}+\mathbb{E}_{n}\big[\Xi\,\big|\,[{\mathcal{E}_{{\text{bad est}}}^{{\widetilde{k}\textsc{-NN}}}}({X})]^{c}\big]\Big]d{t}\\
& \le\int_{0}^{{\tau}}\mathbb{E}_{{X}}\Big[\frac{{\gamma}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}+2e^{\varepsilon}{S}({t}|{X})(1-{S}({t}|{X}))+2e^{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{2}\Big]d{t}\\
& =2e^{\varepsilon}\text{MSE}({S})+2e^{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{2}{\tau}+\frac{{\gamma}{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with inequality , we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}_{n}[\text{IPEC}(\widehat{k})]\\
& \le2e^{\varepsilon}\text{MSE}({S})+2e^{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{2}{\tau}+\frac{{\tau}}{\theta_{\text{LB}}}\bigg[{\gamma}+\sqrt{\frac{\log(2|\mathcal{K}|\sqrt{n})}{2n}}\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ This holds with probability at least $1-1/\sqrt{n}$ over randomness in the validation data and provided that $\theta_{\text{LB}}\le\theta$, $\mathcal{K}\cap\mathcal{K}^{*}\ne\emptyset$, and $\varepsilon\le\frac{18{\Lambda}_{\text{val}}(r^{*})^{\alpha}}{\theta}$.
Additional Example Distribution Satisfying Assumptions A1–A4 {#sec:weibull-regression}
============================================================
We generalize the exponential regression model of Example \[ex:exp-regress\]. As before, ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbb{R}}^d$, and ${\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}$ is a Borel probability measure with compact, convex support. We now take the hazard function to be ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}({t}|{x})=q ({h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0})^{q} {t}^{q-1} \exp({x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}})$ for parameters ${q>0}$, ${{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}>0}$, and ${\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ (choosing $q=1$ yields Example \[ex:exp-regress\]). Following a similar integral calculation as in Example \[ex:exp-regress\], we have ${S}({t}|{x})=\exp(-({h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}} {t})^{q})$, so the conditional survival time distribution $\mathbb{P}_{{T}|{X}={x}}$ corresponds to a Weibull distribution with shape parameter $q$ and scale parameter $[ {{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}} ]^{-1}$. We similarly define the conditional censoring time distribution using hazard function ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}({t}|{x})=q ({h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0})^{q} {t}^{q-1} \exp({x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}})$ using the same $q>0$ as for the survival time but different parameters ${h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0}>0$ and $\beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$. In this case, the observed time ${Y}=\min\{{T},{C}\}$ conditioned on ${X}={x}$ has a Weibull distribution with shape parameter $q$ and scale parameter $1/\omega'({x})$, where $$\omega'({x})
:=
{\big[\big({{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}}\big)^q
+ \big({{h}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}},0}e^{{x}^\top \beta_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}}\big)^q\big]^{1/q}}.$$ The median of this distribution is $[(\log2)^{1/q}]/\omega'({x})$. Thus, Assumption A3 is satisfied with $\theta=1/2$ and ${\tau}= \min_{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})} \{[(\log2)^{1/q}]/\omega'({x})\}$. Lastly, for Assumption A4, we can again take the Lipschitz constant for ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$ to be ${\lambda}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}=\sup_{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}),{t}\in[0,{\tau}]} \|\frac{\partial {f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{T}}}}}}({t}|{x})}{\partial {x}}\|_2$. We can similarly choose the Lipschitz constant for ${f_{{\textsc{\tiny{{C}}}}}}({t}|\cdot)$.
Nearest Neighbor and Kernel Variants of the Nelson-Aalen Estimator {#sec:Nelson-Aalen}
==================================================================
The Nelson-Aalen estimator estimates the marginal cumulative hazard function ${H}_{\text{marg}}({t})=-\log{S}_{\text{marg}}({t})=-\log\mathbb{P}({T}>{t})$ [@nelson_1969; @aalen_1978]. We first give the general form of the Nelson-Aalen estimator, restricted to training subjects ${\mathcal{I}}\in[n]$. Recall that among training subjects ${\mathcal{I}}$, the set of unique death times is ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}$. At time ${t}\ge0$, the number of deaths is $d_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t})$ and the number of subjects at risk is $n_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t})$. Then the Nelson-Aalen estimator restricted to subjects ${\mathcal{I}}$ is given by $$\widehat{{H}}^{\text{NA}}({t}|{\mathcal{I}}):=\sum_{t'\in{\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathcal{I}}}}\frac{d_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}'){\mathds{1}}\{{t}'\le{t}\}}{n_{{\mathcal{I}}}({t}')}.$$ Thus, the Nelson-Aalen-based $k$-NN and fixed-radius NN estimates for the (conditional) cumulative hazard function ${H}({t}|{x})=-\log{S}({t}|{x})$ are $\widehat{{H}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}):=\widehat{{H}}^{\text{NA}}({t}|{\mathcal{N}_{k\textsc{-NN}}}({x}))$ and $\widehat{{H}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x}):=\widehat{{H}}^{\text{NA}}({t}|{\mathcal{N}_{\textsc{NN}(h)}}({x}))$.
Recalling that for kernel $K$ and bandwidth $h>0$, the kernel versions of the unique death times, number of deaths, and number of subjects at risk are denoted ${\mathcal{Y}}_{K}({x};h)$, $d_{K}({t}|{x};h)$, and $n_{K}({t}|{x};h)$, then the Nelson-Aalen-based kernel estimate for ${H}({t}|{x})$ is $$\widehat{{H}}^{K}({t}|{x};h):=\sum_{t'\in{\mathcal{Y}}_{K}(x;h)}\frac{d_{K}({t}'|{x};h){\mathds{1}}\{{t}'\le{t}\}}{n_{K}({t}'|{x};h)}.$$ As already discussed in our analysis outline (Section \[sec:analysis-overview\]), the main change to our proofs to obtain nonasymptotic guarantees for these Nelson-Aalen-based estimators is quite simple: for any of the Kaplan-Meier-based estimators $\widehat{{S}}$ we consider, taking the first-order Taylor expansion of $\log\widehat{{S}}$ is exactly the negated version of the corresponding Nelson-Aalen-based estimator. This is the only high-level change. A few technical changes have to be made to arrive at a guarantee for each Nelson-Aalen-based estimator. We explain these changes only for the $k$-NN case.
We reuse notation from our analysis outline (Section \[sec:analysis-overview\]). When there are no ties in survival and censoring times, we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\widehat{{H}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x}) & =U_{1}({t}|{x})+U_{2}({t}|{x}).\end{aligned}$$ Importantly, note that we no longer have to worry about the higher-order Taylor series terms $U_{3}({t}|{x})$. Thus, rather than using inequality , we now have $$\begin{aligned}
& |\widehat{{H}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{H}({t}|{x})|\\
& \quad=|U_{1}({t}|{x})-\log{S}({t}|{x})+U_{2}({t}|{x})|\\
& \quad\le|U_{1}({t}|{x})-\mathbb{E}[U_{1}({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad+|\mathbb{E}[U_{1}({t}|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]-\log{S}({t}|{x})|\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad+\frac{2}{k\theta^{2}}+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\in[0,{\tau}]}|{S_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad+\frac{2}{\theta^{2}}\sup_{s\ge0}|{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})-\mathbb{E}[{\widehat{S}_{{\textsc{\tiny{{Y}}}}}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}(s|{x})|\widetilde{{X}}]|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have five RHS terms. As before, we want the RHS to be at most $\varepsilon/3$. For simplicity, we use our earlier bounds, which controls each of the RHS terms to be at most $\varepsilon/18$ so that the RHS above is at most $5\varepsilon/18<\varepsilon/3$.
At this point, another change is needed. Previously we showed that $|\log\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-\log{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$ implies $|\widehat{{S}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$. We then used the fact that ${S}(\cdot|{x})$ changes by at most a value of 1 over the interval $[0,{\tau}]$. Now we do not remove the logs and instead observe that ${H}(\cdot|{x})$ changes by at most a value of $-\log{S}({\tau}|{x})\le-\log\theta=\log\frac{1}{\theta}$ over the interval $[0,{\tau}]$. Thus, when we partition the interval $[0,{\tau}]$ into $L(\varepsilon)$ pieces such that $0=\eta_{0}<\eta_{1}<\cdots<\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}={\tau}$, as before, we ask that $|\widehat{{H}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{H}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon/3$ for $j=1,\dots,L(\varepsilon)$. However, the bound on $L(\varepsilon)$ changes. By placing the points $\eta_{j}$’s at times when ${H}({t}|{x})$ changes by exactly $\varepsilon/3$ (except possibly across $[\eta_{L(\varepsilon)-1},\eta_{L(\varepsilon)}]$, where ${H}({t}|{x})$ can change by less), then $
L(\varepsilon)=\lceil\frac{\log\frac{1}{\theta}}{\varepsilon/3}\rceil=\lceil\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}\rceil\le\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1.
$ The rest of the proof is the same.
We now state the resulting pointwise guarantees for the Nelson-Aalen-based $k$-NN, fixed-radius NN, and kernel estimators.
\[Nelson-Aalen-based $k$-NN pointwise bound\]Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance and define critical distance $\ensuremath{{h^{*}:=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}}}$. For any feature vector $\ensuremath{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})}$ and any choice of number of nearest neighbors $\ensuremath{k\in[\frac{72}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}},\!\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^{*}})}{2}]}$, we have, over randomness in training data, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{H}}^{k\textsc{-NN}}({t}|{x})-{H}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big)\nonumber\\
& \le\exp\!\Big(-\frac{k\theta}{8}\Big)\!+\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h^{*}})}{8}\Big)\nonumber\\
& \;\;+2\exp\!\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{648}\Big)\!+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\!\exp\Big(-\frac{k\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{162}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
\[Nelson-Aalen-based fixed-radius NN pointwise bound\]Under Assumptions A1–A4, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance. Suppose that the threshold distance satisfies $h\in(0,h^{*}]$ with $\ensuremath{{h^{*}:=(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}})^{1/{\alpha}}}}$, and the number of training data satisfies $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}$. For any $\ensuremath{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{H}}^{\textsc{NN}(h)}({t}|{x})-{H}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big)\nonumber\\
& \quad\le\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\theta}{16}\Big)+\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})}{8}\Big)\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad+2\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}}{1296}\Big)\\
& \quad\quad+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}}{324}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
\[Nelson-Aalen-based kernel pointwise bound\]Under Assumptions A1–A5, let $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ be a user-specified error tolerance. Suppose that the threshold distance satisfies $h\in(0,\frac{1}{{\phi}}(\frac{\varepsilon\theta}{18{\Lambda}_{K}})^{1/{\alpha}}]$, and the number of training data satisfies $n\ge\frac{144}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})\kappa}$. For any $\ensuremath{{x}\in\text{supp}({\mathbb{P}_{{X}}})}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\Big(\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\widehat{{H}}^{K}({t}|{x};h)-{H}({t}|{x})|>\varepsilon\Big)\nonumber\\
& \quad\le\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,{\phi}h})\theta}{16}\Big)+\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{{x},{\phi}h})}{8}\Big)\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad+\frac{216}{\varepsilon\theta^{2}\kappa}\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{4}\kappa^{4}}{11664}\Big)\\
& \quad\quad+2\Big(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}\log\frac{1}{\theta}+1\Big)\exp\!\Big(-\frac{n{\mathbb{P}_{{X}}}(\mathcal{B}_{x,{\phi}h})\varepsilon^{2}\theta^{2}\kappa^{2}}{324}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
We remark that the slight change in the proof (regarding partitioning $[0,{\tau}]$ as to handle log space) can actually be applied to any of the nearest neighbor and kernel Kaplan-Meier-based estimators $\widehat{{S}}$ to guarantee that $\sup_{{t}\in[0,{\tau}]}|\log\widehat{{S}}({t}|{x})-\log{S}({t}|{x})|\le\varepsilon$.
Details on Experimental Results {#sec:experiment-details}
===============================
**Concordance index calculation.** Harrell’s concordance index (c-index) [@harrell_1982] is a pairwise-ranking-based accuracy metric for survival analysis. Roughly, it measures the fraction of pairs of subjects that are correctly ordered among pairs that can actually be ordered (not every pair can be ordered due to censoring). As such, the highest c-index is 1, and 0.5 corresponds to a random ordering. Because c-index is ranking based, it requires that a survival estimator provide some way to rank pairs of subjects in terms of who is at greater risk (ties are allowed).
C-index is computed as follows. Suppose that there are $n'$ test subjects with data $(X_1',Y_1',\delta_1'),\dots,(X_{n'}',Y_{n'}',\delta_{n'}')\in\mathcal{X}\times\mathbb{R}_+\times\{0,1\}$. Then:
1. Construct the set of all pairs of test subjects: $$\mathcal{P}:=\{(i,j) : i,j\in[n'] \text{ such that } i<j\}.$$
2. Remove any pair $(i,j)$ from $\mathcal{P}$ for which the earlier observed time among test subjects $i$ and $j$ is censored.
3. Remove any pair $(i,j)$ from $\mathcal{P}$ for which the observed times are tied unless at least one of test subjects $i$ and $j$ has an event indicator value of 1.
4. For each pair $(i,j)$ that remains in $\mathcal{P}$, we compute a score $C_{(i,j)}$ for $(i,j)$ as follows:
- If $Y_i' \ne Y_j'$: set $C_{(i,j)}:=1$ if the subject with the shorter observed time (which is guaranteed to be a survival time due to step 2) is predicted to be at higher risk among subjects $i$ and $j$; set $C_{(i,j)}:=1/2$ if the predicted risks are tied between subjects $i$ and $j$; otherwise, set $C_{(i,j)}:=0$.
- If $Y_i' = Y_j'$ and $\delta_i'=\delta_j'=1$: set $C_{(i,j)}:=1$ if the predicted risks are tied between $i$ and $j$; otherwise, set $C_{(i,j)}:=1/2$.
- If $Y_i' = Y_j'$ and exactly one of $\delta_i'$ or $\delta_j'$ is 1: set $C_{(i,j)}=1$ if the predicted risk is higher for the subject with event indicator set to 1; otherwise set $C_{(i,j)}=1/2$.
5. Finally, the c-index is given by: $$\frac1{|\mathcal{P}|} \sum_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{P}} C_{(i,j)}.$$
As for how we rank any pair of test subjects in our experimental results, we use the same approach as @ishwaran_2008. Let $Y_1^*,\dots,Y_m^*$ denote the unique observed times among the test subjects. Then test subject $i$ is considered to be at higher risk than test subject $j$ if $$\sum_{j=1}^{m} \widehat{H}(Y_j^*|X_i')
> \sum_{j=1}^{m} \widehat{H}(Y_j^*|X_j'),$$ where $\widehat{H}$ is an estimate of the conditional cumulative hazard function $H(t|x)=-\log S(t|x)$ (we can, for instance, use nearest neighbor and kernel variants of the Nelson-Aalen estimator). (As a remark, other ways of ranking test subjects are possible. For instance, for the $i$-th test subject, we could estimate the subject’s median survival time by finding time $t\ge0$ such that $\widehat{S}(t|X_i')\approx1/2$ for some estimate $\widehat{S}$ of conditional survival function $S$, and then rank the test subjects by predicted median survival times, i.e., shorter predicted median survival time means higher risk.)
**Parameter selection grids.** For the $k$-NN estimator, we search for $k$ over integer powers of 2, starting at 4 and up to the size of the training dataset. For the kernel estimator, we first compute the largest pairwise distance $h_{\max}$ seen in the training data. Then we search for kernel bandwidth $h$ from 0.01$h_{\max}$ to $h_{\max}$ on an evenly spaced logarithmic scale with 20 grid points. For random survival forests and the adaptive kernel variant, we search over the number of trees (50, 100, 150, 200) and over the max depth (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and lastly no restriction on max depth).
**Extended results.** We now present extended experimental results that also include Epanechnikov and truncated Gaussian kernels for the $k$-NN, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cdf-reg</span>, and kernel estimators. The truncated Gaussian kernel is of the form $K(s)=\exp(-\frac{s^2}{2\sigma^2}){\mathds{1}}\{s\le1\}$ for standard deviation/scale parameter $\sigma>0$. We have results for $\sigma\in\{1,2,3\}$. The concordance indices are reported for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> datasets in Figures \[fig:pbc\], \[fig:gbsg2\], \[fig:recid\], and \[fig:kidney\].
We also report our IPEC score variant given in equation (with $\theta_{\text{LB}}=10^{-6}$) in Figures \[fig:pbc-ipec\], \[fig:gbsg2-ipec\], \[fig:recid-ipec\], and \[fig:kidney-ipec\]. Note that this IPEC score requires a user-specified time horizon ${\tau}$. For a given dataset, we set the time horizon to be the 75th percentile of the observed times in the training data (when using other percentiles that are at least the 50th percentile, although the IPEC scores can be different, the relative performance between the methods remains about the same). For our IPEC score variant, the algorithms with best performance changes slightly from what we get using the concordance index. Consistently, random survival forests has lower IPEC score than the adaptive kernel method and tends to have the lowest IPEC score for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> datasets. For these three datasets, the adaptive kernel method tends to have performance that is on par with the second best method. Similar to the case of concordance indices, for the smallest dataset <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span>, weighted versions of $k$-NN using $\ell_2$ distance have the best performance.
![Extended concordance index results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span> dataset (higher is better).[]{data-label="fig:pbc"}](fig_pbc_cindex_full){width="\linewidth"}
![Extended concordance index results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span> dataset (higher is better).[]{data-label="fig:gbsg2"}](fig_gbsg2_cindex_full){width="\linewidth"}
![Extended concordance index results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span> dataset (higher is better).[]{data-label="fig:recid"}](fig_recid_cindex_full){width="\linewidth"}
![Extended concordance index results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> dataset (higher is better).[]{data-label="fig:kidney"}](fig_kidney_cindex_full){width="\linewidth"}
![IPEC scores (divided by the time horizon) for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pbc</span> dataset (lower is better).[]{data-label="fig:pbc-ipec"}](fig_pbc_ipec_full){width="\linewidth"}
![IPEC scores (divided by the time horizon) for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gbsg2</span> dataset (lower is better).[]{data-label="fig:gbsg2-ipec"}](fig_gbsg2_ipec_full){width="\linewidth"}
![IPEC scores (divided by the time horizon) for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">recid</span> dataset (lower is better).[]{data-label="fig:recid-ipec"}](fig_recid_ipec_full){width="\linewidth"}
![IPEC scores (divided by the time horizon) for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kidney</span> dataset (lower is better).[]{data-label="fig:kidney-ipec"}](fig_kidney_ipec_full){width="\linewidth"}
[^1]: Let ${X}_{(i)}$ denote the $i$-th nearest neighbor of test point ${x}$. Then weighted $k$-NN assigns ${X}_{(i)}$ to have weight $K\big(\frac{\rho({x},{X}_{(i)})}{\rho({x},{X}_{(k)})}\big)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The progress in investigation of two-band superconductor MgB$_2$ by the point-contact spectroscopy (PCS) is given. Results of study of superconducting gap temperature and magnetic field dependence for two-dimensional $\sigma$ and three-dimensional $\pi$ band and electron-phonon-interaction spectral function are presented. Correlation between the gap value and the intensity of the high T$_c$ driving force – $E_{2g}$ boron vibration mode, is provided. PCS data on some nonsuperconducting transition metal diborides are surveyed for comparison.'
author:
- 'I. K. Yanson and Yu. G. Naidyuk'
---
point-contact spectroscopy, MgB$_2$, two-band/gap superconductivity, electron-phonon interaction
Introduction
============
Magnesium diboride, like other diborides MeB$_2$ (Me=Al, Zr, Ta, Nb, Ti, V etc.), crystalizes in a hexagonal structure, where honeycomb layers of boron are separated by magnesium ions located above and below the centers of boron hexagons. The hallmark of MgB$_2$ is that it becomes superconducting (SC) at high critical temperature T$_c$ ($\approx $ 40K) [@Nagamatsu], which is a record breaking value among the [*s-p*]{} metals and alloys. The outstanding property of MgB$_2$ is that this material represents a rare example of multi-band (2-D $\sigma$-band and 3-D $\pi$-band) electronic structure, which are weakly connected with each other. These bands lead to very uncommon properties. For example, T$_c$ almost does not depend on elastic scattering, unlike for other two-band superconductors [@Mazin]. The maximal upper critical magnetic field there can achieve a much higher value, than that for a one-band dirty superconductor [@Gurevich]. The properties of MgB$_2$ have been comprehensively calculated by the modern theoretical methods, which lead to principal understanding of their behavior in various experiments.
Electron band structure of MgB$_2$ was calculated in very detail using different [*ab initio*]{} methods [@An; @Kong; @Kortus; @Liu; @Yildirim]. Topmost is that two filled incompletely $\sigma$ bands have weak $k_z$ dispersion forming two nearly cylindrical sheets of the Fermi surface around $\Gamma $A $(\Delta )$. Besides they retain their covalent structure representing unique case of conducting covalent bands which contribute to the strong electron-phonon coupling. Thus, the hole branch along $\Gamma $A experiences huge interaction with phonon $E_{2g}$ mode for carriers moving along $ab$ plane, although its manifestation is screened effectively by the much faster hole mobility in $\pi $-bands [@Mazin], which form two 3-D tubular network. Appropriate electron transport is very anisotropic ($\rho_c/\rho_{ab}\simeq 3.5$ [@Eltsev]) with a plasma frequency (and Fermi velocity) for $\sigma$ band along $c$ axis being an order of magnitude smaller than that in $ab$ direction [@Brinkman].
Inelastic $X$-Ray scattering measurements [@Shukla] demonstrated a weakly dispersion branch between 60 and 70 meV in $\Gamma $A direction with $E_{2g}$ symmetry in $\Gamma $ point. The linewidth of this mode is about 20$\div $28 meV along $\Gamma
$A direction, while along $\Gamma $M direction it is below the experimental resolution. This points to the very strong electron-phonon interaction (EPI) for this particular lattice vibration mode.
The SC energy gap distribution on the Fermi surface of MgB$_2$ [@Choi] shows maximum gap value along $\Gamma $A direction which is due to very strong EPI. Just in this direction 2D $\sigma
$ band (cylinders along $\Gamma $A direction) is located. The 3D $\pi $ band has much smaller EPI, and, correspondingly, the nearly 3 times smaller energy gap. In Ref.[@Choi] it is shown that average $\lambda$ value on $\sigma $ band amounts up to $2\div 3$. Moreover, $\lambda_\sigma $ can be decomposed between different phonon modes, and it appears that only E$_{2g}$ phonon mode along $\Gamma $A direction plays a major role with a partial $\lambda_{\sigma} $ value of about $\simeq 25$ [@An1], though concentrating in a very restricted phase space.
Driving mechanism for high $T_c$ in MgB$_2$ is connected with the strong interaction between charge carriers and $E_{2g}$ phonon modes, corresponding to antiparallel vibration of atoms in the boron planes. The electron band structure of MgB$_2$ along $\Gamma $A direction is such that the Fermi energy of hole carriers is only 0.5$\div 0.6$eV, which shrinks even more while borons deviate from the equilibrium positions. Together with the 2D structure of the corresponding sheet of the Fermi surface, this leads to constant density of states at the Fermi energy and, correspondingly, to very strong EPI. Cappelluti [*et al.*]{} [@Cappelluti] point out that the small Fermi velocity for charge carriers along $\Gamma $A direction leads to large nonadiabatic correction to $T_c$ (about twice as much compared with adiabatic Migdal-Eliashberg treatment). Although this interaction is a driving force to high $T_c$ in this compound, it does not lead to crystal structure instability, since it occupies only a small volume in the phase space.
According to theoretical models $\pi $ and $ \sigma $ bands in MgB$_2$ are weakly connected. However, the energy gap of $\pi $ band goes to zero at the same $T_c$ as in the bulk, and correspondingly the $2\Delta _\pi (0)/kT_c=1.4$, which is much less than the weak coupling BCS theory predicts. One can think of $\pi $ band as having intrinsically much lower $T_c\approx 10$K than the bulk [@Bouquet] and at higher temperatures its superconductivity is induced by proximity effect in the [**k**]{}-space from $\sigma $ band [@YansonPRB]. This proximity effect is very peculiar. From one side, this proximity is induced by the interband scattering between $\pi $ and $\sigma $ sheets of the Fermi surface. On the other, the charge carriers connected with $\pi $ band are mainly located along the magnesium planes, which can be considered as a proximity effect in the coordinate space for alternating layers of $S-N-S$ structure, although at microscopically scale. Thus, MgB$_2$ is a good example to study crossover between two-band superconductivity and simple proximity effect structure.
Samples and measurements
========================
In this work the results for two kind of samples are surveyed. The first is thin c-axis oriented films with the thickness of about several hundreds of nanometer [@Sung-Ik]. The residual resistance is about several tens of $\mu \Omega \,$cm with residual resistance ratio (RRR) $ \simeq 2.2$ pointing out that films have a disorder between crystallites. It does not exclude that on some spots the films contain clean enough small single crystals on which we occasionally may fabricate a point contact (PC). Normally, the contacts were prepared by touching the film surface by noble metal counter electrode (Cu, Au, Ag) in the direction perpendicular to the substrate. Thus, nominally the preferential current direction in PC is along [*c*]{} axis. Nevertheless, since the surface of the films contains terraces with small crystallites, PC to [*ab*]{} plane of these crystallites is also possible.
The second type of samples are single crystals [@Lee]. Crystals are plate-like (flakes) and have sub-millimeter size. They were glued by silver epoxy to the sample holder by one of their side faces. The opposite face of flakes was used as a “needle” to gently touch the noble metal counter electrode in liquid helium. In this way we tried to make preferentially a contact along [*ab*]{} plane. In average, in the bulk, the single crystals are cleaner than the films, but one should be cautious, since the properties of the crystal surface differ from the properties of the bulk, and fabrication of PC may introduce uncontrolled further defects in the contact area.
Thus, [*a priori*]{} one cannot define the structure and composition of the obtained contacts. Nevertheless, much of that issue can be said by measuring various characteristics of a contact. Among those the most important is the Andreev-reflection-non-linearities of the $I-V$ curves in the SC energy-gap range. The magnetic field and temperature dependencies of the SC non-linearities supply us with additional information. And finally, much can be extracted from the $I-V$ nonlinearities in the normal state (so called, PC spectra). The more information about the electrical conductivity at different conditions of the particular contact we can collect, the more detailed and defined picture of it emerges. It is not an easy task, since a contact has a limited life time, due to electrical and mechanical shocks.
Let us give a rough estimation of the distance scales involved in the problem. The crystallite size of films is of the order of 100nm (see [@Sung-Ik]). The contact size $d$ in ballistic regime equals $d\simeq\sqrt{\rho l/R}$ (the Sharvin formula). Taking $\rho l\cong 0.7\times 10^{-6}\Omega \,$cm$\times
7\,10^{-6}$cm$\cong 0.5\times 10^{-11} \Omega \,$cm$^2$ [@Eltsev], we obtain $d\simeq 7$ nm both along $ab$ and $c$ directions for typical resistance of 10 $\Omega$. If we suppose that a grain is dirty (with very short mean free path), then we apply the Maxwell formula $d\sim\rho/R$ with the results for $d$ about 0.7nm and 2.6nm for $ab$ and $c$ directions, respectively, taking $\rho$ for corresponding directions from the same reference [@Eltsev]. Thus, the contact size can be of the order or smaller than the electronic mean free path ($l_{ab}=70$ nm and $l_c=18$nm, according to [@Eltsev]), which means that we are working in the spectroscopic regime, probing only a single grain.
Rowell [@Rowell], analyzing a big amount of experimental data for resistivity and its temperature dependence, came to the conclusion that for highly resistive samples only a small part of the effective cross section should be taken into account. The reason is that the grains in MgB$_2$ are disconnected by oxide of magnesium and boron to great extent. For PCS previous analysis leads us to the conclusion that the contact resistance is frequently measured only for a single grain, either for several grains, with their intergrain boundaries facing the contact interface. This is due to the current spreading with the scale of the order of the contact size $d$ near the constriction.
Theoretical background of PCS
=============================
The non-linearities of the $I-V$ characteristic of a metallic contact, when one of the electrodes is in the SC state, can be written as [@Khlus]
$$I\left( V\right) \simeq V/R_0-\delta I_{ph}^N(V)+I_{exc}(V)
\label{I-V}$$
Here $R_0$ is the contact resistance at zero bias in the normal state. $\delta I_{ph}^N(V)$ is the backscattering inelastic current which depends on the electron mean free path (mfp) $l$. For the ballistic contact this term amounts to $$\delta I_{ph}^N(V)\sim (d/l_{in})I(V) \label{inelastic}$$ where $l_{in}$ is the inelastic electron mfp, and $d$ is the characteristic contact diameter. If the electron flow through the contact is diffusive ($ l_{el}\ll d$, $l_{el}$ being an elastic mfp) but still spectroscopic, since $ \sqrt{l_{in}l_{el}}\gg d$, then the expression (\[inelastic\]) should be multiplied by $l_{el}/d$. This decreases the characteristic size, where the inelastic scattering being essential, from $d$ to $l_{el}$ ($d\rightarrow l_{el}$), and for short $l_{el}$ makes the inelastic current very small. We notice that the inelastic backscattering current $\delta I_{ph}^N(V)$ in the SC state is approximately equal to the same term in the normal state. Its second derivative turns out to be directly proportional to the EPI function $\alpha^2(\omega)\,F(\omega)$ [@KOS; @YansonSC] $$\label{pcs} -d^2I/dV^2\simeq (8\,ed/3\,\hbar v_{\rm
F})\alpha^2(\omega)\,F(\omega)$$ where $\alpha$ describes the strength of the electron interaction with one or another phonon branch, $F(\omega)$ stands for the phonon density of states. In PC spectra the EPI spectral function $\alpha^2(\omega)\,F(\omega)$ is modified by the transport factor, which increases strongly the backscattering processes contribution.
In the SC state the excess current $I_{exc}$(\[I-V\]), which is due to the Andreev reflection of electron quasiparticles from the $N-S$ boundary in a $N-c-S$ contact ($c$ stands for ”constriction”), can be written as
$$I_{exc}\left( V\right) =I_{exc}^0+\delta I_{exc}\left( V\right)
\label{excess}$$
where $I_{exc}^0\approx \Delta /R_0\approx const$ for $eV>\Delta $ ($\Delta $ being the SC energy gap).
Nonlinear term in the excess current (\[excess\]) in its turn can be decomposed in two parts, which depend in a different way on the elastic scattering of electron quasiparticles:
$$\delta I_{exc}\left( V\right) =\delta I_{exc}^{el}\left( V\right)
+\delta I_{exc}^{in}\left( V\right) \label{excess1}$$
where $\delta I_{exc}^{el}\left( V\right) $ is of the order of $\left( \Delta /eV\right) I_{exc}^0$, and $\delta
I_{exc}^{in}\left( V\right) \sim \left( d/l_{in}\right)
I_{exc}^0$. Notice, that the latter behaves very similar to the inelastic backscattering current $\delta I_{ph}^N(V)$, namely, it disappears if $l_{el}\rightarrow 0$, while the first term in the right hand side of expression (\[excess1\]) does not depend in the first approximation on $l_{el}$. This enables to distinguish elastic term from inelastic. Finally, all excess current terms disappear when destroying the superconductivity, while $\delta
I_{ph}^N(V)$ remains very similar in both SC and normal states.
From the expressions (\[I-V\]), (\[inelastic\]), (\[excess\]) and (\[excess1\]), it becomes clear that only on the relatively [*clean*]{} spots, one can observe the inelastic backscattering current $\delta I_{ph}^N(V)$ provided the excess current term $\delta I_{exc}^{in}\left( V\right) $ is negligible. The latter can be cancelled by suppression of superconductivity either with magnetic field or temperature. On the contrary, in the SC state, for [*dirty*]{} contacts, all the inelastic terms are very small, and the main non-linearity is provided by the $\Delta
(eV)$-dependence of the excess current.
Brinkman [*et al.*]{} [@Brinkman] have shown that even along [*ab*]{}-plane the contribution of $\sigma $ band for MgB$_2$ is less than that of $\pi $ band, to say nothing of the direction along [*c*]{} axis, where it is negligible small. The calculation predicts that if the ”[*tunneling cone*]{}” is about several degrees from precise [*ab*]{} plane, then two SC gaps should be visible in tunneling characteristics. In other directions only a single gap, corresponding to $\pi $ band, is visible. We will see below that this prediction is fulfilled in PC experiment, as well.
Even worse the things are when one tries to measure the anisotropic Eliashberg function by means of the SC tunneling. The single-band numerical inversion program gives non-certain results, as was shown in Ref.[@Dolgov].
Point-contact spectroscopy in the normal state can help in this deadlock situation. It is known that the inelastic backscattering current is based on the same mechanism as an ordinary homogeneous resistance, provided the maximum energy of charge carriers is controlled by applied voltage. The electrical conductivity of MgB$_2$ can be considered as parallel connections of two channels, corresponding to $\pi $ and $ \sigma $ bands [@Mazin]. The conductivity of $\pi $ band can be blocked by Mg-atoms disorder. This situation is already obtained in experiment, when the temperature coefficient of resistivity increases simultaneously with increase of residual resistivity, which leads to the violation of the Matthiessen’s rule (see Fig.3 in [@Mazin]). In this case we obtain the direct access to $\sigma
$-band conductivity, and the measurements of PC spectra of EPI for $\sigma$ band are explicitly possible in the normal state. Below we will see that this unique situation happens in single crystals along [*ab*]{} plane.
Experimental results
====================
Superconducting energy gaps
---------------------------
Typical shapes of $dV/dI$ with Andreev reflection features are shown in Fig.\[MgB2del\].
{width="8cm"} \[MgB2del\]
$dV/dI$ curves exhibit two sets of energy gap minima distributed as shown in Fig. \[MgB2hist\] (upper panel), at 2.4$\pm $ 0.1 and 7.1$\pm $0.4 meV. These curves are nicely fitted by BTK [@BTK] theory (with a small $\Gamma$ parameter) for two conducting channels with an adjusted gap weighting factor [@Naidyuk1]. The second kind of $dV/dI$ represents only one gap structure and is better fitted with a single gap provided an increased depairing parameter $\Gamma $ (Fig.\[MgB2hist\], inset). According to the calculation in [@Brinkman] strong impurity scattering will cause the gaps to converge to $\Delta
\simeq$4.1meV and $T_c$ to 25.4K. Therefore the single gap spectra reflect a strong interband scattering due to impurities, which likely causes a “semiconducting-like” behavior of $dV/dI$ above T$_c$. These two kinds of gap structure constitute about equal parts of a total number of about hundred junctions. Usually the contribution of the large gap in the double-gap spectra is an order of magnitude lower than that of the small one, which is in line with small contribution of $\sigma$ band in conductivity along c axis [@Brinkman].
{width="8cm"} \[MgB2hist\]
In the lower panel of Fig.\[MgB2hist\] the theoretical prediction of energy gap distribution [@Choi] is shown. One can see that the theoretical positions of distribution maxima approximately coincide with the experimental values. Only the low-lying maximum is not seen in the experiment.
The same variety of energy gap structure is observed for single crystals as well, but with some peculiarity due to preferential orientation along [*ab*]{} plane. The most amazing of them is the observation of a $dV/dI$ gap structure in [@Naidyuk3] with visually only the larger gap present. Such kind of spectra were not observed in thin films. It means that the conductivity is governed only by $\sigma $ band. This may be caused that $\pi $ band is blocked completely by Mg disorder or by oxidation of Mg atoms on [*ab*]{}-side surface of the crystal. At the same time, in single crystal there is much less scattering in the boron planes, due to the robustness of B-B bonds. We will see below that just this case enables us to observe directly the most important $E_{2g}$ phonon mode in the electron-phonon interaction within $\sigma$ band.
![$dV/dI$ curves (solid lines) at different temperature for the same as in Fig.\[M163m\] junction with their BTK fittings (thin lines). Inset: Temperature dependencies of large and small SC energy gaps obtained by BTK fitting. Solid lines represent BCS-like behavior.[]{data-label="M163t"}](m163t.eps){width="9cm"}
Figs.\[M163t\] and \[M163m\] display the series of temperature and magnetic field dependencies of the $dV/dI$ curves with their BTK fittings, respectively. Here, at low field (temperature) the two separate sets of the gap minima are clearly seen. The temperature dependence of both gaps follows the BCS prediction (see inset in Fig.\[M163t\]). For temperatures above 25K their behavior is unknown because this particular contact did not survive during the measurements likely due to thermal expansion of sample holder.
![Magnetic field dependencies of large and small SC energy gaps (solid triangles) obtained by BTK fitting of the $dV/dI$ curves from inset. Open triangles show $\Gamma$ value for large and small gap, correspondingly. Circles demonstrate depressing of small gap contribution to the $dV/dI$ spectra by magnetic field. The lines connect the symbols for clarity. Inset: $dV/dI$ curves (solid lines) at different magnetic field for the single crystal MgB$_2$-Cu 2.2$\Omega$ junction along $ab$ plane with their BTK fittings (thin lines). []{data-label="M163m"}](m163m.eps){width="9cm"}
Fig.\[M163m\] shows magnetic field dependencies of large and small gaps. Surprisingly, the small gap value is not depressed by field about 1T, and the estimated critical field about 6T is much higher as stated in [@Gonnelli; @Samuely], although the intensity of small gap minima is suppressed rapidly by a field about 1T. Correspondingly, small gap contribution $w$ ($w$ inversely depends on $\Gamma$ value, therefore nearly constant $w$ value between 0 and 1T is due to the fact that $\Gamma$ rises by factor 4 at 1T) to the $dV/dI$ spectra decreases by magnetic field significantly from 0.92 to 0.16 (see Fig.\[M163m\]), while $w$ versus temperature even slightly increases from 0.92 at 4.3K to 0.96 at 24K (not shown). Theoretical investigation of the field dependence of maximum pair potential in two band superconductor MgB$_2$ by Koshelev and Golubov [@Koshelev] shows that for both gaps critical field is the same. Additionally, in recent experimental publication Bugoslavsky [*et al.*]{} [@Bugoslavsky] reported that both order parameters survive to a common magnetic field, while Gonnelli [*et al.*]{} [@Gonnelli1] corrected their previous claims and mentioned that identification of magnetic field at which the $\pi$ band features in $dV/dI$ visually disappears with critical field for the $\pi$ bang might not be correct.
Electron-Phonon interaction
---------------------------
### PC EPI spectra of non-SC diborides
![Comparison of phonon DoS neutron measurements [@Heid] (symbols) with PC spectra for NbB$_2$ and TaB$_2$ [@Naidyuk2] after subtracting of rising background (solid curves). Dotted curve in left panel shows PC spectrum for ZrB$_2$ [@Naidyuk2] for confrontation.[]{data-label="Heid"}](heid0.eps){width="12cm"}
In Fig.\[Heid\] the PC EPI spectra $ d^2V/dI^2 \propto
-d^2I/dV^2$ (see also Eq.(\[pcs\])) of non-SC diborides MeB$_2$ (Me=Zr, Nb, Ta) [@Naidyuk2] are shown. The cleanest sample we have is ZrB$_2$ single crystal, and its PC EPI spectrum demonstrates more pronounced features (see Fig.\[Heid\], left panel). One recognizes a classical PC EPI spectrum from which one can estimate the position of 3 main phonon peaks (for ZrB$_2$) and obtain the lower limit of the EPI parameter $\lambda _{PC}\leq
0.1$ [@Naidyuk2].
Essentially the similar spectra only with degradation of maxima with bias rise were observed for another diborides, taking into account their purity and increased EPI, which leads to the transition from spectroscopic to non-spectroscopic (thermal) regime of the current flow [@Naidyuk2]. The positions of the low-energy peaks are proportional to the inverse square root of the masses of $d$ metals [@Naidyuk2], as expected. For NbB$_2$ and TaB$_2$ the phonon density of states (DoS) is measured by means of neutron scattering [@Heid]. The position of phonon peaks corresponds to the PC spectra maxima (Fig.\[Heid\]). Because Nb and Zr have nearly the same atomic mass we suggest that they should have similar phonon DoS.
### PC EPI spectra of MgB$_2$ in [*c*]{}-oriented films
Unexpectedly, the stronger we suppress the superconductivity by magnetic field or temperature in MgB$_2$, the less traces of phonon structure remain in the $d^2V/dI^2$ derivative [@YansonPRB]. This is in odd with the classical PCS, since the [*inelastic*]{} phonon spectrum should not depend on the state of electrodes in the first approximation (see section [**Theoretical background of PCS**]{}). Instead, most of the MgB$_2$ spectra in the SC state show reproducible structure in the phonon energy range (Fig. \[Fig2phon\]) which was not similar to the expected phonon maxima superimposed on the rising background. This structure disappears by transition to the normal state. Quite interesting is that the intensity of this structure increases with increase of the value of the small gap, which means that the gap in $\pi $ band and observed phonon structure are connected [@YansonPRB]. Based on the theoretical consideration mentioned above, we conclude that the disorder in $\pi $ band is so strong that it precludes to observe the [*inelastic current*]{}, and the phonon non-linearities of excess current [@YansonPRB; @Om-Kul-Bel] play the main role, which does not depend on the scattering.
![Superconducting gap minima (left panel) and phonon structure (right panel) in the spectra of thin film MgB$_2$-Ag PCs with different resistances at $T=4.2 K$, $B=0$ with ($R_{0}$=45, 43, and 111 $\Omega $ for curves 1,2 and 3, respectively). The modulation voltage $V_1$ at measuring of $V_2$ signal is 3.31, 2.78, and 2.5 mV, for curves 1,2 and 3, respectively. The numbers of curves in (b) are the same as in (a). The curves in (a) are offset relative to the bottom one for clarity. After Yanson et al. [@YansonPRB].[]{data-label="Fig2phon"}](scphon.eps){width="10cm"}
Very rarely, we recovered (see [@Bobrov]) the structure in $d^2V/dI^2$ which corresponds reasonably in shape to the phonon DoS (above 30 meV). Thus, for this contact we assumed to observe the [*inelastic*]{} PC spectrum for the $\pi$ band, which should be compared to the Eliashberg EPI function for the same band calculated in Ref. [@Golubov]. Both experimental spectrum and $\pi$ band Eliashberg function do not show the anomalously high intensity of $E_{2g}$ phonon mode, since only the Eliashberg function for $\sigma$ band is the principal driving force for high $T_c$ in MgB$_2$. The same conclusion should be ascribed to the excess-current phonon structure, since it also corresponds to the $\pi $ band. This band has much larger Fermi velocity and plasma frequency along [*c*]{}-axis compared to $\sigma $ band [@Brinkman]. Thus, in order to register the principal EPI with $E_{2g}$ phonon mode the PC spectra along [*ab*]{} plane should be measured.
### PC EPI spectra in [*ab*]{}-direction
In Ref. [@Naidyuk3] PC EPI spectra for single crystal oriented in [*ab*]{} plane were measured. As was mentioned above, the nominal orientation of the contact axis to be parallel to [*ab*]{} plane is not enough to be sure that this situation occurs in reality. Moreover, even if one establishes the necessary orientation (i.e., contact axis parallel to [*ab*]{} plane) the spectra should reflect both bands with the prevalence of undesired $\pi $ band, because due to spherical spreading of the current the orientational selectivity of the metallic PC is much worse than that for the plane tunnel junction, where it goes exponentially. The large mixture of $\pi $-band contribution is clearly seen from the gap structure in Fig. \[MgB2scph\] (b), inset. Beyond the wings at the biases corresponding to the large gap (supposed to belong to $\sigma $-band gap) the deep minima located at the smaller gap (correspondingly to $\pi $-band gap) are clearly seen. The EPI spectrum of the same junction is shown in the main panel. One can see that the non-linearities of the $I-V$ characteristic at phonon biases are very small, and the reproducible structure roughly corresponding to the Eliashberg EPI function of the $\pi $ band [@Dolgov; @Golubov] appears in the bias range 20 $\div$ 60 mV. Above 60 mV PC spectrum broadens sufficiently sinking higher lying phonon maxima. No remarkable contribution of $E_{2g}$ phonon mode is observed, like a big maximum of EPI at $\approx 60\div
70$meV or a kink at $T\geq T_c$ for these biases.
Quite different spectrum is shown in Fig. \[MgB2scph\](a), which is our key result. Consider first the $dV/dI(V)$ characteristics (see inset). The energy gap structure shows gap minima corresponding to the large gap ($ \sigma $-band gap). The increase of $dV/dI(V)$ at larger biases is noticeably larger than in the previous case.
Before the saturation at biases $\geq 100$ meV, where the phonon DoS ends, the well resolved wide bump occurs in the PC spectrum, which is located at about 60 meV. Let us show that the bump is of spectroscopic origin, that is the regime of the current flow through the contact is not thermal, although the background at large biases ($V\geq 100$ meV) is high. To do so, we compare this bump with a PC spectrum in thermal regime for a model EPI function, which consists of Lorentzian at 60meV with small (2meV) width. Calculated according to Kulik [@Kulik_therm], the thermal PC EPI spectrum, shown in Fig.\[MgB2scph\](a) as a dashed line, is much broader.
![(a) Comparison of the PC spectrum for $\sigma$ band with the thermal spectrum for model spectral function as a Lorentzian at 60 meV with a width of 2 meV (dashed line). Inset shows large gap minima. (b) PC spectrum for $\pi$ band. Dashed curve is the smeared theoretical Eliashberg function [@Golubov]. Inset shows small gap minima. After Naidyuk et al. [@Naidyuk3]. []{data-label="MgB2scph"}](mgb2scph.eps){width="12cm"}
Any further increase of the width of the model spectra will widen the curve obtained. Comparing the experimental and model spectra enables us to conclude, that in spite of big width the maximum of experimental spectra is still correspond to the spectroscopic regime. Introducing greater disorder in the boron plane by fabrication procedure or by trying another spots on the side-face surface, the smeared thermal-like spectra were observed, coinciding in shape with the dashed curve in Fig.\[MgB2scph\](a), which together with corresponding energy-gap structure can be ascribed to thermal limit mainly in $\pi $ band, despite the bath temperature is low enough.
PC spectrum with broad maxima including also one at about 60 mV were observed by [@Samuely] on polycrystalline MgB$_2$ samples derived to the normal state by applying magnetic field and increasing of the temperature.
The big width of the EPI peak connected with $E_{2g}$ phonon mode is not surprising. Shukla [*et al.*]{} [@Shukla] measured the phonon dispersion curves along $\Gamma $A and $ \Gamma $M directions by means of inelastic X-ray scattering. The full width at half maximum for $E_{2g}$ mode along $\Gamma $A direction amounts to about 20-28 meV, which is well correspond to what we observe in PC spectrum. If the phonon life time corresponds to this (inverse) energy, then the phonon mean free path is about the lattice constant [@Naidyuk3], and due to phonon reabsorption by nonequilibrium electrons, we should anticipate large background in the PC spectra as observed.
For a contact with E$_{2g}$ phonon modes in Fig.\[MgB2scph\](a) the nonlinearity of the $I-V$ curves due to electron-phonon interaction can be estimated from the $dV/dI$ curves by about 10%. This is comparable with nonlinearity observed for non-SC diborides [@Naidyuk2] with small electron-phonon coupling constant $\lambda _{PC}\leq 0.1$. The reason of relatively low nonlinearity of $I-V$ curves and small intensity of principal E$_{2g}$ phonon modes in spectra for MgB$_2$ contacts can be the fact that anomalous strong interaction is characteristic for the restricted group of phonons with sufficiently small wave vector [@Mazin1], whereas in PCS the large angle scattering is underlined.
Conclusions
===========
Comprehensive PCS investigations of $c$-axis oriented thin films and single crystals of MgB$_2$ leads to the following conclusions:
- The observed by Andreev reflection SC gaps in MgB$_2$ are grouped at 2.4 and 7.0 meV and show basically a BCS-like temperature dependence. The two gap structure merges together in the case of strong elastic scattering remaining a single gap at about 3.5 meV.
- Anomalous magnetic field dependencies of the gap structure in PCs reflect peculiarity of the two band structure of the SC order parameter in MgB$_2$. In particular, small gap survives up to magnetic field close to the critical one for a large gap.
- The phonon structure in the PC spectra of MgB$_2$ can be revealed by: i) the inelastic backscattering current, like for ordinary PCS, and ii) by the energy dependence of the excess current. They can be discriminated after destroying superconductivity by magnetic filed or/and temperature, and varying electron mean free path.
- The prevailing appearance in the PC spectra of $E_{2g}$ boron mode, which mediates the creation of Cooper pairs, is seen for PC with a large gap that is along $a-b$ direction in accordance with the theory. The relatively small intensity of this mode in the PC spectra is likely due to their small wave vector and restricted phase volume.
- Related diborides (ZrB$_2$, NbB$_2$, and TaB$_2$) have PC spectra proportional to the electron-phonon-interaction spectral function, like in common metals and small EPI constant corresponding to their non-SC state at helium temperature.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to N. L. Bobrov, P. N. Chubov, V. V. Fisun, O. E. Kvitnitskaya, L. V. Tyutrina for collaboration during MgB$_2$ investigation and S.-I. Lee and S. Lee for samples providing. The work in Ukraine was supported by the State Foundation of Fundamental Research under Grant $\Phi$7/528-2001.
J. Nagamatsu, N. Nakagawa, T. Muranaka, Y. Zenitani, J. Akimitsu, Nature [**410**]{}, 63 (2001).
I.I. Mazin, O.K. Andersen, O. Jepsen, O.V. Dolgov, J. Kortus, A.A. Golubov, A.B. Kuz’menko, and D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 107002 (2002).
A. Gurevich, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 184514 (2003).
J.M. An and W.E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4366 (2001).
Y. Kong, O.V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, and O.K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 020501(R) (2001).
J. Kortus, I.I. Mazin, K.D. Belashchenko, V.P. Antropov, and L.L. Boyer, Phys. Rev. Lett [**86**]{}, 4656 (2001).
Amy Y. Liu, I.I. Mazin, and Jens Kortus, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 87005 (2001).
T. Yildirim, O. Gülseren, J.W. Lynn, C.M. Brown, T.J. Udovic, Q. Huang, N. Rogado, K.A. Regan, M.A. Hayward, J.S. Slusky, T. He, M. K. Haas, P. Khalifah, K. Inumaru, and R.J. Cava, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 037001 (2001).
I.I. Mazin, V.P. Antropov, Physica C [**385**]{}, 49 (2003).
Yu. Eltsev, K. Nakao, S. Lee, T. Masui, N. Chikumoto, S. Tajima, N. Koshizuka, M. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 180504(R) (2002).
A. Brinkman, A.A. Golubov, H. Rogalla, O.V. Dolgov, J. Kortus, Y. Kong, O. Jepsen, and O.K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 180517 (2002).
A. Shukla, M. Calandra, M. d’Astuto, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, Ch. Bellin, M. Krisch, J. Karpinski, S.M. Kazakov, J. Jun, D. Daghero, and K. Parlinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 095506 (2003).
Hyoung Joon Choi, David Roundy, Hong Sun, Marvin L. Cohen, Steven G. Louie, Nature [**418**]{}, 758 (2002); Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 020513(R) (2002).
J.M. An, S.Y. Savrasov, H. Rosner, and W.E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 220502(R) (2002).
E. Cappelluti, S. Ciuchi, C. Grimaldi, L. Pietronero, and S. Strässler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 117003 (2002).
F. Bouquet ,Y. Wang, I. Sheikin, P. Toulemonde, M. Eisterer, H.W. Weber, S. Lee, S. Tajima, A. Junod, Physica C [**385**]{}, 192 (2003).
I.K. Yanson, V.V. Fisun, N.L. Bobrov, Yu.G. Naidyuk, W.N. Kang, Eun-Mi Choi, Hyun-Jung Kim, and Sung-Ik Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 024517 (2003).
W.N.Kang, Eun-Mi Choi, Hyeong-Jin Kim, Hyun-Jung Kim, Sung-Ik Lee, Physica C [**385**]{}, 24 (2003).
Sergey Lee, Physica C [**385**]{}, 31 41 (2003); S. Lee, H. Mori, T. Masui, Yu. Eltsev, A. Yamanoto and S. Tajima, J. Phys. Soc. of Japan, [**70**]{}, 2255 (2001).
J.M. Rowell, Supercond. Sci. Technol. [**16**]{}, R17-27 (2003).
V.A. Khlus and A.N. Omel’yanchuk, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**9**]{}, 189 (1983); V.A. Khlus, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**9**]{}, 510 (1983).
I.O. Kulik, A.N. Omelyanchouk, and R.I. Shekhter, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**3,** ]{}840 (1977).
I.K. Yanson, in book I.O. Kulik and R.Ellialtioglu (eds.)[*, Quantum Mesoscopic Phenomena and Mesoscopic Devices in Microelectronic,*]{}, (Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2000) p. 61-77. (see also: cond-mat/0008116).
A.N. Omel’yanchuk, S.I. Beloborod’ko, and I.O. Kulik, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**14**]{}, 630 (1988).
O.V. Dolgov, R.S. Gonnelli, G.A. Ummarino, A.A. Golubov, S.V. Shulga, and J. Kortus, cond-mat/0301542.
G.E. Blonder, M. Tinkham and T.M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 4515 (1982).
Yu.G. Naidyuk, I.K. Yanson, L.V. Tyutrina, N.L. Bobrov, P.N. Chubov, W.N. Kang, Hyeong-Jin Kim, Eun-Mi Choi, and Sung-Ik Lee, JETP Lett. [**75**]{}, 283 (2002).
R.S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, G.A. Ummarino, V.A. Stepanov, J. Jun, S.M. Kazakov and J. Karpinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} 247004 (2002). P. Samuely, P. Szabo, J. Kacmarcik, T. Klein, A.G.M. Jansen, Physica C [**385**]{} 244 (2003).
A. E. Koshelev and A. A. Golubov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 177002 (2003).
Y.Bugoslavsky, Y.Miyoshi, G.K. Perkins, A.D. Caplin, L.F.Cohen, A.V. Pogrebnyakov, X.X. Xi, cond-mat/0307540.
R.S. Gonnelli, D. Daghero, G.A. Ummarino, V. Dellarocca, V.A. Stepanov, J. Jun, S.M. Kazakov and J. Karpinski, cond-mat/0308152.
Yu.G. Naidyuk, O.E. Kvitnitskaya, I.K. Yanson, S.-L. Drechsler, G. Behr, and S. Otani, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 140301 (2002).
R. Heid, B. Renker, H. Schober, P. Adelmann, D. Ernst, and K.-P. Bohnen, Phys. Phys. B [**67**]{}, 180510(R)(2003). N.L. Bobrov, P.N. Chubov, Yu.G. Naidyuk, L.V. Tyutrina, I.K. Yanson, W.N. Kang, Hyeong-Jin Kim, Eun-Mi Choi, C.U. Jung, and Sung-Ik Lee, in book [*New Trends in Superconductivty*]{}, Vol.67 of NATO Science Series II: Math. Phys. and Chem., ed. by J. F. Annett and S. Kruchinin, (Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2002), p.225. A.A. Golubov, J. Kortus, O.V. Dolgov, O. Jepsen, Y. Kong, O.K. Andersen, B.J. Gibson, K. Ahn, and R.K. Kremer, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**14**]{}, 1353 (2002).
Yu.G. Naidyuk, I.K. Yanson, O.E. Kvitnitskaya, S. Lee, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**90**]{}, 197001 (2003). I.O. Kulik, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. [**18**]{}, 302 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Given an arbitrary statistical theory, different from quantum mechanics, how to decide which are the nonclassical correlations? We present a formal framework which allows for a definition of nonclassical correlations in such theories, alternative to the current one. This enables one to formulate extrapolations of some important quantum mechanical features via adequate extensions of “reciprocal" maps relating states of a system with states of its subsystems. These extended maps permit one to generalize i) separability measures to any arbitrary statistical model as well as ii) previous entanglement criteria. The standard definition of entanglement becomes just a particular case of the ensuing, more general notion.
PACS numbers
: **03.65.Ud**
author:
- 'F. Holik$^{1,\,2}$'
- 'C. Massri$^{3}$'
- 'A. Plastino$^{4,\,5}$'
bibliography:
- 'pom.bib'
title: Generalizing entanglement via informational invariance for arbitrary statistical theories
---
\[section\] \[theo\][Definition]{} \[theo\][Lemma]{} \[theo\][Proposition]{} \[theo\][Corollary]{} \[theo\][Example]{} \[theo\][Remark]{} \[theo\][Example]{} \[theo\][Principle]{}
\[theo\][Axiom]{}
Introduction
============
Quantum mechanics can be regarded as an extension of the classical probability calculus that allows for random variables that are not simultaneously measurable [@barnum]. Working from this peculiar perspective, it can be show that many phenomena usually considered as typically quantal, like quantum no-cloning and no-broadcasting theorems, the trade-off between state disturbance and measurement, and the existence and basic properties of entangled states, are in fact generic features of non-classical probabilistic theories that verify a basic [*non-signaling*]{} constraint [@barnum]. This is the point of departure of our present considerations.
In particular, entanglement [@BEN] is conventionally viewed as the most emblematic expression of non-classicality. Schrödinger is widely quoted stating that “entanglement is *the* characteristic trait of quantum mechanics" [@Schro1; @Schro2; @EPR]. Indeed, characterizing entanglement has become one of the most important current tasks of physics [@ReviewHorodeki2009], with a host of possible technological applications. An entanglement criterion based on [*geometrical*]{} properties of entanglement has been recently presented [@Holik-Plastino-2011a] that will be here employed to extrapolate many entanglement’s properties to [*arbitrary probabilistic theories*]{} by recourse to an essential mathematical ingredient, the so-called Convex Operational Model (COM) approach, itself founded on geometrical properties of a special convex set, that containing all the states of an arbitrary statistical theory [@Barnum-Wilce-2009; @Barnum-Wilce-2010] (see also [@Perinotti-2010; @Perinotti-2011; @Barnum-Entropy; @Barnum-PRL; @Barnum-Toner; @BarnumArXiv; @Barret-2007; @Entropy-generalized-II]). The COM approach has its roots in operational theories and has been shown to be useful to generalize many quantum mechanical notions mentioned above, such as teleportation protocols, no broadcasting, and no cloning theorems [@Barnum-Wilce-2009; @Barnum-Wilce-2010; @Barnum-PRL]. The geometrical approach based on convex sets can also be seen as a framework in which non-linear theories which generalize quantum mechanics, can be included, studied, and compared with it [@MielnikGQM; @MielnikGQS; @MielnikTF]. It is also important to remark that an axiomatization independent (and equivalent to) the von Neumann formalism can be given using the geometrical-operational approach [@MielnikGQM; @MielnikGQS; @MielnikTF].
The importance of entanglement as a resource for measuring classicality of a state has been highlighted in [@Ferrie-2011]. Other measures of non-classicality exist, of course. One of the most important is the negativity of the Wigner function [@wbook]. Another important measure of non-classicality -often found in quantum optics- has to do with the properties of coherent states, i.e., a state will be considered classical if it can be written as a mixture of coherent sates (which satisfy a minimal violation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). More recently, quantum discord (QD) [@DVB10; @OZ02; @LLZ07; @CABMPW10; @batle; @ana] has became another measure of non-classicality. QD refers to important manifestations of the quantumness of correlations in composite systems that are different from those of entanglement-origin and may be relevant in quantum information technologies [@DVB10; @OZ02; @CABMPW10; @HV01].
In this work, we restrict ourselves to entanglement (see [@Perinotti-2011] for the QD case) and try to generalize the concept to arbitrary statistical models. The issue has been studied, for example, in [@Perinotti-2011; @Barnum-Toner]. Our entanglement-extension (based in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]) allows for an alternative approach, which provides a quite general characterization of non classical correlations in arbitrary statistical models, leaving the standard treatment as a particular case.
More explicitly, our characterization of entanglement is based on the maps that relate states of the system with states of its subsystems. In particular, following the generalization presented in [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000], we define
The interlink between these two items is investigated, and, via appeal to constructions presented in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a], we concoct a geometrical characterization of entanglement in arbitrary COM’s. Specifically, we generalize the notion of informational invariance, advanced in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. It is shown that this characterization of entanglement lies at the heart of the separability problem in any statistical theory, providing i) an alternative visualization of it and ii) enriching the convex/operational approach to QM [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000; @MielnikGQM; @MielnikGQS; @MielnikTF] (as well as to other statistical theories).
The alternative perspective presented in this work will allow us to obtain, for a canonical family of separability measures (based on the Schlienz-Mahler one [@Ent95]), its most general form. As a result, we will be able to construct a general quantitative (and in many cases computable) measure of non-classicality for arbitrary statistical theories, including non linear generalizations of QM. This general characterization of a vast family of entanglement measures will permit one to compare the behavior of measures of non-classical correlations in different theories, and thus, to single out specifical features of QM. Why is this of importance? The answer is given in, for example, [@Barnum-Entropy] and [@Entropy-generalized-II]. Several possible applications were envisaged in [@Hanggi-2009; @Barnum-Dahlsten-Leifer-Toner-2008; @Pawlowski-2009; @Buhram-2006; @Gisin-2006; @VerSteeg-Wehner-2009; @vanDam; @Wolf].
Since our constructions and their implications are formulated in the geometrical setting of the COM approach, they could become applicable to many physical theories of interest. An example of such theories are “Popescu-Rohrlich" boxes [@Barret-2007]. Our construction could also be applied to quantum mechanics with a limited set of allowed measurements, general $C^\ast$-algebraic theories, theories derived by relaxing uncertainty relations, etc.
In principle, the scope of the generalization given by the COM approach is not constrained to physical theories. It also includes mathematical models of any statistical theory, provided these theories satisfy very general requirements. Thus, the generalization of quantum mechanical notions –*and specially measures of non-classical correlations*– to arbitrary statistical theories via the COM approach is a useful alternative tool for extrapolating such notions to different fields of research. For example, the influence of quantum effects and entanglement in evolution was studied in a toy biological model based on a Chaitin’s idea [@Effects-Biology]. The study of more realistic models may require rather sophisticated mathematical frameworks for which the COM approach and the kind of generalization presented in this work (as well as in others, for example [@Barnum-PRL]), can be useful.
In Section \[dos\] we briefly recapitulate the notion of quantum effects and in section \[s:COMpreliminaries\] we review the COM approach. Next, in section \[s:paperPRA\], we write in a convenient form the main details of the geometrical structure that underlies entanglement, as advanced in [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. By following [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000] we build in section \[s:EntanglementGeneralization\] a geometrical generalization of the relevant structures, and discuss its application to the development of generalized entanglement measures. Finally, in section \[s:conclusions\] some conclusions are drawn. An Appendix on quantal effects is also provided.
Quantal effects {#dos}
===============
An algebraic structure called an effect algebra has been introduced for investigations in the foundations of quantum mechanics [@foulis]. The elements of an effect algebra $P$ are called quantum effects and are very important indeed for quantum statistics and quantum measurement theory [@bush].
Quantum effects are used to construct generalized quantum measurements (or observables). The structure of an effect algebra is given by a partially defined binary operation $\bigoplus$ that is used to form a combination $a \bigoplus b$ of effects $a, b \in
P$. The element $a \bigoplus b$ represents a statistical combination of $a$ and $b$ whose probability of occurrence equals the sum of the probabilities that $a$ and $b$ occur individually. Usually, effect algebras possess a convex structure. For example, if $a$ is a quantum effect and $\lambda \in [0, 1]$, then $\lambda
a$ represents the effect $a$ attenuated by a factor of $\lambda$. Then, $\lambda a \bigoplus (1 - \lambda) b$ is a generalized convex combination that can be constructed in practice. If a quantum system $\cal{S}$ is represented by a Hilbert space $\cal{H}$, then a self-adjoint operator $\hat A$ such that $0 \le
\hat A \le 1$ corresponds to an effect for $\cal{S}$ [@foulis]. For more details, see Appendix A.
COM’s preliminaries {#s:COMpreliminaries}
===================
Following [@Barnum-PRL], we now review elementary COM-notions. The aim of this formalism is to model general statistical or operational theories.
It is reasonable to postulate that the set $\Omega$ is convex, because the mixture of two states in any statistical theory ought to yield a new state. For the convex set $\Omega$ one should then associate probabilities to any observable $a$. This entails that one must define a probability $a(\omega)\in[0,1]$ for any state $\omega\in\Omega$. Usually, any observable is an affine functional belonging to a space $A(\Omega)$ (the space of all affine functionals). It is also assumed that there exists a unitary observable $u$ such that $u(\omega)=1$ for all $\omega\in\Omega$ and (in analogy with the quantum case, in which they form an ordered space), the set of all quantum effects (the reader not familiarized with the concept is advised to look at Appendix A) will be encountered in the interval $[0,u]$. A measurement will be represented by a set of effects $\{a_{i}\}$ such that $\sum_{i}a_{i}= u$.
$\Omega$ is then naturally embedded ($\omega\mapsto\hat{\omega}$) in the dual space $A(\Omega)^{\ast}$ as follows: $\hat{\omega}(a):=a(\omega)$. Call $V(\Omega)$ the linear span of $\Omega$ in $A(\Omega)^{\ast}$. $\Omega$ will be considered finite dimensional if and only if $V(\Omega)$ is finite dimensional, and we restrict ourselves to such situation (and to compact spaces). This implies that $\Omega$ will be the convex hull of its extreme points, called pure states (for details see, for example, [@Barnum-Toner; @Barnum-Wilce-2009; @Barnum-Wilce-2010]). In a finite dimension $d$ [*a system will be classical if and only if it is a simplex, i.e., the convex hull of $d+1$ linearly independent pure states*]{}. It is a well known fact that in a simplex a point may be expressed as a unique convex combination of its extreme points, [*a characteristic feature of classical theories that no longer holds in a quantum one*]{}.
[Summing up]{}, a COM may be regarded as a triplet $(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{A}^{\ast},u_{\mathbf{A}})$, where $\mathbf{A}$ is a finite dimensional vector space, $\mathbf{A}^{\ast}$ its dual and $u_{\mathbf{A}}\in\mathbf{A}$ is a unit functional.
For compound systems, if its components have state spaces $\Omega_{A}$ and $\Omega_{B}$, let $\Omega_{AB}$ denote the joint state space. Under reasonable assumptions, it turns out [@Barnum-PRL] that $\Omega_{AB}$ may be identified with a linear span of $(V(\Omega_{A})\otimes V(\Omega_{B}))$. A maximal tensor product state space $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{max}\Omega_{B}$ can be defined as the one which contains all bilinear functionals $\varphi:A(\Omega_{A})\times A(\Omega_{B})\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $\varphi(a,b)\geq 0$ for all effects $a$ and $b$ and $\varphi(u_{A},u_{B})=1$. The maximal tensor product state space has the property of being the biggest set of states in $(A(\Omega_{A})\otimes A(\Omega_{B}))^{\ast}$ which assigns probabilities to all product- measurements.
On the other hand, the minimal tensor product state space $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{min}\Omega_{B}$ is defined as the one which is formed by the convex hull of all product states. A product state is a state of the form $\omega_{A}\otimes\omega_{B}$ such that $\omega_{A}\otimes\omega_{B}(a,b)=\omega_{A}(a)\omega_{B}(b)$ for all pairs $(a,b)\in A(\Omega_{A})\times A(\Omega_{B})$. The actual set of states $\Omega_{AB}$ (to be called $\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}$ from now on) of a particular system will satisfy $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{min}\Omega_{B}\subseteq\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}\subseteq\Omega_{A}\otimes_{max}\Omega_{B}$. For the classical case ($A$ and $B$ classical) we will have $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{min}\Omega_{B}=\Omega_{A}\otimes_{max}\Omega_{B}$. For the quantum case we have the strict inclusions $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{min}\Omega_{B}\subset\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}\subset\Omega_{A}\otimes_{max}\Omega_{B}$.
One can reasonably conceive of a separable state in an arbitrary COM as one which may be written as a convex combination of product states [@Barnum-Toner; @Perinotti-2011], i.e.
\[d:generalseparable\] A state $\omega\in\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}$ will be called *separable* if there exist $p_{i}$, $\omega^{i}_{A}\in\Omega_{A}$ and $\omega^{i}_{B}\in\Omega_{B}$ such that
$$\omega=\sum_{i}p_{i}\omega^{i}_{A}\otimes\omega^{i}_{B}$$
If $\omega\in\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}$ but it is not separable, we will call it *entangled*. [Entangled states exist only if $\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}$ is strictly greater than $\Omega_{A}\otimes_{min}\Omega_{B}$]{}.
Using these constructions, marginal states can be defined as follows [@Barnum-PRL]. Given a state $\omega\in\Omega_{A}\otimes\Omega_{B}$, define
\[e:marginalstates\]
$$\omega_{A}(a) := \omega(a\otimes u_{B})$$
$$\omega_{B}(b) := \omega(u_{A}\otimes b)$$
It is possible to show that the marginals of an entangled state are necessarily mixed, while those of an unentangled pure state are necessarily pure.
These definitions are sufficient for a generalization of entanglement to arbitrary COM’s. In the following section we review a geometrical construction whose generalization yields an alternative conceptualization of the entanglement-notion. The new view turns out to be more general than the one summarized above.
Geometrical Characterization of Entanglement {#s:paperPRA}
============================================
Let us now focus attention on quantum mechanics for the time being. For a compound system represented by a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ (we restrict ourselves in what follows to a finite dimension), $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is the convex hull of the set of all product states. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the convex set of quantum states and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$ the set of all convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$ (with analogous definitions of $\mathcal{C}_i$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_i}$ for its subsystems, $i=1,2$).
Canonical Maps {#s:CanonicalMaps}
--------------
We focus attention now in the specially important map $\Pi$
\[e:assignment\] $$\Pi:\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}$$ $$\rho\mapsto \rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B}.$$
It is of the essence that product states $\rho=\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B}$ not only satisfy
$$\label{e:productproperty}
\Pi(\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B})=\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B},$$
but [*are the only states which do satisfy (\[e:productproperty\])*]{}. Partial traces are particular maps defined between $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{C}_{1}$, and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{tr}_{i}:\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{C}_{j}&\nonumber\\
&\rho\mapsto \mbox{tr}_{i}(\rho)&,\end{aligned}$$
from which we can construct the induced maps $\tau_i$, also very important for our present purposes, on $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$, via the image of any subset $C\subseteq\mathcal{C}$ under $\mbox{tr}_{i}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:Taui}
&\tau_{i}:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow
\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{i}}&\nonumber\\
&C\mapsto \mbox{tr}_{j}(C)&,\end{aligned}$$
where for $i=1$ we take the partial trace with $j=2$ and vice versa. In turn, we can define the product map
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:Tau}
&\tau:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}&\nonumber\\
&C\mapsto(\tau_{1}(C),\tau_{2}(C))&.\end{aligned}$$
Given the convex subsets $C_1\subseteq\mathcal{C}_1$ and $C_2\subseteq\mathcal{C}_2$ it is possible to define a product
\[d:tensorconvex\] Given the convex subsets $C_{1}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $C_{2}\subseteq\mathcal{C}_{2}$ we introduce now
$$C_1\otimes C_2:=\{\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}\,|\,\rho_{1}\in
C_1,\rho_{2}\in C_2\}$$
Using this, we define the (for us all-important) map $\Lambda$:
\[d:lambda\] $$\Lambda:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$$ $$(C_{1},C_{2})\mapsto Conv(C_1\otimes C_2)$$
where $Conv(\cdots)$ stands for *convex hull* of a given set. Applying $\Lambda$ to the particular case of the quantum sets of states of the subsystems ($\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$), one sees that Definitions \[d:tensorconvex\] and \[d:lambda\] entail
$$\label{e:LambdaC1C2}
\Lambda(\mathcal{C}_{1},\mathcal{C}_{2})=Conv(\mathcal{C}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{C}_{2})$$
and this is nothing but
$$\label{e:separablemixing}
\Lambda(\mathcal{C}_{1},\mathcal{C}_{2})=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}),$$
because $\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is by definition (for finite dimension) the convex hull of the set of all product states.
Informational Invariance
------------------------
Let us elaborate: if it is possible to prepare in the laboratory $A$ a given set of states $C_1$, it is reasonable to assume that $C_1$ is convex, because if it is not, it is possible to make it convex by recourse to classical algorithms (for example, by tossing a biased coin, preparing one state or the other according to the outcome, and then forgetting the outcome). Same for the set $C_2$ in laboratory $B$. Then, it is possible (without any recourse to non-classical interactions) to prepare all product states of the form $\rho_{1}\otimes\rho_{2}$ with $\rho_{1}\in C_1$ $\rho_{2}\in C_2$. Also, it is possible to prepare all possible mixtures of such product states using a classical algorithm of the type mentioned above. Now, this new set of states is nothing but $\Lambda(C_1,C_2)$. Thus, $\Lambda(C_1,C_2)$ is the maximal set of states which can be generated without using non-classical correlations, given that the set of states $C_1$ is available at laboratory $A$, and $C_2$ is available in $B$.
In particular, equation (\[e:separablemixing\]) entails that [*the set of all separable states of $\mathcal{C}$ is the image of the pair $(\mathcal{C}_{1},\mathcal{C}_{2})$ under the map $\Lambda$*]{}, i.e., all possible products and their mixtures for the whole sets of states $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$.
Let us now turn to the function $\Lambda\circ\tau$ (the composition of $\tau$ with $\Lambda$) [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. For the special case of a convex set formed by only one “matrix” (point) $\{\rho\}$ we have
$$\label{e:lambdaenunrho}
\Lambda\circ\tau(\{\rho\})=\{\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B}\}$$
which is completely equivalent to $\Pi$ (see Definition \[e:assignment\]), and thus satisfies an analogue of Equation . Using this function it is possible to derive a separability criterium in terms of properties of convex sets that are polytopes [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]:
Let us consider now the separability of pure states. Its characterization in the bipartite instance is quite simple. We assert that $\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ will be separable if and only if it is a product of pure reduced states, i.e., if and only if there exist $|\phi_{2}\rangle\in\mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $|\phi_{2}\rangle\in\mathcal{H}_{2}$ such that $|\psi\rangle=|\phi_{1}\rangle\otimes|\phi_{2}\rangle$. In mathematical terms, this can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:pureseparable}
& |\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\in\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})
\Leftrightarrow\Lambda\circ\tau(\{|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\})=\{|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|\}\nonumber\\
&(\Leftrightarrow\Pi(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|).\end{aligned}$$
While this criterium is no longer valid for general mixed states, the more general criterium \[p:our criteria\] is available for this case: a general *mixed* state $\rho$ is separable if and only if there exists a convex subset $S_{\rho}$ invariant under $\Lambda\circ\tau$. It is clear that the criterium \[p:our criteria\] is analogous to (\[e:pureseparable\]), being a generalization of it to convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$, with $\Lambda\circ\tau$ playing the role of the generalization of $\Pi$. Thus, a generalization of the notion of product state for convex sets can now be defined [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]
A convex subset $C\subseteq\mathcal{C}$ such that $\Lambda\circ\tau(C)=C$ is called a *convex separable subset* (CSS) of $\mathcal{C}$.
Product states are limit cases of convex separable subsets (they constitute the special case when the CSS has only one point) [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. CSS have the property of being *informational invariants* in the sense that the information that they contain as probability spaces [@Holik-Massri-Plastino-Zuberman] may be recovered via tensor products and mixing of their (induced) reduced sub-states.
Let us turn now to a distinctive property of $\Pi$. It is possible to prove that if $\Pi$ is applied twice is seen to be idempotent, i.e.,
$$\label{e:omegacuadrado}
\Pi^{2}=\Pi.$$
and the same holds for $\Lambda\circ\tau$
$$\label{e:lambdataucuadrado}
(\Lambda\circ\tau)^{2}=\Lambda\circ\tau.$$
Consequently, the generalization of $\Pi$ satisfies an equality equivalent to (\[e:omegacuadrado\]).
An important remark is to be made. It is easy to show that if we apply $\tau_i$ to $\mathcal{C}$, we obtain $\mathcal{C}_i$. Thus, using Equation , we obtain
$$\Lambda\circ\tau(\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}))=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$$
and thus, *$\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H})$ is itself an informational invariant (a CSS), and in fact, the largest one*. As we shall see in the following Sections, this fact can be gainfully used to define separability and generalize the geometrical structure of entanglement to arbitrary statistical theories. We shall also see that the generalization of the properties of the functions $\Lambda$, $\tau$ and $\Lambda\circ\tau$, allow us to see how to define a huge family of entanglement measures in arbitrary COM’s.
Entanglement and separability in arbitrary convexity models {#s:EntanglementGeneralization}
===========================================================
In [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000], a general study of extensions of convex operational models is presented. This general framework includes compound systems. We will follow that paper’s approach to advance our entanglement-generalization, applicable to arbitrary extensions of convexity models.
Extensions of Convexity Models {#s:Varadarajan}
------------------------------
Given two arbitrary convex operational models $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ (see Section \[s:COMpreliminaries\]) representing two systems (they not necessarily possess the same underlying theory), a morphism between them will be given by an affine map $\phi:\Omega_{A}\rightarrow \Omega_{B}$ such that the affine dual map $\varphi^{\ast}$ -defined by the functional $\varphi^{\ast}(b):=b\circ\varphi$ (where “$\circ$" denotes composition)- maps the effects of $\mathbf{B}$ into effects of $\mathbf{A}$ [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000].
A link between (or process from)) $\mathbf{A}$ - $\mathbf{B}$ will be represented by a morphism $\phi:\mathbf{A}\rightarrow
\mathbf{B}$ such that, for every state $\alpha\in\Omega_{\mathbf{A}}$, $u_{\mathbf{B}}(\phi(\alpha))\leq 1$ (this is a normalization condition). If we want to study processes, $u_{\mathbf{B}}(\phi(\alpha))$ will represent the probability that the process represented by $\phi$ takes place. In this way, morphisms can be used to represent links between systems (see next paragraph), as for example, “being a subsystem of", as well as processes understood as general evolutions in time, continuous or not.
COM-extensions are studied in [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000]. Let us remember therefrom the definition of the “extension"-notion.
We emphasize the great generality of this formulation: in the above definition of “extension", almost all possible conceivable cases are contained. A subsystem of a classical or (quantal) system constitutes an example of an extension in the above sense (it is the morphism of the canonical set-theoretical projection in the classical case, and of partial trace in the quantum instance). Not only subsystems of a compound system are captured by this notion of extension. Also limits between theories, or coarse grained versions of a given theory, may be considered –under this characterization– as extensions.
General Formal Setting
----------------------
In order to look for a generalization of entanglement which captures the results of previous Sections, we must look at triads of COM’s $\mathbf{C}$, $\mathbf{C_{1}}$ and $\mathbf{C_{2}}$, with states spaces $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}}$, $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_{1}}$, and $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_{2}}$, such that there exist two morphisms (extension maps) $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ in such a way that $\mathbf{C}$ be an extension of both $\mathbf{C_{1}}$ and $\mathbf{C_{2}}$.
It is clear that the product map $\phi=(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$ may be considered as the best candidate for a generalization of the map $\tau$ (see Equation ). But in order to have adequate generalizations of partial traces, i.e., in order to obtain equivalence with the marginal states defined in \[e:marginalstates\]), we need an additional condition: for any product state $a=a_1\otimes a_2$, we should have $\phi(a)=(\phi_{1}(a_1),\phi_{2}(a_2))=(a_1,a_2)$, i.e., the extension maps, when applied to a product state, must yield the corresponding factors of the product, as partial traces do. Thus, we give the following definition:
An extension map $\phi=(\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$ will be called *a generalized partial trace* between COM’s $\mathbf{C}$, $\mathbf{C}_1$ and $\mathbf{C}_2$ if it satisfies
- $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are surjective morphisms between $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}}$, $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_1}$, and $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_2}$.
- For any product state $a=a_1\otimes a_2$, $\phi(a)=(a_1,a_2)$.
and this is how the notion of marginal state defined in \[e:marginalstates\] can be recovered using extensions maps, a much more general notion, in the sense that a particular extension $\phi$ needs not to be a generalized partial trace as defined above.
If we want an analogue of $\Lambda$ (definition IV.3), we must demand additional requirements as well. We will denote the sets of convex subsets of $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}}$ and $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_{i}}$ ($i=1,2$) by $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{i}}$, respectively. We are looking for a map $\Psi$ with the following property. Once the extension maps $\phi_{i}$ are fixed, $\Psi$ should map any pair of non-empty convex subsets $(C_{1},C_{2})$ of $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{1}}\times \mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{2}}$ into a non-empty convex subset $C$ of $\mathbf{C}$ with the following [*compatibility property*]{}: for any $c\in
C:=\Psi(C_{1},C_{2})$, the extension maps must satisfy $\phi_{1}(c)\in C_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}(c)\in C_{2}$. This condition means that the image of $(C_1,C_2)$ under the map $\Psi$ is compatible with the sub-states assigned by the extension maps $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$.
As the maps $\phi_{i}$ are morphisms, using them it is possible to define canonically induced functions on convex subsets, and then to map convex subsets of $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}}$ into convex subsets of $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}_{i}}$, i.e., between $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{i}}$ (there is an analogy with the earlier language involving $\tau_{i}$’s and partial traces: we can make similar definitions as those of Equations and ). With some abuse of notation we will keep calling these maps $\phi_{i}'s$, without undue harm. Summing up, we will use the following definition:
\[d:CompoundPreInvariant\]
A triad $\mathbf{C}$, $\mathbf{C}_{1}$, and $\mathbf{C}_{2}$ will be called a *compound system endowed with a pre-informational invariance-structure* if
1. There exist morphisms $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ such that $\mathbf{C}$ is an extension of $\mathbf{C}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{2}$.
2. There exists also a map $\Psi:\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_{2}}\rightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$ which maps a pair of non-empty convex subsets $(C_{1},C_{2})\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_1}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}_2}$ into a nonempty convex subset $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$, such that for every $c\in C$, $\phi(c)=(\phi_{1}(c),\phi_{2}(c))\in
C_{1}\times C_{2}$.
Notice (again) that the morphisms $\phi_{i}$ may not be, necessarily, generalized partial traces. Most physical systems of interest satisfy these requirements. As we shall see below, all essential features of entanglement can be recovered using these canonical maps between state spaces.
The function $\Lambda$ (defined in \[d:lambda\]) can be naturally generalized to an arbitrary compound system as follows. Given operational models $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B},$ and $\mathbf{C}$, let $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{A}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{B}},$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$ be the sets of convex subsets of $\Omega_{\mathbf{A}}$ $\Omega_{\mathbf{B}}$, and $\Omega_{\mathbf{C}}$, respectively, one defines
\[d:widetilde\] $$\widetilde{\Lambda}: \mathcal{L}_{\Omega_{A}}\times
\mathcal{L}_{\Omega_{B}}\longrightarrow \mathcal{L}_{\Omega_{C}}$$ $$\widetilde{\Lambda}(C_{1},C_{2})\mapsto Conv(C_{1}\otimes C_{2}).$$
where $C_{1}\otimes C_{2}$ is defined as in \[d:tensorconvex\] and $Conv(\ldots)$ stands again for convex closure. It is easy to check that the function defined by \[d:widetilde\] represents a particular case of a function of the type $\Psi$ (Definition \[d:CompoundPreInvariant\]). Notice that the functions $\Psi$ may include more general examples, i.e, there are several forms of going up from the subsystems to the system. For example, we may take
$$\Psi(C_{1},C_{2})=\phi_{1}^{-1}(C_{1})\cap\phi_{2}^{-1}(C_{2}),$$
(which in the quantum realm would correspond to $\Psi(C_{1},C_{2})=\mbox{tr}_{1}^{-1}(C_{1})\cap\mbox{tr}_{2}^{-1}(C_{2})$). If $C_{1}=\{\rho_{1}\}$ $C_{2}=\{\rho_{2}\}$, the function $\Psi$ thus defined yields a convex set of states which may be global ones, compatible with given reduced states $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$. It should also be clear that a function $\Psi$ different from $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ will arise in a model in which the extension contains a third system (apart from $\mathbf{C}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{2}$).
Thus, we see that the definitions involved in \[d:CompoundPreInvariant\] are much more general than partial traces and the $\Lambda$-map. In this sense, any new construction that we define below which uses such functions, contains the usual examples as particular cases.
Before going on, remark that the constructions presented here represent a general setting for COM’s. In this setting, systems are represented as COM’s with a given geometry and the theory may depend critically on the specific choice of the maps $\phi$ and $\Psi$. This choice may represent i) a structural feature of the theory, as is, for example, the case of partial traces in $QM$ (which link states of the system with states of the subsystems), or ii) a theoretical aspect that we want investigate in some detail (as for example, the problem of which global states are compatible with two given reduced states of the subsystems mentioned above). Once these maps and the geometry of the convex sets of states (and observables) are specified, the formal setting is ready for defining “entanglement", informational invariance, and entanglement measures.
Generalized Entanglement
------------------------
The extension $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ of the function $\Lambda$ to arbitrary statistical models, together with the notion of generalized partial traces, allow for the extension of the notions of informational invariance and CSS to any COM
A convex subset $C$ of the set of states $\Omega$ of a compound statistical system $\mathbf{C}$ consisting of $\mathbf{C}_{1}-\mathbf{C}_{2}$ and endowed with i) a generalized partial trace $\phi$ and ii) the up-function $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ will be called a CSS if it satisfies
$$\widetilde{\Lambda}\circ\phi(C)=C.$$
For finite dimension, using Carathéodory’s theorem it is also possible to show that if $\phi$ is a generalized partial trace, a state $\rho$ of an arbitrary physical system may be appropriately called separable, in the sense of definition \[d:generalseparable\], if and only if there exists a CSS $C$ (e.g., such that $\widetilde{\Lambda}\circ\phi(C)=C$) such that $\rho\in C$. The demonstration of this fact is analogous to that of \[p:our criteria\] [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]. Note that in order that an equivalence with definition \[d:generalseparable\] may hold we must use $\widetilde{\Lambda}\circ\phi$ in the definition of informational invariance (and not the more general $\Psi\circ\phi$) with $\phi$ a generalized partial trace. With these constructions at hand, let us restrict ourselves, for the sake of simplicity, to compound systems with only two subsystems and [*look for a generalization of the entanglement and separability notions*]{}.
It should now be clear that the analogues of the maps $\Lambda$ and $\tau$ are $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ and $\phi$, respectively. An important remark needs to be stated at this point. If we have a classical compound $\mathbf{C}$ system, with subsystems $\mathbf{C}_1$ and $\mathbf{C}_2$, then it is easy to show that *the whole set of states $\Omega$ is an informational invariant*. This means that we have the following proposition
Note that informational invariance does not imply classicality: the state space could be a CSS but not a simplex.
*In general, it will be reasonable to define the set of separable states as the largest informational invariant subset*. In particular, if separability is defined as in \[d:generalseparable\], any state $\omega$ which does not belongs to this maximally invariant subset (which is the set of separable states as defined in \[d:generalseparable\]), will satisfy $\widetilde{\Lambda}\circ\tau(\omega)\neq\omega$. But it is important to remark that a more general notion of non separability will be given by the condition $\Psi\circ\tau(\omega)\neq\omega$.
Thus, given a system which is an extension of two other systems, an alternative definition/axiomatization of an entanglement structure can be given by imposing conditions on the maps $\phi$ and $\Psi$ as follows:
\[d:entanglementGeneralized\] Given a *two component compound system endowed with a pre-informational invariance structure* $\mathbf{C}$, formed by $\mathbf{C}_{1}$, and $\mathbf{C}_{2}$, with up-map $\Psi$ and a down-map $\phi$, then
1. A state $c\in\mathbf{C}$ will be called a *non-product state* if $\Psi\circ\phi(\{c\})\neq\{c\}$. Otherwise, it will be called a *product state*.
2. For an *invariant convex subset* $C$ one has $C\in\mathcal{L}_{\mathbf{C}}$, such that $\Psi\circ\phi(C)=C$.
3. If there exist a largest (in the sense of inclusion) invariant subset, we will denote it by $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$.
4. A *two-components compound system* for which
- there exists $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ and
- strict inclusion in $\mathbf{C}$ is guaranteed,
will be said to be an *entanglement operational model*.
5. In an *entanglement operational model* a state $c$ which satisfies $c\notin\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ will be said to be entangled.
*It is clear that using these constructions we can export the quantum entanglement structure to a wide class of COM’s, and for that reason, to many new statistical physics’ systems. And this is done by imposing conditions on very general notions, such as maps between operational models.*
If in the above definition we take $\Psi$ to be $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ and $\phi$ a generalized partial trace, entanglement is thus defined in terms of informational invariance. It should be clear also that quantum mechanics is the best example for entanglement, and that all states in classical mechanics are separable. Remark that the properties of a two-components system will depend, in a strong sense, on the choice of the functions $\Psi$ and $\phi$. These should be selected as the canonical ones, i.e., the ones which are somehow natural for the physics of the problem under study.
Nevertheless, we remark that nothing prevents us from making more general choices for practical purposes. Then, we can also “postulate" a generalized separability criterium (having a different “content" than the one which uses $\widetilde{\Lambda}$) that is not necessarily equivalent to the one of definition \[d:generalseparable\]) and contains it as a special case:
A state $c\in\mathbf{C}$ in an *entanglement operational model* is said to be separable iff there exists $C\subseteq\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{C})$ containing $c$ such that $\Psi\circ\phi(C)=C$.
Note that any general definition of the convex invariant subsets can be formulated via the particular choice of the all-important functions $\phi$ and $\Psi$. These constructions may be useful to develop and search for generalizations/corrections of/to quantum mechanics and for the study of quantum entanglement in theories of a more general character than quantum mechanics. Our constructions constitute a valid alternative to others that one can find in the literature. An interesting open problem would be that of finding the way in which we can express the violation of Bell’s inequalities using our present approach.
Generalized Entanglement Measures
---------------------------------
The constructions erected in previous sections give us a point of view that suggests in clear fashion just how to generalize a certain family of entanglement measures analogous to the Schlienz-Mahler ones [@Ent95; @Holik-Plastino-2011a]. Given that a state $c$ will be entangled iff $\Psi\circ\phi(\{c\})\neq \{c\}$, it is tempting to regard the difference between $\Psi\circ\phi(\{c\})$ and $\{c\}$ as a measure of entanglement. For the simple case in which $\Psi\circ\phi(\rho)$ has only one element (as is the case if $\Psi=\widetilde{\Lambda}$), we define (with some abuse of notation in avoiding the set theoretical “$\{\ldots\}$" symbols):
$$\label{e:ExtensionMeasurement}
G(\rho):=\|H(\Psi\circ\phi(\rho)-\rho)\|,$$
with $H$ and $\|\ldots\|$ a convenient function and norm, respectively. Thus, our construction includes a generalization of a family of quantitative measures of entanglement for arbitrary statistical models. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it provides a completely geometrical formulation of entanglement measures. For the quantum case, and taking $\Psi=\Lambda$ and $\phi=(\mbox{tr}_1(\ldots),\mbox{tr}_2(\ldots))$ the family (\[e:ExtensionMeasurement\]) adopts the form
$$\label{e:SM}
SM(\rho)=\|F(\rho^{A}\otimes\rho^{B}-\rho)\|$$
with $F$ and $\|\ldots\|$ a convenient function and norm, respectively. It can be shown that they are computable and if $F$ and $\|\ldots\|$ are suitably chosen, they provide entanglement criteria as strong as the celebrated *Partial Transpose* one (one of the strongest computable ones) [@Abascal2007; @Bjork-2007a; @Bjork-2007b; @Zhangh-2008].
Equation \[e:SM\] may be reexpressed as follows:
Conclusions {#s:conclusions}
===========
We have worked out our generalizations of some important quantum mechanics’ features via the “reciprocal" maps
- $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tautau}
&\tau:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}&\nonumber\\
&C\mapsto(\tau_{1}(C),\tau_{2}(C))&\end{aligned}$$
which generalizes partial traces to convex subsets of $\mathcal{C}$.
- $$\Lambda:\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{1}}\times\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}\longrightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$$ $$(C_{1},C_{2})\mapsto Conv(C_1\otimes C_2),$$ where $Conv(\cdots)$ stands for *convex hull*. Applying $\Lambda$ to the particular case of ordinary quantum sets of states of two subsystems ($\mathcal{C}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{2}$), one sees that $$\label{e:separablemixingzzz}
\Lambda(\mathcal{C}_{1},\mathcal{C}_{2})=\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{H}),$$ the set of all separable states, i.e., for finite dimension, the convex hull of the set of all product states.
We can summarize our results as follows:
- We provided a generalization of some geometrical properties of entanglement to any statistical theory via the COM approach. This is done by generalizing a previously discovered geometrical structure (see [@Holik-Plastino-2011a]). The generalization is achieved by imposing conditions between very general maps defined between convex operational models, enriching the approach presented in [@Beltrametti.Varadarajan-2000]. Although there is a standard way in which entanglement may be generalized (provided by definition \[d:generalseparable\]), there may exist other possible generalizations, which could be useful for different purposes. Our present framework possess the advantage of being describable in purely geometrical terms. Because of the great generality of the COM approach, these constructions hold for all statistical theories.
- In particular, we presented the extension of the maps $\Lambda$ and $\tau$ ($\Psi$ and $\phi$, respectively) to [*arbitrary*]{} statistical models. We showed that it is possible to generalize $\Lambda$ in any COM with the map $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ \[Cf. Definition()\].
- The alternative perspective provided by these generalizations allows us to define
\(1) new families of entanglement measures, valid for arbitrary statistical models \[Cf. Eq. \] which are based on the Schlienz-Mahler one [@Ent95], and (2) also yields appropriate extensions of the notions of informational invariance and convex separable subsets (CSS) to any arbitrary COM.
Quantal effects {#s:COMapproach}
===============
In modeling probabilistic operational theories one associates to any probabilistic system a triplet $(X,\Sigma,p)$, where
1. $\Sigma$ represents the set of states of the system,
2. $X$ is the set of possible measurement outcomes, and
3. $p:X\times \Sigma\mapsto [0,1]$ assigns to each outcome $x\in
X$ and state $s\in\Sigma$ a probability $p(x,s)$ of $x$ to occur if the system is in the state $s$.
4. If we fix $s$ we obtain the mapping $s\mapsto p(\cdot,s)$ from $\Sigma\rightarrow
[0,1]^{X}$.
Note that
- This identifies all the states of $\Sigma$ with maps.
- Considering their closed convex hull, we obtain the set $\Omega$ of possible probabilistic mixtures (represented mathematically by convex combinations) of states in $\Sigma$.
- In this way one also obtains, for any outcome $x\in X$, an affine evaluation-functional $f_{x}:\Omega\rightarrow [0,1]$, given by $f_{x}(\alpha)=\alpha(x)$ for all $\alpha\in \Omega$.
- More generally, any affine functional $f:\Omega\rightarrow
[0,1]$ may be regarded as representing a measurement outcome and thus use $f(\alpha)$ to represent the probability for that outcome in state $\alpha$.
For the special case of quantum mechanics, the set of all affine functionals so-defined are called effects. They form an algebra (known as the *effect algebra*) and represent generalized measurements (unsharp, as opposed to sharp measures defined by projection valued measures). The specifical form of an effect in quantum mechanics is as follows. A generalized observable or *positive operator valued measure* (POVM) will be represented by a mapping
$$E:B(\mathcal{R})\rightarrow\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$$
such that
$$E(\mathcal{R})=\mathbf{1}$$
$$E(B)\geq 0, \,\,\mbox{for any}\,\, B\in B(\mathcal{R})$$
and for any disjoint family $\{B_{j}\}$
$$E(\cup_{j}(B_{j}))=\sum_{j}E(B_{j}).$$
The first condition means that $E$ is normalized to unity, the second one that $E$ maps any Borel set B to a positive operator, and the third one that $E$ is $\sigma$-additive with respect to the weak operator topology. In this way, a generalized POVM can be used to define a family of affine functionals on the state space $\mathcal{C}$ (which corresponds to $\Omega$ in the general probabilistic setting) of quantum mechanics as follows
$$E(B):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow [0,1]$$
$$\rho\mapsto \mbox{tr}(E\rho)$$
Positive operators $E(B)$ which satisfy $0\leq
E\leq\mathbf{1}$ are called effects (which form an *effect algebra*. Let us denote by $\mathrm{E}(\mathcal{H})$ the set of all effects.
[Indeed, a POVM is a measure whose values are non-negative self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space. It is the most general formulation of a measurement in the theory of quantum physics]{}. A rough analogy would consider that a POVM is to a projective measurement what a density matrix is to a pure state. Density matrices can describe part of a larger system that is in a pure state (purification of quantum state); analogously, POVMs on a physical system can describe the effect of a projective measurement performed on a larger system. Another, slightly different way to define them is as follows:
Let $(X, M)$ be measurable space; i.e., $M$ is a $\sigma-$algebra of subsets of $X$. A POVM is a function $F$ defined on $M$ whose values are bounded non-negative self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ such that $F(X) = I_H$ (identity) and for every i) $\xi \in \mathcal{H}$ and ii) projector $P=
|\psi\rangle\langle \psi|;\,\, |\psi\rangle \in \mathcal{H}$, $P
\rightarrow\, \langle F(P)\xi \vert \xi \rangle$ is a non-negative countably additive measure on $M$. This definition should be contrasted with that for the projection-valued measure, which is very similar, except that, in the projection-valued measure, the $F$s are required to be projection operators.
1truecm
[**Acknowledgements**]{} This work was partially supported by the following grants: i) project PIP1177 of CONICET (Argentina) and ii) project FIS2008-00781/FIS (MICINN) and FEDER (EU) (Spain, EU).
[10]{}
H. Barnum, J. Barrett, L. O. Clark, M. Leifer, R. Spekkens, N. Stepanik, A. Wilce and R. Wilke, 2010 New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 033024 (2010), and references therein.
I. Bengtsson, K. Zyczkowski, Geometry of Quantum States: An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006.
E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 31, 555 (1935).
E. Schrödinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 32, 446 (1936).
A. Einstein, B. Podolski, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)
R. Horodeki, P. Horodki, M. Horodeki, and K. Horodeki, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 865 (2009).
F. Holik and A. Plastino, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 062327 (2011).
H. Barnum and A. Wilce, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science Volume **270**, Issue 1, Pages 3-15,(2011).
J. Barrett, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032304 (2007).
G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062348 (2010).
H. Barnum, J. Barrett, L. Orloff Clark, M. Leifer, R. Spekkens, N. Stepanik, A. Wilce, and R. Wilke, New J. Phys. 12, 033024 (2010).
A. J. Short and S. Wehner, New J. Phys. 12, 033023 (2010).
E. Hänggi, R. Renner and S. Wolf, arXiv:0906.4760 (2009).
M. Pawlowski, T. Paterek, D. Kaszlikowski, V. Scarani, A. Winter and M. Zukowski, arXiv:0905.2292 (2009).
H. Barnum, O. Dahlsten, M. Leifer and B. Toner, IEEE ITW pp. 386�90 (2008).
H. Buhrman, M. Christandl, F. Unger, S. Wehner and A. Winter, Proc. R. Soc. A 462 1919�32 (2006).
A. Short, N. Gisin and S. Popescu, Quantum Inf. Process. **5** 1573 (2006).
G. Ver Steeg and S. Wehner, Quantum Inf. Comput. **9** 801 (2009)
W. van Dam, arXiv:quant-ph/0501159 (2005).
S. Wolf and J. Wullschleger, arXiv:quant-ph/0508233 (2005).
G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys. Rev. A 84, 012311 (2011).
H. Barnum, R. Duncan and A Wilce, arXiv:1004.2920v1 (2010)
H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A.Wilce, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 240501 (2007).
B. Mielnik, Commun. math. Phys. **9** (1968) 55-80
B. Mielnik, Commun. math. Phys. **15** (1969) 1-46
B. Mielnik, Commun. math. Phys. **37** (1974) 221-256
C. Ferrie, Rep. Prog. Phys. **74** 116001 (2011).
F. Holik, C. Massri, A. Plastino and L. Zuberman, Int. Jour. Theo. Phys., in press (2012).
C. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, T. L. Curtright, Eds., [*Quantum mechanics in phase space*]{}(World scientific, Singapore, 2005).
M. A. Martin-Delgado, Scientific Reports **2** 302 DOI: 10.1038/srep00302
B. Dakic, V. Vedral, C. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{} (2010) 190502.
H. Ollivier, W.H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett [**88**]{} (2001) 017901.
D. Cavalcanti, L. Aolita, S. Boixo, K. Modi, M. Piani, A. Winter Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{} (2011) 032324.
J. Batle, A. R. Plastino, A. Plastino, M. Casas, J.Phys. A [**44**]{} (2011) 503304.
A.P. Majtey, A.R. Plastino, A. Plastino, [*New features of quantum discord uncovered by q-entropies*]{}, Physica A (2011)in Press.
L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A [**34**]{} (2001) 6899.
N. Li, S. Luo, Z. Zhang, J. Phys. A [**40**]{} (2007) 11361.
Physical Review Letters, vol. 108, Issue 12, (2012) 120502
H. Barnum, O. C. O. Dahlsten, M. Leifer, and B. Toner, in Information Theory Workshop, 2008, pp. 386 -390, (2008).
E. Beltrametti, S. Bugajski and V. Varadarajan, J. Math. Phys. **41** (2000)
I. S. Abascal and G. Björk, Phys. Rev. A **75**, 062317 (2007).
C. Kothe and G. Björk, Phys.Rev.A **75**, 012336 (2007).
C. Kothe, I. Sainz, and G. Björk,J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **84**, 012010 (2007).
C. J. Zhang, Y. S. Zhang, S. Zhang, and G. C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 060301 (2008).
J. Schlienz and G. Mahler, Phys. Rev. A **52**, (1995) 4396
D. Foulis, M. K. Bennett, Found. Phys. [**24**]{} (1994) 1331�1352.
P. Busch, P. Lahti, P. Mittlestaedt, [*The Quantum Theory of Measurement*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991).
F. Holik and A. Plastino. arXiv:1111.1364 (2011).
W. Stulpe and M. Swat, Found. of Phys. Lett. [**14**]{}, 285 (2001).
H. Barnum, R. Duncan, and A. Wilce, e-print arXiv:1004.2920v1.
S. P. Gudder, *Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics* North Holland, New York - Oxford (1979)
S. P. Gudder, in [*Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory*]{}, A. R. Marlow, ed. (Academic, New York, 1978)
A. Wilce, [*Quantum Logic and Probability Theory*]{}, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/qt-quantlog/. Archive edition: Spring 2009.
A. Ferraro, L. Aolita, D. Cavalcanti, F. M. Cuchietti and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. A **81**, 052318 (2010).
R. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **40**, (1989) 4277-4281
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
address: |
Physics Department, Columbia University\
538 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A.\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Dénes Molnár
title: The gluon plasma at RHIC
---
Introduction {#Section:intro}
============
At present we have a very limited understanding of the properties of the partonic environment created in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Predictions for the density of the gluons produced vary by a factor of five depending on the model considered. Elliptic flow, $v_2(p_\perp)=\langle \cos(2\phi)\rangle_{p_\perp}$, the differential second moment of the azimuthal momentum distribution, and the high-$p_\perp$ suppression of the particle spectra have been the subject of increasing interest[@hydro; @Zhang:1999rs; @molnar_v2; @gvw; @v2_cascade] because they provide important constraints on the density and effective energy loss of partons.
The origin of the remarkable saturation of elliptic flow $v_2(p_\perp) \to 0.2$ above $p_\perp \sim 2$ GeV reported by STAR at Quark Matter 2001[@STARv2] is an open question for theory. Calculations based on inelastic parton energy loss[@gvw] do predict saturation or decreasing $v_2$ at high $p_\perp$. These calculations are valid for high $p_\perp$, where collective transverse flow from lower-$p_\perp$ partons can be neglected and Eikonal dynamics is applicable. However, a constant spatial anisotropy was assumed throughout the evolution, while in reality, it decreases and probably even changes sign. This is likely to reduce the generated elliptic flow much below[@gvw] the preliminary data.
Ideal hydrodynamics[@hydro], the simplest theoretical framework to study elliptic flow, agrees remarkably well with the measured elliptic flow data[@STARv2] up to transverse momenta $\sim 1.5$ GeV$/c$. However, it fails to saturate at high $p_\perp>2$ GeV as does the preliminary data.
A theoretical problem with ideal hydrodynamics is that it assumes local equilibrium throughout the whole evolution. This idealization is marginal for conditions encountered in heavy ion collisions[@nonequil]. Covariant Boltzmann transport theory provides a convenient framework for nonequilibrium dynamics that depends on the local mean free path $\lambda(x) \equiv 1/\sigma n(x)$.
Parton cascade simulations[@Zhang:1999rs; @molnar_v2] show on the other hand, that the initial parton density based on HIJING[@Gyulassy:1994ew] is too low to produce the observed elliptic flow unless the pQCD cross sections are artificially enhanced by a factor $\sim 2-3$. However, gluon saturation models[@Eskola:2000fc] predict up to five times higher initial densities, and these may be dense enough to generate the observed collective flow even with pQCD elastic cross sections.
In this study, we explore the dependence of elliptic flow and the high-$p_\perp$ suppression of the particle spectra on the initial density and the elastic $gg$ cross section. Though parton cascades lack at present covariant inelastic energy loss, elastic energy loss alone may account for the observed high-$p_\perp$ azimuthal flow pattern as long as the number of elastic collisions is large enough[@molnar_v2].
Covariant parton transport theory {#Section:transport_theory}
=================================
We consider here, as in [@molnar_v2; @nonequil; @Yang; @Zhang:1998ej], the simplest nonlinear form of Lorentz-covariant Boltzmann transport theory in which the on-shell phase space density, evolves with an elastic $2\to 2$ rate. We solve the transport equation via the MPC algorithm[@nonequil], which maintains Lorentz covariance using the parton subdivision technique[@Yang; @Zhang:1998tj]. See Ref. [@molnar_v2] and references therein for details.
For a given nuclear geometry and formation time, the solutions of the nonlinear transport equation has been shown[@molnar_v2] to depend mainly on the [*transport opacity*]{} $\chi\equiv\int dz \sigma_t\rho_g
=N\langle\sin^2 \theta_{cm}\rangle$ and the impact parameter $b$. Here $\sigma_t$ is the elastic [*transport*]{} cross section, $N$ is the average number of collisions per parton during the whole evolution, while $\theta_{cm}$ is the collision deflection angle in the c.m. frame. To good accuracy the transport opacity factorizes[@molnar_v2] as $\chi = C(b) \sigma_t(T_0) dN_g/d\eta$.
We label our results by the transport opacity $\chi$ and impact parameter $b$. Furthermore, we quote our transport opacities [*relative*]{} to that for the pQCD minijet gluons predicted by HIJING \[$dN/d\eta = 210$, $\sigma_{gg\to gg} \approx 3$ mb $\Rightarrow \sigma_t \approx 1$ mb, $\chi_{b=0} \approx 0.3$\].
\[Figure:v2\]
\[Figure:pt\]
Numerical results {#Section:glue_results}
=================
The initial condition was a longitudinally boost invariant thermal Bjorken tube at proper time $\tau_0=0.1$ fm/$c$ with uniform pseudo-rapidity distribution between $|\eta| < 5$ and transverse density distribution proportional to the binary collision distribution for the two gold nuclei. Based on HIJING, the pQCD jet cross section was normalized to yield $dN_g/d\eta=210$ in central collisions and the initial temperature was chosen to be $T_0=700$ MeV.
Two different hadronization schemes were applied. One is based on local parton-hadron duality, where each gluon is assumed to convert to a pion[@Eskola:2000fc]. The other hadronization prescription is independent fragmentation, where we considered only the $g\to \pi^{\pm}$ channel. See Ref. [@molnar_v2] for details.
Fig. \[Figure:v2\] shows the impact-parameter-averaged elliptic flow as a function of $p_\perp$. With increasing $p_\perp$, elliptic flow increases until $p_\perp\sim 1.5-2$ GeV, where it saturates. To reproduce the preliminary STAR data, $\sim 80$ times more opaque initial gluon plasma is needed than the pQCD prediction from HIJING. Surprisingly, the results show no sensitivity to the applied hadronization prescription.
Fig. 2 shows that such large transport opacities are also consistent with the preliminary charged hadron spectra measured by STAR[@Dunlop:2001vh]. Hadronization via parton-hadron duality yields too little suppression at high $p_\perp$ because it only incorporates quenching due to elastic energy loss. However, with the additional quenching due to independent fragmentation, the parton cascade results approach the preliminary STAR data.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge the Parallel Distributed Systems Facility at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center for providing computing resources.
This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FG-02-93ER-40764.
[99]{}
P. F. Kolb, P. Huovinen, U. Heinz and H. Heiselberg, Phys. Lett. B [**500**]{}, 232 (2001) \[hep-ph/0012137\]; P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{}, 58 (2001) \[hep-ph/0101136\].
B. Zhang, M. Gyulassy and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. [**B455**]{}, 45 (1999) \[nucl-th/9902016\].
D. Molnar and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. [**A**]{} in press \[nucl-th/0104073\]; Nucl. Phys. [**A661**]{}, 236c (1999) \[nucl-th/9907090\]; and nucl-th/0102031.
X.-N. Wang, nucl-th/0009019; M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2537 (2001) \[nucl-th/0012092\]; M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, and P. Huovinen, nucl-th/0109063.
H. Sorge, Nucl. Phys. [**A661**]{}, 577 (1999) \[nucl-th/9906051\]; M. Bleicher and H. Stocker, hep-ph/0006147.
K. H. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 402 (2001) \[nucl-ex/0009011\]; R. J. Snellings \[STAR Collaboration\], nucl-ex/0104006.
D. Molnar and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. [**C 62**]{}, 054907 (2000) \[nucl-th/0005051\]. Parton cascade code MPC 1.0.6 used in the present study can be downloaded from http://www-cunuke.phys.columbia.edu/OSCAR
M. Gyulassy and X. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**83**]{}, (1994) 307 \[nucl-th/9502021\].
K. J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, P. V. Ruuskanen, and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. [**B570**]{}, 379 (2000) \[hep-ph/9909456\].
Y. Pang, RHIC 96 Summer Study, CU-TP-815 preprint (unpublished); Generic Cascade Program (GCP) documentation available at WWW site http://www-cunuke.phys.columbia.edu/OSCAR
B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**109**]{}, 193 (1998) \[nucl-th/9709009\].
B. Zhang, M. Gyulassy, and Y. Pang, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, (1998) 1175 \[nucl-th/9801037\].
J. C. Dunlop \[STAR Collaboration\], CERN-ALICE-PUB-2001-011
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We present the stellar and ionized-gas velocity curves and velocity-dispersion profiles along the major axis for six early-type spiral galaxies.
Two of these galaxies, namely NGC 2179 and NGC 2775, are particularly suited for the study of dark matter halos. Using their luminosity profiles and modeling their stellar and gaseous kinematics, we derive the mass contributions of the luminous and the dark matter to the total potential. In NGC 2179 we find that the data (measured out to about the optical radius $R_{\rm opt}$) unambiguously require the presence of a massive dark halo. For the brighter and bigger object NGC 2775, we can rule out a significant halo contribution at radii $R
\la 0.6 \,R_{\rm opt}$. Although preliminary, these results agree with the familiar mass distribution trend known for late-type spirals of comparable mass.
[lllllllllllllc]{} & & & & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & &\
NGC 2179&Sa &.SAS0..&13.22&170&51&2885$\pm$10&2673&35.6&172.6& 51& 41& 54& 8.5\
NGC 2775&Sa(r)&.SAR2..&11.03&163&44&1350$\pm$10&1180&15.7& 76.1&128&100& 77& 6.5\
NGC 3281&Sa &.SAS2P\*&12.70&138&69&3380$\pm$10&3098&41.3&200.2& 99& 86& 50& 6.5\
IC 724&Sa &.S..1..&13.4 & 60&55&5974$\pm$10&5853&78.0&378.2& 70& 62& 56& 2.0\
NGC 4698&Sa &.SAS2..&11.46&170&70& 992$\pm$10& 909&12.1& 58.7&119& 76&113& 4.7\
NGC 4845&Sa &.SAS2./&12.10& 75&72&1084$\pm$10& 980&13.1& 63.5&150& 87&100& 4.0\
NOTES – Col.(2): classification from RSA (Sandage & Tamman 1981). Col.(3): classification from RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). Col.(4): total observed blue magnitude from RC3 except for IC 724 (RSA). Col.(5): observed position angle. Col.(6): inclination from Rubin et al. (1985) except for NGC 2179 (Tully 1988). Col.(7): heliocentric velocity of the galaxy derived as center of symmetry of the gas RC. Col.(8): systemic velocity derived from $V_\odot$ corrected for the motion of the Sun with respect of the Local Group by $\Delta V=300\cos{b}\sin{l}$. Col.(9): distance obtained as $V_0/H_0$ with $H_0=75$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Col.(11): radius of the 25 $B-$mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote from RC3. Col.(12): radius of the farthest measured stellar velocity. Col.(13): radius of the farthest measured gas velocity. Col.(14): total integration time of the spectroscopic observation.
author:
- 'E.M. Corsini, , A. Pizzella , M. Sarzi , P. Cinzano , J.C. Vega Beltrán , J.G. Funes, S.J. , F. Bertola , M. Persic , and P. Salucci'
date: 'Received..................; accepted...................'
title: 'Dark matter in early-type spiral galaxies: the case of NGC 2179 and of NGC 2775[^1]$^{\bf ,}$[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Recent analyses of extended rotation curves (RCs) of late-type spiral galaxies (Persic, Salucci & Stel 1996) have confirmed that in spirals of all luminosities a substantial dark matter (DM) component is detectable already in the optical region. The effect is stronger at lower luminosities: the dark-to-visible mass ratio at the optical radius $R_{\rm opt}$[^3] scales with luminosity $\propto L^{-0.7}$.
For early-type spirals the status of our knowledge is different. The RCs presently available for these objects are fragmentary (in particular in the nuclear regions), and only extend to $\la 2\,R_D$ (see Rubin et al. 1985). Consequently, detailed mass decomposition have so far not been possible for these systems. In particular, it is not known whether dark halos are unambiguously present also in early-type spirals.
It may be conjectured that for a given $V(R_{\rm opt})$ the DM fraction within the optical size is smaller in early than in late-type spirals: this, because in an early spiral the conspicuous stellar bulge, with $(M/L)_{\rm bulge} \ga 3 (M/L)_{\rm disk}$, can supply a mass compact enough to make the rotation velocity higher than (see Rubin et al. 1985), and the velocity profile different from, that of a late spiral of similar luminosity. In this case, the derivation of the halo parameters would be more uncertain for early than for late types: in fact, at small radii not two mass components (disk + halo, like in Sc-Sd galaxies), but three mass components (bulge + disk + halo) will have locally similar (solid-body like) behaviors. So for non-extended RC data the mass solution of an Sa galaxy would be degenerate even within the maximum-disk solution.
In this paper we present the velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles of the stars and the ionized gas, measured along the major axis, for six early-type spirals. The six selected galaxies (Table 1) were already known to show emission lines and their photometric properties were known. Of these, 5 had already been observed spectroscopically by Rubin et al. (1985), who obtained the RCs of the ionized gas, and photometrically by Kent (1988). NGC 2179 was the only galaxy in our sample still lacking spectroscopical and photometrical observations. To the originally observed sample belonged the early-type spiral too. Its stellar and the gaseous kinematics, found to exhibit a star vs. star counterrotation, is presented and discussed by Bertola et al. (1996). Three-component models (bulge + disk + halo) based on observed photometry and kinematics are obtained for two galaxies of the sample: NGC 2179 and NGC 2775.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
The spectroscopic observations
------------------------------
The spectroscopic observations of our sample galaxies were carried out at the ESO 1.52-m Spectroscopic Telescope at La Silla on February 15-19, 1994.
The telescope was equipped with the Boller & Chivens Spectrograph. The No. 26 grating with 1200 $\rm grooves~mm^{-1}$ was used in the first order in combination with a $2\farcs5 \times 4\farcm2$ slit. It yielded a wavelength coverage of 1990 Å between about 5200 Å and about 7190 Å with a reciprocal dispersion of 64.80 Å mm$^{-1}$. The instrumental resolution was derived measuring after calibration the FWHM of 22 individual emission lines distributed all over the spectral range in the 10 central rows of a comparison spectrum. We checked that the measured FWHM’s did not depend on wavelength, and we found a FWHM mean value of 2.34 Å. This corresponds to $\sigma = 0.99$ Å (i.e., $51$ at 5800 Å and $46$ at 6400 Å). The adopted detector was the No. 24 2048$\times$2048 Ford CCD, which has a $15\times15~\mu$m$^{2}$ pixel size. After an on-chip binning of 3 pixels along the spatial direction, each pixel of the frame corresponds to 0.97 Å$\times\;2\farcs43$.
The long-slit spectra of all the galaxies were taken along their optical major axes. At the beginning of each exposure the galaxy was centered on the slit using the guiding camera. Repeated exposures (typically of 3600 s each) did ensure several hours of effective integration without storing up too many cosmic rays. Some long-slit spectra of 8 late-G or early-K giant stars, obtained with the same instrumental setup, served as templates in measuring the stellar kinematics. Their spectral classes range from G8III to K4III (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1982).
The typical value of the seeing FWHM during the observing nights, measured by the La Silla Differential Image Motion Monitor (DIMM), was $1'' - 1\farcs5$. Comparison helium-argon lamp exposures were taken before and after every object exposure. The logs of the spectroscopic observations of galaxies and template stars are reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
[llcc]{} & & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& 15 Feb 1994 & 01 24 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 15 Feb 1994 & 02 32 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 16 Feb 1994 & 01 17 & 5400\
NGC 2179 & 17 Feb 1994 & 01 41 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 18 Feb 1994 & 00 26 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 18 Feb 1994 & 01 35 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 19 Feb 1994 & 00 19 & 3600\
NGC 2179 & 19 Feb 1994 & 01 27 & 3600\
& 15 Feb 1994 & 04 10 & 3600\
NGC 2775 & 15 Feb 1994 & 05 17 & 3600\
NGC 2775 & 16 Feb 1994 & 03 56 & 5400\
NGC 2775 & 17 Feb 1994 & 02 47 & 3600\
NGC 2775 & 17 Feb 1994 & 03 53 & 3600\
NGC 2775 & 18 Feb 1994 & 02 41 & 3600\
& 16 Feb 1994 & 04 39 & 5400\
NGC 3281 & 16 Feb 1994 & 06 14 & 3600\
NGC 3281 & 17 Feb 1994 & 05 02 & 3600\
NGC 3281 & 18 Feb 1994 & 03 50 & 3600\
NGC 3281 & 19 Feb 1994 & 02 34 & 3600\
NGC 3281 & 19 Feb 1994 & 03 40 & 3600\
& 17 Feb 1994 & 06 16 & 3600\
IC 724 & 17 Feb 1994 & 07 21 & 3600\
& 16 Feb 1994 & 07 22 & 3600\
NGC 4698 & 16 Feb 1994 & 08 28 & 3600\
NGC 4698 & 18 Feb 1994 & 07 17 & 3600\
NGC 4698 & 19 Feb 1994 & 07 42 & 6000\
& 15 Feb 1994 & 07 02 & 3600\
NGC 4845 & 15 Feb 1994 & 08 08 & 3600\
NGC 4845 & 17 Feb 1994 & 05 02 & 3600\
NGC 4845 & 18 Feb 1994 & 08 25 & 3600\
NOTES – Cols.(2-3): date and time of start of exposure. Col.(4): exposure time.
\[tab:log\_g\]
[lllcc]{} & & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& G8III & 15 Feb 1994 & 00 53 & 2\
HR 2035 & G8III & 17 Feb 1994 & 00 04 & 2\
HR 2035 & G8III & 17 Feb 1994 & 00 07 & 3\
HR 2035 & G8III & 17 Feb 1994 & 00 10 & 4\
HR 2035 & G8III & 17 Feb 1994 & 00 16 & 3\
HR 2035 & G8III & 19 Feb 1994 & 00 07 & 2\
HR 2035 & G8III & 19 Feb 1994 & 00 09 & 3\
& K1III & 18 Feb 1994 & 00 08 & 2\
HR 2429 & K1III & 18 Feb 1994 & 00 11 & 2\
HR 2429 & K1III & 18 Feb 1994 & 00 14 & 3\
& K1III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 25 & 3\
& K4III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 35 & 4\
HR 2503 & K4III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 38 & 4\
HR 2503 & K4III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 41 & 4\
HR 2503 & K4III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 46 & 4\
HR 2503 & K4III & 16 Feb 1994 & 00 49 & 8\
& K4III & 15 Feb 1994 & 03 52 & 4\
& K0III & 19 Feb 1994 & 09 29 & 10\
HR 5100 & K0III & 19 Feb 1994 & 09 32 & 7\
& K0.5III & 16 Feb 1994 & 09 33 & 4\
HR 5196 & K0.5III & 16 Feb 1994 & 09 38 & 15\
HR 5196 & K0.5III & 16 Feb 1994 & 09 43 & 10\
& K3III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 14 & 4\
HR 5315 & K3III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 17 & 3\
HR 5315 & K3III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 21 & 3\
& K0.5III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 29 & 3\
HR 5601 & K0.5III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 32 & 4\
HR 5601 & K0.5III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 35 & 4\
HR 5601 & K0.5III & 15 Feb 1994 & 09 39 & 10\
NOTES – Col.(2): spectral class of the template star from The Bright Star Catalogue (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1982). Cols.(3-4): date and time of start of exposure. Col.(5): exposure time.
### Data reduction
Using standard MIDAS[^4] routines, all the spectra were bias subtracted, flat-field corrected by quartz lamp exposures, and cleaned from cosmic rays. Cosmic rays were identified by comparing the counts in each pixel with the local mean and standard deviation, and then corrected by substituting a suitable value.
A small misalignment was present between the CCD and the slit. We measured a difference of $\Delta Y \simeq 1.4$ pixel between the positions of the center of the stellar continuum near the blue and red edge of the spectra. When measuring the stellar kinematics, the tilt had to be removed. This was done by rotating the spectra by a suitable angle ($\theta=0\fdg04$) before the wavelength calibration. We noticed however that the sharp line profile of the emission lines was spoiled by the rotating algorithm. For this reason no rotation was applied when measuring the ionized-gas kinematics.
The wavelength calibration was done using the MIDAS package XLONG. We determined the velocity error possibly introduced by the calibration measuring the ‘velocity curve’ of a sample of 24 OH night-sky emission lines distributed all over the spectral range. The velocity did not show any significant dependence on radius, indicating that the wavelength rebinning had been done proper-Ely. We found a mean deviation from the predicted wavelengths (Osterbrock et al. 1996) of $2$ .
After calibration, the different spectra obtained for a given galaxy were co-added using their stellar-continuum centers as reference. For each spectrum the center was assumed as the center of the Gaussian fitting the mean radial profile of the stellar continuum. The contribution of the sky was determined from the edges of the resulting galaxy frames and then subtracted.
### Measuring the gas kinematics
The ionized-gas velocities ($v_g$) and velocity dispersions ($\sigma_g$) were measured by means of the MIDAS package ALICE. We measured the lines ($\lambda\lambda\,$6548.03, 6583.41 Å), the line ($\lambda\,$6562.82 Å), and the lines ($\lambda\lambda\,$6716.47, 6730.85 Å), where they were clearly detected. The position, the FWHM, and the uncalibrated flux $F$ of each emission line were determined by interactively fitting one Gaussian to each line plus a polynomial to its local continuum. The center wavelength of the fitting Gaussian was converted into velocity in the optical convention $v = cz$; then the standard heliocentric correction was applied. The Gaussian FWHM was corrected for the instrumental FWHM, and then converted into the velocity dispersion $\sigma$. In the regions where the intensity of the emission lines was low, we binned adjacent spectral rows in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, $S/N$, of the lines.
We expressed the variation of the r.m.s. velocity error $\delta_v$ as a function of the relevant line $S/N$ ratio. In order to find the expression for $\delta_v = \delta_v (S/N)$, we selected the same 16 night-sky emission lines in the spectra of NGC 2775, NGC 3281, IC 724 and NGC 4845. Such night-sky emissions were chosen to have different intensities and different wavelengths between 6450 Å and 6680 Å(i.e. the wavelength range of the observed emission lines of the ionized gas) in the four spectra. We derived the sky spectra by averaging several rows along the spatial direction in a galaxy-light free region. Using the above package, we interactively fitted one Gaussian emission plus a polynomial continuum to each selected sky line and its local continuum. We derived the flux $F$ and the FWHM of the sample lines, taking the ratio $F/{\rm FWHM}$ as the signal $S$. For each galaxy spectrum the noise $N$ was defined as the r.m.s. of the counts measured in regions of the frame where the contributions of both the galaxy and the sky lines were negligible. The resulting $S/N$ range was large ($1 \leq S/N \leq 50$). For each sample emission line we then measured, by means of an automatic procedure, the night-sky ‘velocity curve’ along the full slit extension. The wavelengths of the emissions were evaluated with Gaussian fits and then converted to velocities. The radial profiles of the sky-line velocities were then fitted by quadratic polynomials. We assumed the r.m.s. of the fit to each ‘velocity curve’ to be the $1\sigma$ velocity error. Fig. \[fig:snratio\] shows the good agreement between the distributions of the $(S/N,\,\delta_v)$ measurements taken in the 4 different spectra. In log-log scale, the $(S/N,\delta_v)$ relation is well represented by a straight line, that corresponds to:
$$\delta_v ~=~ 60.4 \ \left( \frac{S}{N} \right)^{-0.90} {\rm km\ s}^{-1}
\label{eq:sn}$$
(least-squares fit). This result agrees with Keel’s (1996) relation $\delta_v \propto (S/N)^{-1}$, based on numerical simulations. Once the relevant $S/N$ ratio of the emission had been derived, we obtained $\delta_v$ for each velocity measurement of the ionized-gas component by means of Eq. \[eq:sn\]. The gas velocities derived independently from different emission lines are in mutual agreement within their errors $\delta_v$.
The ionized-gas velocities and velocity dispersions from ($\lambda\lambda\,$6548.03, 6583.41 Å), ($\lambda\lambda\,$6716.47, 6730.85 Å), and are reported in: Tables 4 – 7 for NGC 2179; Tables 10 – 14 for NGC 2775; Tables 17 – 21 for NGC 3281; Tables 24 – 26 for IC 724; Tables 29 – 33 for NGC 4698; and Tables 36 – 40 for NGC 4845. Each table reports the galactocentric distance $r$ in arcsec (Col. 1), the observed heliocentric velocity $v$ and its error $\delta_v$ in (Col. 2), the velocity dispersion $\sigma$ in (Col. 3), the number $n$ of spectrum rows binned along the spatial direction (Col. 4), and the signal-to-noise ratio $S/N$ of the emission line (Col. 5). The , and kinematics of the sample objects are plotted in Figs. \[fig:gas\_a\] – \[fig:gas\_c\].
The final ionized-gas kinematics is obtained by averaging, at each radius, the gas velocities and velocity dispersions derived independently from the different emission lines. The gas velocity ($v_g$) and velocity error ($\delta v_g$) are respectively the $1/\sigma_v^{2}$-weighted mean velocity and its uncertainty. The gas velocity dispersion ($\sigma_g$) and velocity-dispersion error ($\delta \sigma_g$) are the mean velocity dispersion and its uncertainty. (No error is given when only one velocity dispersion measurement is available.)
The kinematics of the ionized gas is reported in: Table 8 for NGC 2179; Table 15 for NGC 2775; Table 22 for NGC 3281; Table 27 for IC 724; Table 34 for NGC 4698; and Table 41 for NGC 4845. Each table reports the galactocentric distance $r$ in arcsec (Col. 1), the mean heliocentric velocity $v_g$ and its error $\delta v_g$ in (Col. 2), the mean velocity dispersion $\sigma_g$ and its error $\delta \sigma_g$ in (Col. 3). The ionized-gas velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles are plotted in Fig. \[fig:kin\] for all our galaxies.
### Measuring the stellar kinematics
The stellar velocities ($v_\star$) and velocity dispersions ($\sigma_\star$) of the sample galaxies were measured from the absorption lines in the wavelength range between about 5200 Å and 6200 Å. We used an interactive version of the Fourier Quotient Method (Sargent et al. 1977) as applied by Bertola et al. (1984). The K0III star HR 5100 was taken as template: it has a radial velocity of $-0.9$ (Wilson 1953) and a rotational velocity of $10$ (Bernacca & Perinotto 1970).
The spectra of the galaxies and the template star were rebinned to a logarithmic wavelength scale, continuum subtracted, and masked at their edges by means of a cosine bell function of $20\%$ length. At each radius the galaxy spectrum was assumed to be the convolution of the template spectrum with a Gaussian broadening function characterized by the parameters $\gamma$, $v_\star$ and $\sigma_\star$. They respectively represent the line strength of the galaxy spectrum relative to the template’s, and the line-of-sight stellar velocity and velocity dispersion. The parameters of the broadening function, and consequently the stellar kinematics, were obtained by a least-squares fitting in the Fourier space of the broadened template spectrum to the galaxy spectrum in the wavenumber range $\left[k_{min},k_{max}\right]=\left[5,440\right]$. In this way we rejected the low-frequency trends (corresponding to $k<5$) due to the residuals of continuum subtraction and the high-frequency noise (corresponding to $k>440$) due to the instrumental resolution. (The wavenumber range is important in particular in the Fourier fitting of lines with non-Gaussian profiles, see van der Marel & Franx 1993 and Cinzano & van der Marel 1994). In deriving the above kinematical properties, the regions $5569.0 <
\lambda < 5585.0$ Å and $5884.0 < \lambda < 5900.0$ Å were masked because of contamination from bad subtraction of the night-sky emission lines of ($\lambda\,5577.34$ Å) and ($\lambda\,5889.95$ Å).
The measured stellar kinematics is reported in: Table 9 for NGC 2179; Table 16 for NGC 2775; Table 23 for NGC 3281; Table 28 for IC 724; Table 35 for NGC 4698; and Table 42 for NGC 4845. Each table reports the galactocentric distance $r$ in arcsec (Col. 1), the heliocentric velocity $v_\star$ and its error $\delta v_\star$ in (Col. 2), the velocity dispersion $\sigma_\star$ and its error $\delta
\sigma_\star$ in (Col. 3). The stellar velocity and velocity-dispersion profiles are plotted in Fig. \[fig:kin\].
The photometric observations
----------------------------
The observation in the Cousin $R-$band of NGC 2179 was performed on March 11, 1997 at the 1.83-m Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) at Mt. Graham International Observatory. A back-illuminated 2048$\times$2048 Loral CCD with $15$$\times15~\mu$m$^{2}$ pixels was used as detector at the aplanatic Gregorian focus, f/9. It yielded a field of view of $6\farcm4\times6\farcm4$ with an image scale of $0\farcs4$ pixel$^{-1}$ after a $2\times2$ pixel binning. The gain and the readout noise were 1.4 e$^-$ ADU$^{-1}$ and 6.5 e$^-$ respectively. We obtained 3 images of 120 s with the $R$ 3.48-inch square filter.
The data reduction was carried out using standard IRAF[^5] routines. The images were bias subtracted and then flat-field corrected. They were shifted and aligned to an accuracy of a few hundredths of a pixel using field stars as reference. After checking that the point spread functions (PSFs) in the images were comparable, they were averaged to obtain a single $R$ image. The cosmic rays were identified and removed during the averaging routine. A Gaussian fit to the intensity profile of field stars in the resulting image allowed us to estimate a seeing PSF FWHM of $1\farcs8$.
The sky subtraction and the elliptical fitting to the galaxy isophotes were performed by means of the Astronomical Images Analysis Package (AIAP: Fasano 1990). The sky level was determined by a polynomial fit to surface brightness in frame regions not contaminated by galaxy light; then it was subtracted out from the total signal. The isophote fitting was performed masking the frame’s bad columns and the bright field stars. We then obtained surface brightness, ellipticity, major-axis position angle, and the $\cos 4\theta$ Fourier coefficient of the isophote’s deviations from elliptical as a function of radius along the major axis. No photometric standards were observed. Thus the absolute calibration was made using the photometric quantities edited by Lauberts & Valentijn (1989) in the same band. We set the surface brightness of an isophote with semi-major axis of $a=20\farcs6$ to the value $\mu = 21.23$ $R$- .
The stellar and ionized gas kinematics
======================================
The resulting kinematics of all our galaxies are shown in Fig. \[fig:kin\]. The plotted velocities are as observed (no inclination correction is applied). In the following we briefly discuss each individual object. At each radius, $V_\star$ ($\equiv
|v_\star-V_\odot|$) and $V_g$ ($\equiv |v_g-V_\odot|$) are the observed rotation velocities of the stars and the ionized gas, respectively.\
[**NGC 2179 –**]{} The gas and stellar kinematics respectively extend to $50''$ ($8.6$ kpc) and $40''$ ($6.9$ kpc) on either side of the nucleus. Outwards of $40''$, the stellar and the gas radial velocities are comparable.\
[*Stars.*]{} In the inner $10''$ ($1.7$ kpc), $V_\star$ increases to $\sim\,100$ . At the center $\sigma_\star\,\sim\,170$ ; away from the nucleus it remains high ($\sigma_\star \geq 100$ ), and possibly even rises.\
[*Gas.*]{} $V_g$ has a steeper gradient than $V_\star$, reaching a value of $V_g=190$ at $|r| \sim\,6''$ ($1.0$ kpc). $\sigma_g$ is strongly peaked ($\sim\,150$ ) at the center; at $|r| > 6''$ it drops rapidly to $\sigma_g \simeq 30$ .\
A circumnuclear Keplerian disk of ionized gas has been recently discovered in the center of NGC 2179 by Bertola et al. (1998a) by means of optical ground-based observations. By modeling the motion of the gaseous disk they inferred the presence of a central mass concentration of $10^9$ .\
[**NGC 2775 –**]{} The gas and stellar kinematics is measured out to $80''$ ($6.1$ kpc) from the center.\
[*Stars.*]{} $V_\star$ increases almost linearly with radius, up to about 130 at $|r| \sim\,22''$ ($1.7$ kpc); for $22'' \leq |r| \leq
30''$ it remains approximately constant; further out it increases to 185 and then flattens out. At $-30\arcsec \leq r \leq +20''$, $\sigma_\star > 150$ ; farther out it declines to $\sim\,40$ and $\sim\,100$ in the SE and NW side, respectively.\
[*Gas.*]{} The gas behaves differently in the two regions $|r|\leq20''$ ($1.5$ kpc) and $|r| > 20''$. The line (the only emission line detected in both regions, see Fig. \[fig:gas\_a\]) shows the presence of two kinematically distinct gas components, named component (i) and (ii). Component (i) rotates with the same velocity as the stars but with a lower velocity dispersion; component (ii) rotates faster than the stars for $0 > r \ga -15''$ (1.1 kpc). Both components show up simultaneously in the spectrum only at $|r| \simeq
14''$, where a double peak in the emission line is clearly detected. $\sigma_g$ peaks (160 ) at the center and rapidly drops to $\sim\,30$ off center.\
[**NGC 3281 –**]{} The stellar kinematics extends to $90''$ ($18$ kpc) and $60''$ (12 kpc) in the SE and the NW side, respectively. The gas kinematics can only be measured within $50''$ (10 kpc) on each side of the nucleus.\
[*Stars.*]{} The stars exhibit a rather shallow rotation gradient: at $r = 10''$ ($2$ kpc), $V_\star \sim\,100$ . At the center $\sigma_\star \sim\,180$ ; off center it decreases to, respectively, $\sim\,70$ in the SE side and $\sim\,50$ in the NW side.\
[*Gas.*]{} $V_g$ has a steep gradient, reaching 150 at $10''$ and then 200 at $20''$ (4 kpc). At the center $\sigma_g
\sim$160 , while at $|r| > 20''$ it falls to $\sim$50 ; $\sigma_g \sim \sigma_\star$ for $|r| < 10''$.\
[**IC 724 –**]{} The stellar kinematics is observed out to $60''$ ($22.7$ kpc) and $40''$ ($15.1$ kpc) in the SW and NE sides, respectively. The ionized-gas kinematics extends to $60''$ on each side of the nucleus. For $|r| > 20''$ ($7.6$ kpc), the gas and stellar kinematics are similar. For $|r| < 20''$, $\sigma_g$ is centrally peaked at $\sim\,180$ , remaining lower than $\sigma_\star$.\
[*Stars.*]{} $V_\star$ increases linearly up to $\sim\,200$ in the inner $8''$ ($3.0$ kpc), followed by a drop to $\sim\,170$ between $8''$ and $15''$ on both sides of the nucleus; further out it rises to $\sim\,240$ at $20''$, and then remains constant. At the center $\sigma_\star \sim\,210$ , then off the nucleus it decreases to $\sim\,50$ .\
[*Gas.*]{} $V_g$ has a steeper gradient than $V_\star$, peaking at 300 at about $8''$; then it decreases, becoming $V_g
\sim V_\star$ at $20''$. The shows steeper central RC gradient and lower velocity dispersion than and (see Fig. \[fig:gas\_b\]). This feature is probably due to the lower $V_\star$: the absorption does not have the same central wavelength as the emission, and hence it shifts the resulting peak toward higher rotation velocities.\
[**NGC 4698 –**]{} The stellar and ionized-gas kinematics are measured out to $75''$ ($4.4$ kpc) and $100''$ ($5.9$ kpc) on each side of the nucleus, respectively.\
[*Stars.*]{} In the innermost $10''$ ($0.6$ kpc) the stars have zero rotation; at outer radii, $V_\star$ is less steep than $V_g$; only for $|r| > 40''$ (2.3 kpc) are $V_\star \sim V_g$ and $\sigma_\star \sim
\sigma_g$. The profile of $\sigma_\star$ is radially asymmetric: in the SE side it shows a maximum of $\sim\,150$ at $9''$ ($0.5$ kpc), then it decreases outwards to $\sim\,50$ and 30 at $30''$ ($1.8$ kpc) in the SE and NW sides, respectively. The measured $V_\star(0) \sim\,0$ is explained by Bertola et al. (1998b) as due to the presence of an orthogonal-rotating bulge.\
[*Gas.*]{} $V_g$ increases to $\sim$130 in the inner $18''$ ($1.1$ kpc); then it increases more gradually reaching $\sim$200 at $60''$ ($3.5$ kpc), and stays approximately constant farther out. In the inner $\pm7''$ ($\pm0.4$ kpc, roughly coinciding with the absorption lines region) $\sigma_g$ has a $75$ plateau, while at larger radii it drops to $\sigma_g \leq 50$ .\
[**NGC 4845 –**]{} The stellar and ionized-gas kinematics are measured out to $70''$ ($4.4$ kpc) in the SW side, and out to $90''$ ($5.7$ kpc) in the NE side.\
[*Stars.*]{} $V_\star$ has a shallower gradient than $V_g$: it reaches 60 at $8''$ (0.5 kpc), and further out it increases slowly, reaching the $V_g$ at $\sim\,60''$ (3.8 kpc). The velocity dispersion is constant, $\sigma_\star \sim\,60$ (in the SW side it drops to 30 for $r > 40''$).\
[*Gas.*]{} $V_g$ reaches $\sim$180 at $14''$ (0.9 kpc), to decrease and remain constant at 150 farther out. For $|r| <
10''$ (0.6 kpc) $\sigma_g \simeq 80$ , then it rapidly falls to $<30$ and $\sim\,40$ in the SW and NE sides, respectively; farther out the behavior of $\sigma_g$ is more uncertain, due to a considerable scatter of the measurements from different lines: along the NW side $\sigma_g \sim\,40$ , while along the SE side $\sigma_g$ slowly decreases to $\sim\,30$ .\
The triaxiality of the bulge of NGC 4845 has been detected by Bertola, Rubin & Zeilinger (1989) and discussed by Gerhard, Vietri & Kent (1989).
The RCs and velocity-dispersion profiles of both the ionized gas and the stars in our Sa galaxies show a rich diversity of kinematical properties.
$V_\star$ has shallower gradient than $V_g$ at the center, while $V_\star = V_g$ at the last measured radius, in all our sample galaxies. For NGC 2179, NGC 2775, NGC 3593, NGC 4698 and NGC 4845, the gas RCs remain flat after a monotonic rise to a maximum \[whose observed values range between $\sim\,120$ (as for NGC 3593) and $\sim\,190$ (as for NGC 2179, NGC 2775)\], or rise monotonically to the farthest observed radius (as for NGC 3281 and IC 724: in the latter after an initial peak at $\sim\,290$ ). Stellar counterrotation and orthogonal rotation has been found in NGC 3593 (Bertola et al. 1996) and NGC 4698 (Bertola et al. 1998) respectively.
The observed $\sigma_\star$ exceeds 100 for several kpc in the innermost regions, peaking at values ranging between 130 (as in NGC 4698) and 210 (as in IC 724); the only exception is NGC 4845 with $\sigma_\star \sim\,70$ at all observed radii. There are sample galaxies whose $\sigma_g$ is low at all radii, reaching a central maximum of $\sim\,80$ (NGC 4698, NGC 4845) or remaining flattish at $\sim\,50$ (NGC 3593); and others where $\sigma_g$ increases to $> 100$ either at the very center (as in NGC 2179, NGC 2775) or over an extended radial range around the center (as in NGC 3281, IC 724).
Mass models
===========
Previous authors (Fillmore, Boroson & Dressler 1986; Kent 1988; Kormendy & Westpfahl 1989) noticed that in the bulge of early-type spirals $V_g$ falls below the predicted circular velocity. Such ‘slowly rising’ gas RCs are explained by Bertola et al. (1995) with the argument that random (non-circular) motions are crucial for the dynamical support of the ionized gas: in some galaxies of their S0 sample they measured $\sigma_g \sim \sigma_\star \ga150$ over an extended range of radii. We do observe the same phenomenon in some of our early-type spirals (see Fig. 5): this fact prevents us to adopt, for early-type disk galaxies, the inner portion of $V_g(r)$ as the circular velocity on which to perform the mass decomposition. When the high values for the velocity dispersion of the gas are measured only in the very central parts (as in NGC 2179) we can not exclude that this is an effect of rotational broadening due to the seeing smearing of the steep velocity gradient.
At larger radii where $\sigma_g \la 50$ , the ionized gas can be considered a tracer of the actual circular velocity. But the limited extension, ($0.5-1)\, R_{25}$ (see Tab. 1), of our $V_g(r)$ makes the derivation of the halo parameters of early-type spirals more uncertain than for later types. In fact, on one hand we lack data at very large radii where only disk and halo affect the circular velocity, on the other hand at small radii (where we can not consider the gas in circular motion) not two (like for Sc-Sd galaxies), but three mass components will have locally similar behaviors (solid-body like). So, in absence of extended and complete RCs, an Sa mass solution would be degenerate.
We therefore have to model the stellar kinematics to determine the galaxy’s total gravitational potential. Then we need to check the derived mass decomposition by comparing the circular velocity, inferred from the model, with $V_g$ at large galactocentric radii. This is necessary to minimize uncertainties on the mass structure obtained from the stellar kinematics. In fact, the uncertain orbital structure of the spheroidal component, consistent with the observed kinematics leads to a degeneracy between velocity anisotropy and mass distribution, which can be solved only through the knowledge of the line-of-sight velocity distribution profiles (Gerhard 1993).
Two galaxies of the observed sample, namely NGC 2179 and NGC 2775, are particularly suited to be studied with the three-component mass models, based on stellar photometry and kinematics, at our disposal. They were chosen for their nearly axisymmetric stellar pattern and to not contain kinematically decoupled (as found NGC 3593 and NGC 4698) or triaxial (as found in NGC 4845) stellar components.
The modeling technique
----------------------
We apply the Jeans modeling technique introduced by Binney, Davies & Illingworth (1990), developed by van der Marel, Binney & Davies (1990) and van der Marel (1991), and extended to two-component galaxies by Cinzano & van der Marel (1994) and to galaxies with a DM halo by Cinzano (1995). (For a detailed description of the model and its assumptions, see the above references.)
The galaxy is assumed to be axisymmetric. Its mass structure results from the contributions of: [*(i)*]{} a spheroidal component; [*(ii)*]{} an infinitesimally thin exponential disk; and [*(iii)*]{} a spherical pseudo-isothermal dark halo with density distribution $\rho(r)=\rho_0/\left[1+(r/r_h)^2\right]$. The mass contribution of the ionized gas is assumed to be negligible at all radii. The spheroidal and disk components are supposed to have constant $M/L$ ratios. The total potential is the sum of the (numerically derived) potential of the spheroid plus the (analytical) potentials of the disk and the halo.
The stellar distribution function $f$ is assumed to depend only on two integral of motion \[i.e., $f=f(E,L_z)$\]. In these hypotheses the Jeans equations for hydrostatic equilibrium form a closed set that, once solved in the total potential, yields the dynamical quantities to be compared with the observed kinematics, once projected onto the sky plane.
To obtain the potentials of the bulge and the disk, we proceed through several steps. [*(a)*]{} First, the bulge surface brightness is derived from the total one by subtracting the disk. Then, it is deprojected by means of Lucy’s algorithm to yield the 3-D luminosity density which, via the $M/L$ ratio, gives the 3-D mass density of the bulge. Finally, solving Poisson’s equation through multipole expansion, we derive the bulge potential (Binney et al. 1990). [*(b)*]{} The exponential disk parameters (scale length $r_d$, central surface brightness $\mu_0$, and inclination $i$) are chosen according to the best-fit photometric decomposition. If $\overline{r_d}$, $\overline{\mu_0}$ and $\overline{i}$ are the disk parameters resulting from the photometric decomposition, the best-fit model to the observed stellar kinematics was obtained considering exponential disks with $|r_d-2''| \leq \overline{r_d}$, $|\mu_0-0.3|$ $\leq
\overline{\mu_0}$, and $|i-5\degr| \leq \overline{i}$. These parameters determine the surface brightness of the disk. Through the disk $M/L$ ratio we obtain the surface mass density of the disk, and then its potential (Binney & Tremaine 1987).
We first solved the Jeans equations only for both the bulge and disk components in their total potential, to give in every point of the galaxy the velocity dispersions onto the meridional plane $\sigma^2_R=\sigma_z^2$ and the mean azimuthal squared velocities $\overline{v_{\phi}^2}$.
To disentangle the respective contributions of the azimuthal velocity dispersion $\sigma^2_{\phi}$ and the mean stellar motion $\overline{v}^2_{\phi}$ to $\overline{v_{\phi}^2}$, for the bulge we made the same hypotheses of Binney et al. (1990) while for the disk we followed Cinzano & van der Marel (1994) respectively. Part of the second azimuthal velocity moment $\overline{v^2_{\phi}}$ in the bulge is assigned to the streaming velocity $\overline{v_\phi}$ as in Satoh (1980). The azimuthal velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\phi}^2$ in the disk is assumed to be related to $\sigma_{R}^2$ (which is assumed in turn to have an exponential fall-off with central value $\sigma_{R,0}^2$ and scale-length $r_\sigma$) according to the epicyclic theory (cfr. Binney & Tremaine 1987).
In the framework of Cinzano & van der Marel (1994), we have to take into account the effects of seeing, of finite slit-width and pixel-size in data acquisition, and of Fourier filtering in data reduction (notably the wavenumber range, as discussed in Sect. 2.1.), in order to compare the sky-projected model predictions with the observed stellar kinematics.
We interpret the discrepancy between the model’s circular velocity and the observed gas rotation in the outer regions as due to the presence of a DM halo. In this case, the Jeans equations have to be solved again, taking the halo into account, too. By introducing the DM halo, the number of free parameters of the model increases to ten. They are: $k$, the local rotation anisotropy parameter of the bulge; the $M/L$ ratios of the bulge and the disk; the disk central surface brightness, scale length and inclination; the central value and scale length of the disk’s second radial velocity moment; and the halo’s central mass density and core radius. To reduce the number of free parameters, in the following we consider only three-component models having same best-fit parameters as no-halo models except for the bulge and disk $M/L$ ratios. We choose the fit parameters in order to simultaneously reproduce the stellar kinematics at all radii as well as $V_g$ at large radii.
The modeling technique described above derives the 3-D distribution of the luminous mass from the 3-D luminosity distribution inferred from the observed surface photometry. For this reason, in the central regions we take into account the seeing effects on the measured photometrical quantities (surface brightness, ellipticity and $\cos
4\theta$ deviation profiles).
We derive for NGC 2179 and NGC 2775 the seeing cutoffs $r_{\mu}$ and $r_{\epsilon}$, defined by Peletier et al. (1990) as the radii beyond which the seeing-induced error on the profile is lower than, respectively, 0.05 in surface brightness and 0.02 in ellipticity. They have expressed $r_{\mu}$ and $r_{\epsilon}$ for a de Vaucouleurs profile as a function of the seeing FWHM, the effective radius $r_e$ and the ellipticity $\epsilon$. For the bulge, we obtained $r_e$ and $\epsilon$, and the corresponding seeing cutoffs $r_{\mu}$ and $r_{\epsilon}$, following an iterative procedure. We started by performing a standard bulge-disk decomposition with a parametric fit (e.g. Kent 1985): we decomposed the observed surface-brightness profile on both the major and the minor axis as the sum of a de Vaucouleurs bulge of surface-brightness profile
$$\mu_b = \mu_e + 8.3268 \left[\left(\frac{r}{r_e}\right)^{1/4}-1 \right]\,,$$
plus an exponential disk of surface-brightness profile $$\mu_d = \mu_0 + 1.0857 \left(\frac{r}{r_d}\right)\,.$$
We assumed the minor-axis profiles of each component to be the same as the major-axis profiles, with values scaled by a factor $1-\epsilon =
b/a$. A least-squares fit of the model to the photometric data provided $r_e$, $\mu_e$ and $\epsilon$ of the bulge, $\mu_0$, $r_d$ of the disk, and the galaxy inclination $i$. The values of $r_e$ and $\epsilon$ were used as a starting input to derive $r_{\mu}$ and $r_{\epsilon}$. Following van der Marel (1991), the ellipticity $\epsilon$ and the $\cos 4\theta$ Fourier coefficients were kept constant within $r_{\epsilon}$ to their value at $r_{\epsilon}$, and the surface-brightness profile was truncated at its value at $r_{\mu}$. A new parametric bulge-disk decomposition was then performed on the truncated photometric data. The resulting new values of the effective radius and ellipticity of the bulge were in turn used to obtain a further estimate of $r_{\mu}$ and $r_{\epsilon}$. The surface photometry was again modified according to these new values, and then another parametric fitting was done. The process was repeated up to convergence.
A least-squares fit to $\mu(r)$ in the bulge-dominated region beyond $r_{\mu}$ was performed using the 2-D brightness distribution resulting from the 3-D luminosity density given for a spherical body by:
[*(i)*]{} a modified Hubble law (Rood et al. 1972): $$j_{\it hu}(r) = j_0
\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{a_{\it hu}}\right)^2\right]^{-\frac{3}{2}}
\label{eq:hubble}$$ where $j_0$ and $a_{\it hu}$ are respectively the central luminosity density and the core radius;
[*(ii)*]{} a Jaffe law (Jaffe 1983): $$j_{\it ja}(r) = \frac{L_{\it tot}}{4 \pi a_{\it ja}^3}
\left(\frac{a_{\it ja}}{r}\right)^2 \frac{1}{(1+r/a_{\it ja})^2}
\label{eq:jaffe}$$ where $L_{\it tot}$ and $a_{\it ja}$ are the total luminosity and the half-light radius;
[*(iii)*]{} a Hernquist law (Hernquist 1990): $$j_{\it he}(r) = \frac{L_{\it tot}}{2 \pi} \frac{a_{\it he}}{r}
\frac{1}{(r + a_{\it he})^3}
\label{eq:hernquist}$$ where $L_{\it tot}$ and $a_{\it he}$ are the total luminosity and a scale radius.
The best fit was achieved for NGC 2179 with a Hernquist profile and for NGC 2775 with a modified Hubble profile. We used them to extrapolate the $\mu(r)$ profiles of the two galaxies to $r <
r_{\mu}$. After subtracting the disk contribution from the total surface brightness, the 3-D luminosity density of the bulge was obtained starting Lucy’s iterations from a flattened Hernquist model for NGC 2179 and from a flattened modified Hubble model for NGC 2775. The radial profiles of these flattened models are derived respectively from Eqs. \[eq:hernquist\] and \[eq:hubble\] by replacing $r$ with $(q^2R^2+z^2)^{1/2}$ where $q$ is the flattening and $R,z$ cylindrical coordinates.
The modeling results
--------------------
In this section we present the mass models of NGC 2179 and NGC 2775.
### NGC 2179
In Fig. \[fig:n2179fot\] we show the $R$-band surface brightness ($\mu_R$), ellipticity ($\epsilon$) and $\cos 4\theta$ Fourier coefficient of the isophote deviations from elliptical, as a function of radius along the major axis.
The seeing cutoffs are $r_{\mu}=3\farcs0$ and $r_{\epsilon}=5\farcs2$. The corresponding best-fit parameters obtained from the photometric decomposition are: $\mu_e = 21.0$ $R-$, $r_e = 12\farcs4$, $\epsilon_b= 0.58$ for the de Vaucouleurs bulge; $\mu_0 = 21.8$ $R-$, $r_d = 23\farcs5$, $\epsilon_d=0.29$ for the exponential disk. (Taking into account the photometric bulge-disk decomposition, the exponential disk yielding the best-fit model to the observed stellar kinematics has $\mu_0 = 21.7$ $R-$, $r_d = 23\farcs7 =
4.1$ kpc, and $i=45\degr$; see dashed curve in Fig. \[fig:n2179fot\]). We then subtract the disk contribution from the total surface brightness. The residual surface brightness is the contribution of the spheroidal component.
The difference between the surface brightness of the spheroid and that obtained projecting the 3-D luminosity distribution of each of the four Lucy iterations (including the initial flatted Hernquist model) is shown in Fig. \[fig:n2179dep\] (right panel) along NGC 2179’s major, minor and two intermediate axes. (The r.m.s. residual of the last Lucy iteration corresponds to 0.06509 ). The 3-D luminosity density of the final bulge model along the same four axes is also presented in Fig. \[fig:n2179dep\] (left panel).
We fold $v_g$ and $v_\star$ around their respective centers of symmetry. In order to determine the latter, we fit a suitable odd function to both RCs independently: this yields the position of the kinematical center of the curve, $r_0$, and the heliocentric velocity of the galaxy, $V_\odot$. We find $V_\odot = 2885\pm10$ for both gas and stars, and $r_{0, g}=+0\farcs5\pm0\farcs3$ and $r_{0,\star}=+0\farcs6\pm0\farcs3$. We then fold $\sigma_g$ and $\sigma_\star$ around the kinematical center of the respective component.
The best-fit model to the observed major-axis stellar kinematics is shown in Fig. \[fig:n2179mod\_s\]. Its parameters are as follows. The bulge is an oblate isotropic rotator ($k=1$) with $(M/L_R)_b$ = 6.1 . The exponential disk has $\sigma_\star(r)=
168\;e^{-r/r_\sigma}$ with scale-length $r_{\sigma} = 23\farcs2
= 4.0$ kpc), and $(M/L_R)_d$ = 6.1 . The derived bulge and disk masses are $M_{b}= 7.0 \cdot 10^{10}$ and $M_{d}= 2.5 \cdot
10^{10}$ , adding up to a total (bulge + disk) luminous mass of $M_{\rm LM} = 9.5 \cdot 10^{10}$ . The DM halo has $\rho_0 =
6.9 \cdot 10^{-2}$ and $r_h = 24'' = 4.2$ kpc, which correspond to an asymptotic rotation velocity $V_\infty = 257$ ; its mass at the outermost observed radius is $M_{\rm DM}=6.5 \cdot
10^{10}$ . The ratio between the mass-to-light ratios of the stellar components in the models with and without the DM halo is 0.9.
The comparison between the observed rotation of the ionized gas and the true circular velocity, inferred from stellar kinematics, is given in the upper panel Fig. \[fig:n2179mod\_g\]. It shows that a DM halo is unambiguously required to explain the rotation at large radii ($r\geq25''$). This result hinges on accuracy of the gas kinematics data beyond $40''$ mostly derived from line measurements. In NGC 2179, the gas rotation does provide the circular velocity at all radii. The contribution of the DM halo to NGC 2179 circular velocity as function of radius is plotted in lower panel of Fig. \[fig:n2179mod\_g\].
### NGC 2775
In Fig. \[fig:n2775fot\] we show $\mu_r(r)$ and $\epsilon(r)$ along the major axis (Kent 1988). The seeing FWHM for the Kent (1988) data is $2\farcs3$. We derive the seeing cutoffs $r_{\mu}=4\farcs0$ and $r_{\epsilon}=5\farcs2$. As no $\cos 4\theta$ profile is available, we assume it is zero throughout.
The photometric model is improved by taking into account an outer dust lane surrounding the spiral pattern of the galaxy. (This appears as a thin dust ring at about $80''$ from the center, and is visible on panels 78 and 87 of the CAG, see Sandage & Bedke 1994). As a fitting function for the disk component, we use an exponential profile weighted by an absorption ring. We assume the section of the dust ring to have a Gaussian radial profile, defined by central intensity maximum absorption $A_r$, a center $r_r$ and a scale-length $\sigma_r$. This leads to a disk light contribution
$$I_{\it d,ring}(r)=I_d(r)\;\left(1-A_r\;
e^{-\left(\frac{r-r_r}{\sigma_r}\right)^2}\right)$$
The best-fit parameters resulting from the improved photometric decomposition are: $\mu_e = 22.0$ $r$-, $r_e = 53\farcs0$, $\epsilon_b=0.10$ for the de Vaucouleurs bulge; $\mu_0 = 20.7$ $r$-, $r_d = 40\farcs5$, $\epsilon_d=0.28$ for the exponential disk; and $A_r=0.25$, $r_r=85''$ and $\sigma_r= 20''$ for the dust ring. The exponential disk yielding to the best-fit model to the observed stellar kinematics has $\mu_0 = 20.7$ $r$-, $r_d =
40\farcs0 = 3.0$ kpc, and $i=44\degr$ (see Fig. \[fig:n2775fot\]).
The surface brightness of the exponential disk in Fig. \[fig:n2775fot\] is subtracted from the total surface brightness. The fit to the spheroidal component’s deprojected surface brightness is obtained after four Lucy iterations from an initial flatted modified Hubble model (The r.m.s. residual is 0.03209 , see Fig. \[fig:n2775dep\]). The 3-D luminosity density of the final bulge model along the major, minor and two intermediate axes is also shown in Fig. \[fig:n2775dep\].
We find $v_g$ and $v_\star$ to have same center of symmetry at $r_{0,g}=r_{0,\star}=+4\farcs0\pm0\farcs3$ and $V_\odot = 1350\pm10$ . The velocity dispersion profiles are folded around the kinematical center.
The best-fit model to the observed major-axis stellar kinematics is shown in Fig. \[fig:n2775mod\_s\]. Its parameters are as follows. The bulge is an oblate isotropic rotator ($k=1$) with $(M/L_r)_b$ = 5.2 . The exponential disk has $\sigma_\star(r)=
130\;e^{-r/r_\sigma}$ with scale-length $r_{\sigma} = 17\farcs5
= 1.3$ kpc), and $(M/L_r)_d$ = 7.0 . The derived bulge and disk masses are $M_{b}= 8.5 \cdot 10^{10}$ and $M_{d}= 6.1 \cdot
10^{10}$ , so the total (bulge + disk) luminous mass is $M_{\rm
LM} = 14.6 \cdot 10^{10}$ . We kept the ratio between the bulge and disk $M/L$ fixed at the value 1.36 (see Kent 1988). The DM halo has central density $\rho_0 = 5.8 \cdot 10^{-2}$ and core radius $r_h = 60'' = 4.6$ kpc, which correspond to an asymptotic rotation velocity $V_\infty = 258$ ; its mass at the outermost observed radius is $M_{\rm DM}=3.1 \cdot 10^{10}$ . (The latter should be considered an upper limit because the inner kinematics can be explained with no DM halo). Contrary to NGC 2179 in this case we kept the same mass-to-light ratios of the stellar components in the models with and without the DM halo.
For $|r|>65''$ the presence on the equatorial plane of the dust ring, which reduces the light contribution of the (faster-rotating) disk stars of a further $\sim25\%$, causes the observed stellar kinematics to be more affected by the (slower-rotating) bulge stars. In this picture as shown in Fig. \[fig:n2775mod\_s\], our bulge model agrees with the observed drop in velocity and the rise in velocity dispersion. NGC 2775 is a dust-rich system, as can be inferred from its dust-to-HI mass ratio (Roberts et al. 1991), which is $\sim12$ times larger than the mean S0/Sa values (Bregman, Hogg & Roberts 1992).
Although the total luminous mass found by Kent (1988) $M_{\rm LM} =
14.3 \cdot 10^{10}$ (with $H_0=75$ Mpc$^{-1}$) is in good agreement with ours, his mass decomposition differs from ours. He assumed only the bulge to have an analytical $\mu(r)$ (a de Vaucouleurs law with $\mu_e = 21.0$ , $r_e = 22\farcs9$, $\epsilon_b=0.12$), while the disk $\mu(r)$ was taken to be the bulge-subtracted major-axis profile. Kent’s approach is opposite to ours. We assume the disk to have an analytical $\mu(r)$, and the bulge $\mu(r)$ to be the residual surface brightness after subtracting the disk (assuming no a priori analytical expression or fixed axis ratio). Scaled to our assumed distance, the luminosity of Kent’s bulge is $\sim\,31\%$ of ours, while our disk luminosity is $\sim\,43\%$ of Kent’s.
Van der Marel et al. (1991) studied the effects of a $\cos 4\theta$ deviation on the kinematics of NGC 4261. They found that changing the $\cos 4\theta$ Fourier component from zero to $\pm 0.02$ produces variations of $\sim 2\%$ in velocity dispersion and $\leq 10\%$ in rotation velocity. Fig. \[fig:n2775mod\_a4\] shows the stellar kinematics of NGC 2775 in the case of slightly disky ($\cos 4\theta
=+0.02$) and slightly boxy ($\cos 4\theta = -0.02$) isophotes (solid and dotted line, respectively). The disky model rotates faster and has a lower $\sigma_\star$ than the boxy model in the inner $25''$ (1.9 kpc). The differences in $V_\star$ and in $\sigma_\star$ between the two models are $< 10$ : this means that, in the observed range of values, a difference of $0.04$ in $\cos 4\theta$ coefficients corresponds to a difference of $<12\%$ in velocities and $<7\%$ in velocity dispersions. However, these uncertainties are immaterial to our results on the mass structure of NGC 2775 .
The comparison between $V_g$ and the true circular velocity inferred from the stellar kinematics is shown in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:n2775mod\_g\]. It shows that a DM halo is not strictly required to explain the rotation at large radii ($r \geq 35''$). The contribution of the DM halo to NGC 2775 circular velocity as a function of radius is plotted in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:n2775mod\_g\]. Inside $30''$ on the receding arm, $V_\star \simeq V_g$ and $\sigma_\star > \sigma_g \simeq 50$ . This rules out the case that the gas kinematics is dominated by random motions, and leads us to speculate that we are looking at gas rotating on a non-equatorial plane. We suggest this is the signature of a past external acquisition (possibly from the companion galaxy NGC 2777) of gas still not completely settled onto the disk plane.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
We have presented the ionized-gas and stellar kinematics, measured along the major axis, for a sample of six early-type spiral galaxies. (Due to the high values of $\sigma_g$ in their inner regions, the gas RCs can not be used as circular-velocity curves.)
For NGC 2179 and NGC 2775, we have modeled both the stellar and the gaseous kinematics to derive the mass contribution of the luminous and dark matter to the total potential, improving on the efforts by Kent (1988) from gas kinematics alone.
We have found that the innermost kinematics ($r < 2 R_D$) is very well and uniquely reproduced by taking into account the two luminous components. In the (very luminous) early-type spirals considered here, there is a large inner region in which (essentially) light traces the mass and the DM is a minor mass component. This is agreement with the ‘weak’ maximum disk paradigm proposed by Persic & Salucci (1990), but in disagreement with the claim by Courteau & Rix (1998) according to which in the most luminous spirals DM is a protagonist at essentially any radii.
More in detail we have found that in NGC 2179 the combined stellar and gaseous rotation data (measured out to about $R_{\rm opt}$) require the presence of a massive dark halo. In NGC 2775, more luminous and massive than NGC 2179, we can rule out a significant halo contribution out to $0.6\,R_{\rm opt}$. This result complies with the general trend of mass distribution known for later spirals (Persic et al. 1996).
Salucci & Persic (1997), considering a large number of galaxies of mixed morphologies (ellipticals, late spirals, dwarfs, and LSBs), have suggested that the halo structural parameters and the connection between the dark and the luminous matter show a strong continuity when passing from one Hubble Type to another. Ellipticals, considered as luminous spheroids, and spirals, considered as luminous disks, are evidently very different systems, markedly discontinuous in terms of the distribution and global properties of the luminous matter. However, in the structural parameter space, ellipticals and spirals are contiguous, the main difference being that the former are more concentrated in both the dark and luminous components, probably due to the baryons’ dissipational infall being deeper in ellipticals than in spirals (e.g., Bertola et al. 1993). If so, it is hardly surprising that Sa galaxies, being in some sense intermediate systems consisting of a luminous spheroid embedded in a luminous disk, fit in the regularity pattern of the dark-to-visible mass connection shared by ellipticals and spirals. In Fig. \[fig:dm\] we plot our derived dark-to-visible mass ratios at the farthest measured radii for NGC 2179 and NGC 2775 (filled circles) onto the distribution, derived by Salucci & Persic (1997) for galaxies with the same visible mass. The agreement is good. Even if the present result on early-type spirals is preliminary and without pretending to draw general conclusions from one particular case, it nevertheless seems to agree with the idea that, for galaxies of all morphological types, the dark-to-luminous mass ratio at any given radius depends only on the (luminous) mass of the galaxy.
We are indebted to R.P. van der Marel for providing his $f(E,L_z)$ modeling software which became the basis of our modeling package. We also thank R. Falomo for providing some photometric data reduction tools. We are most grateful to the Vatican Observatory Research Group for allocating the observing time. Particular thanks go to R. Boyle, S.J. for his help during the observing run at the VATT. The research of AP was partially supported by an [*Acciaierie Beltrame*]{} grant. JCVB acknowledges a grant from Telescopio Nazionale Galileo and Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova. This research has 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.
Bernacca, P.L., Perinotto, M. 1970, Contr. Oss. Astr. Asiago, 239, 1 Bertola, F., Rubin, V.C., Zeilinger, W.W. 1989, ApJ, 345, L29 Bertola, F., Bettoni, D., Rusconi, L., Sedmak, G. 1984, AJ, 89, 356 Bertola, F., Pizzella, A., Persic, M., Salucci, P. 1993, ApJ, 416, L45 Bertola, F., Cinzano, P., Corsini, E.M., Rix, H.-W., Zeilinger, W.W. 1995, ApJ, 448, L13 Bertola, F., Cinzano, P., Corsini, E.M., Pizzella, A., Persic, M., Salucci, P. 1996, ApJ, 458, L67 Bertola, F., Cappellari, M., Funes S.J., J.G., Corsini, E.M., Pizzella, A., Vega Beltràn, J.C. 1998a, ApJ, submitted Bertola, F., Corsini, E.M., Vega Beltràn, J.C., Sarzi, M., Pizzella, A., Funes, J.G. 1998b, in preparation Binney, J., Davies, R.L., Illingworth, G.D. 1990, ApJ, 361, 78 Binney, J., Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton Bregman, J.N, Hogg, D.E., Roberts, M.S. 1992, ApJ, 387, 484 Cinzano, P. 1995, Ph.D. Thesis, Università di Padova Cinzano, P., van der Marel, R.P. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 325 Courteau, S., Rix, H.-W. 1998, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/9707290\] de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.G., Jr., Buta, R.J., Paturel, G., Fouquè, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies. Springer-Verlag, New York (RC3) Fasano, G. 1990, Internal Report of the Padova Astronomical Observatory Fillmore, J.A., Boroson, T.A., Dressler, A. 1986, ApJ, 302, 208 Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811 Gerhard, O.E. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 213 Gerhard, O.E., Vietri, M., Kent, S.M. 1989, ApJ, 345, L33 Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359 Hoffleit, D., Jaschek, C. 1982, The Bright Star Catalogue. Yale University Observatory, New Haven (BSC) Keel, W.C. 1996, ApJS, 106, 27 Kent, S.M. 1985, ApJS, 59, 115 Kent, S.M. 1988, AJ, 96, 514 Kormendy, J., Westpfahl, D.J. 1989, ApJ, 338, 752 Jaffe, W. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 995 Lauberts, A., Valentijn, E.A. 1989, The Surface Photometry Catalogue of the ESO-Uppsala Galaxies. ESO, Garching bei München Osterbrock, D.E., Fulbright, J.P., Martel, A.R., Keane, M.J., Trager, S.C. 1996, PASP, 108, 277 Peletier, R.F., Davies, R.L., Illingworth, G.D., Davis, L.E., Cawson, M. 1990, AJ, 100, 1091 Persic, M., Salucci, P. 1990, MNRAS, 247, 349 Persic, M., Salucci, P., Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27 Roberts, M.S., Hogg, D.E., Bregman, J.N., Forman, W.R., Jones, C. 1991, ApJS, 75, 751 Rood, H.J., Page, T.L., Kintner, E.C., King, I.R. 1972, ApJ, 175, 627 Rubin, V.C., Burstein, D., Ford, W.K., Jr., Thonnard, N. 1985, ApJ, 289, 81 Salucci, P., Persic, M. 1997, In: M. Persic, P. Salucci (eds.) ASP Conf. Ser. 117, Dark and Visible Matter in Galaxies and Cosmological Implications, ASP, San Francisco, p. 1 Sandage, A., Bedke, J. 1994, The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies. Carnegie Institution, Flintridge Foundation, Washington (CAG) Sandage, A., Tammann, G.A. 1981, A Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog of Bright Galaxies. Carnagie Institution, Washington (RSA) Sargent, W.L.W., Schechter, P.L., Boksenberg, A., Shortridge, K. 1977, ApJ, 212, 326 Satoh, C. 1980, PASJ, 32, 41 Tully, R.B. 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge van der Marel, R.P. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 710 van der Marel, R.P., Binney, J., Davies, R.L. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 582 van der Marel, R.P., Franx, M. 1993, ApJ, 407, 525 Wilson, R.E. 1953, General Catalogue of Stellar Radial Velocities. Carnagie Institution, Washington
[^1]: Based on observations carried out at ESO, La Silla (Chile) (ESO N. 52, 1-020) and on observations obtained with the VATT: the Alice P. Lennon Telescope and the Thomas J. Bannan Astrophysics Facility.
[^2]: Tables 4 to 42 are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html.
[^3]: $R_{\rm opt} = 3.2\, R_D$ is the radius encompassing the $83\%$ of the total integrated light. $R_D$ is the scale-length of the exponential surface brightness distribution $I(r)=I(0)\, e^{-r/R_D}$. For a Freeman (1970) disk, $R_{\rm opt}$ corresponds to the de Vaucouleurs 25 $B$- photometric radius.
[^4]: MIDAS is developed and maintained by the European Southern Observatory.
[^5]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a first-principles investigation to show that the contact conductance of a half conductance quantum ($G_0/2$) found previously does not generally hold for single-atom magnetic junctions composed of a tip and an adatom adsorbed on a surface. The contact conductance of the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction is approximately $G_0/2$, while for the Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junctions the contact conductances are 0.80$G_0$, 1.55$G_0$, and 1.77$G_0$, respectively. The deviation from $G_0/2$ is mainly caused by the variation of the spin-down conductance largely determined by the minority $d$ orbitals, as the spin-up one changes little for different junctions.'
author:
- 'Yi-qun Xie$^{1,2}$'
- 'Qiang Li$^{1}$, Lei Huang$^{1}$, Xiang Ye$^{1}$'
- 'San-Huang Ke$^{3}$'
title: ' Conductance of single-atom magnetic junctions: A first-principles study '
---
The electrical transport property of the atomic contact has attracted much attention for its enormous potential in future atomicscale electronic devices. The conductance of a spin-degenerated atomic-size contact is quantized in units of $G_0=2e^2 /h$, where $e$ is the proton charge and $h$ is the Planck’s constant according to the Landauer’s formula[@Landauer]. In the case of magnetic systems the spin degeneracy is removed, and each spin-polarized channel can contribute up to $G_0/2$ to the total conductance.
The conductance of atomic junctions has been extensively studied by experimental techniques such as the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) [@stm1; @stm2; @stm3; @stm4; @stm5], mechanically controlled break junctions (MBCJ) technique \[7-11\], and electrochemical methods [@ElChem2; @ElChemNi]. Conductances of fractional and integer $G_0$ have been reported for both nonmagnetic and magnetic junctions. Of the particular interest is the observation of $G_0/2$ conductance, e.g., for the noble Pt, Pd, and magnetic Co single-atom chains [@Ugarte2], as well as Cu and Ni nanowires [@ElChemNi; @CuHalfQuantum], although the controversy still exists by arguing that the contamination of $H_2$ may cause the $G_0/2$ conductance [@Untiedt]. Theoretically, the transport property of atomic junctions has been investigated intensively by using either tight-binding methods [@TBAu; @TB2; @TB3Ni] or density functional theory (DFT) combined with quantum transport calculations based on nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) formalism \[18-27\]. However, theoretical calculations have hardly obtained the $G_0/2$ conductance so far. This may be attributed to the difference between the simulation model and the real junction structure which is usually difficult to know experimentally.
Recently, a STM experiment found that in the contact regime the conductance is $G_0/2$ for a single-atom magnetic junction composed of a ferromagnetic Ni tip in contact with a single Co adatom on a ferromagnetic Co island [@stm2]. This experiment provides a more detailed atomic geometry of the junction than those ever reported, which enables a precise theoretical modeling to explore the origin of the $G_0/2$ conductance. Calculations show that the conductance of $G_0/2$ is not due to a fully polarized single channel but a combination of the partially open majority channels and the suppressed minority channels[@Tao2]. However, it still remains unknown whether the $G_0/2$ conductance exists generally for other single-atom magnetic junctions, and how factors like junction structure and species affect the conclusion. In this work, we perform first-principles calculations to investigate this issue and find that the $G_0/2$ conductance is not a general behavior for several other single-atom magnetic junctions. This is because the minority-spin conductance is sensitive to the junction species.
We first study the magnetic junction fabricated by Néel [*et al.*]{}[@stm2] The system is modeled by a tip-adatom/surface junction (denoted by Ni-Co/Co(111)) as displayed in Fig.\[fig1\](a). The single Co adatom is adsorbed on the $fcc$ site of the $fcc$ Co(111) surface represented by a three-layer slab, with each layer containing $4\times4$ atoms. The Ni tip is modeled by a single Ni apex atom and a Ni(111) monolayer on a two-layer Co(111) slab (test calculations using three Ni(111) layers on a two-layer Co(111) slab show only minor effect on the result). The tip-apex atom is placed above the Co adatom in the $z$ direction. In transport calculations, these atoms construct the scattering region, and three additional Co(111) layers are added at the two ends of the scattering region, respectively, to mimic the left and right electrodes (leads). For the other three junctions considered in this work, i.e., Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(001), the treatment is similar except that a four-layer slab is used for the Ni(001) surface and four additional atomic layers are added to represent the leads of the Ni(001) junction, as illustrated in Fig.\[fig1\](b).
In this work, the ferromagnetic spin configuration is adopted for the whole junction. Our calculations show that if the junction (including the tip and the substrate) is considered as one system, the ferromagnetic configuration is the ground state, as was also found in a previous calculation for the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction [@DftAu]. If the junction is considered as two separated system (i.e., the tip and the substrate) the antiferromagnetic configuration between them may be also possible, as considered in Ref.[@stm3; @stm4]. However, the only consideration of the ferromagnetic configuration does not affect the purpose and conclusion of this work: The contact conductance of $G_0/2$ is not a general behavior for different single-atom magnetic junctions.
![ Model system for the tansport calculation of the single-atom magnetic junction. (a) The Ni-Co/Co(111) junction: A Ni tip (green balls) is placed above the Co adatom on the Co(111) surface. (b) The Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junction. The transport is along the $Z$ direction. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
The scattering region is optimized using VASP code[@vasp]. The bottom layer of the surface and the top layer of the tip are fixed during the structure optimization while the other atoms are fully relaxed until the maximum force is smaller than 0.01eV/Å. Projector augmented-wave method [@paw] is used for the wave function expansion with an energy cutoff of 300eV. The PW91 version [@PW91] of the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) is adopted for the electron exchange and correlation.
For the quantum transport calculation, we adopt the NEGF-DFT approach [@ke2004; @datta95] which combines the NEGF formula for transport with [*ab initio*]{} DFT calculation for electronic structure. In practice, the infinitely large open system is divided into three parts: left lead, right lead, and scattering region, as mentioned above. The self-consistent Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian of the scattering region and the self-energies of two semi-infinite leads are used to construct a single-particle Green’s function from which the transmission coefficient ($T$) at any energy is calculated. The conductance $G$ then follows from a Landauer-type relation. For the DFT part, we use a numerical basis set to expand the wavefunction [@siesta]: A double zeta plus polarization basis set (DZP) is adopted for all atomic species. The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) [@pbe] version of GGA is used for the electron exchange and correlation and the optimized Troullier-Martins pseudopotentials [@TM] are used for the atomic cores. We define the spin-polarization ratio at Fermi energy as $P=(T_\uparrow-T_\downarrow)/(T_\uparrow+T_\downarrow)$, where $T_\uparrow$ and $T_\downarrow$ denote the transmission coefficient of the majority and minority spin, respectively.
The conductance of the magnetic Ni-Co/Co(111) junction is given in Fig.\[fig2\](a) as a function of the tip height (i.e., the distance between the tip-apex atom and the surface before the relaxation). It shows that as the tip height decreases, the conductance increases and shows a faster change in the transition region around 5.4-5.2Å, and then increases slowly in the contact region (below 5.2Å). The conductance data in the transition and contact regions can be approximated by two straight lines, and their intersection point defines the contact conductance, as used in Refs.[@stm2; @neel3]. According to this definition, we obtain a contact conductance of 0.48$G_0$ for the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction, which agrees very well with the experimental result [@stm2]. The two spin components of the conductance give a spin-polarization ratio of 0.46 for the tip height of 5.2Å, which is also in good agreement with the previous first-principles calculation[@Tao2].
![(a) The spin-dependent conductance of the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction, and (b) the adsorption height of the Co adatom relative to the surface for different tip heights.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="8cm"}
Fig.\[fig2\](b) gives the adatom’s adsorption height for different tip heights. On can see that in the contact region the adsorption height is obviously larger than that in the tunneling region, and so is the conductance. This is a result of the enhanced adatom-tip interaction in the contact region. An important thing to note is that the adsorption height experiences a large jump for the tip height around 5.3Å, where the conductance also rapidly increases as shown in Fig.\[fig2\](a). This indicates that the adsorption height of the adatom has a direct influence on the conductance because the resulting adatom-tip separation determines the coupling strength (the degree of orbital overlap). Physically, the adsorption height and the resulting adatom-tip separation for a specific tip height is determined by the interaction between the tip and the substrate, which may depend on the junction structure and species. Therefore, to investigate the influence of these two factors on the conductance is important to find out whether a $G_0/2$ conductance is a general result for other magnetic single-atom junctions.
Next, we investigate the conductance of the following three junctions, Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(001). The first two have a similar structure as Ni-Co/Co(111) but are of different species. Thus by comparing their results, we can evaluate the role of species in determining the conductance of the magnetic junctions. The Ni-Ni/Ni(001) and Ni-Ni/Ni(111) junctions are of the same species but have different structures, which enables us to explore the influence of the atomic structure on the conductance.
Fig.\[fig3\](a) displays the conductance as a function of the tip height, and Figs.\[fig3\](b) and (c) give the two spin components of the conductance, for the Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111) and Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junctions, respectively. We find that their contact conductances are 0.80$G_0$, 1.55$G_0$, and 1.77$G_0$ with the corresponding spin-polarization ratios of 0.1, -0.45, and -0.33, respectively. Obviously, the contact conductances of the three junctions deviate largely from $G_0/2$ and also differ much from each other.
![(a) Conductance of the Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junctions, respectively. (b) and (c) show the spin-up and spin-down conductances of these three junctions and of the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction, respectively.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="8cm"}
Specifically, the spin-up conductance of the Ni-Co/Co(111), Co-Co/Co(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(111) junctions are very close (see Fig.\[fig3\](b)), while their spin-down conductances differ from each other significantly (see Fig.\[fig3\](c)). Since these three junctions are of the similar structure, this difference is due to the different junction species which give rise to different local electronic states and tip-adatom couplings.
We find that the spin-up conductance is mainly contributed by the majority $s$, $p_z$, and $d_z$ (sum of $d_{z^2-r^2}$, $d_{xz}$ and $d_{yz}$ with $z$ being the transport direction) orbitals and their contributions to the majority conductance are almost the same for the four different magnetic junctions [@Tao2]. Consequently, the spin-up conductance is little changed for the different junctions. As an example, we give in Fig.\[fig4\](a) the majority-orbital-projected density of states (PDOS) of the Ni adatom in the Ni-Ni/Ni(111) junction and that of the Co adatom in the Co-Co/Co(111) junction with a tip height of 4.4Å. It can be seen that the majority PDOS at the Fermi energy are very close for the two adatoms, leading to the similar spin-up conductances for the two junctions (see Fig.\[fig3\](b)). In contrast, the spin-down conductance is basically determined by the minority $d_z$ orbitals. Their contribution to the minority PDOS of the adatom at the Fermi energy is much larger than the $s$ and $p_z$ orbitals, as shown in Fig.\[fig4\](c) for the Co-Co/Co(111) junction. Importantly, as displayed in Fig.\[fig4\](b), the minority $d_z$ PDOS of the adatom at the Fermi energy varies significantly between the junctions, leading to the very different spin-down conductances for these two single-atom magnetic junctions.
![(a) The majority and (b) minority PDOS of the Co adatom in the Co-Co/Co(111) junction and that of the Ni adatom in the Ni-Ni/Ni(111) junction with a tip height of 4.4Å. (c) The minority $s$, $p_z$ and $d_z$ PDOS of the Co adatom in the Co-Co/Co(111) junction with 4.4Åtip height.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="8cm"}
Now let us have a look at the effect of the junction structure. By comparing the results for the Ni-Ni/Ni(111) and Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junctions (see Fig.\[fig3\]), we find that both the spin-down and spin-up conductances are different, causing a 0.2$G_0$ difference in the total conductance as shown in Fig.\[fig3\](a). However, this difference is smaller than those between the Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Co/Co(111), and Ni-Ni/Ni(111) junctions caused by the different junction species (see Fig.\[fig3\]). Our results show that the $G_0$/2 conductance does not generally hold for the single-atom magnetic junctions investigated in this work. This is due to the the large variation of the spin-down conductance which largely depends on the junction species as well as the junction structure.
Finally, we would like to comment on the major contribution from the majority or the minority to the total conductance. In Ref.[@stm3], the authors investigated the conductance of single-atom magnetic junctions of Cr-Co/Fe(110) and Cr-Cr/Fe(110). It was found that the conductance is mainly determined by the majority channel. In this work, we investigate the contact conductance of single-atom magnetic junctions with different chemical species and structures. Our calculations show that for the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction the contact conductance is also mainly determined by the majority channel: The majority and minority conductances are 0.38 and 0.13 $G_0$, respectively. However, for the other three junctions, the minority conductance is larger than the majority one. This indicates that the major contribution to the total conductance, from the majority or the minority, is also dependent on the junction species and structure.
In conclusion, by performing first-principles quantum transport calculations we have investigated the spin-dependent conductance of the four single-atom magnetic junctions. For the Ni-Co/Co(111) junction the conductance is very close to $G_0/2$, while for the Co-Co/Co(111), Ni-Ni/Ni(111) and Ni-Ni/Ni(001) junctions the conductances are far away from $G_0/2$ and differ significantly from each other. It was found that the spin-up conductance is little influenced by the junction species, and therefore, this difference is mainly due to the variation of the spin-down component determined by the minority $d_z$ orbitals which are sensitive to the junction species. On the other hand, the junction structure can affect both the spin-up and spin-down conductances but not as remarkably as does the junction species for the spin-down one. Our calculation shows that the previously found $G_0/2$ conductance does not generally exist for single-atom magnetic junctions since the conductance is largely dependent on the junction species and is also influenced considerably by the junction structure.
This work was supported by NSFC (Grant No. 51101102 and No. 11174220), Leading Academic Discipline Project of Shanghai Normal University (Grant No. DZL712), and Innovation Researching Fund of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. 10YZ75 and No. shsf020), as well as by Shanghai Pujiang Program under Grant No. 10PJ1410000 and the MOST 973 Project under Grant No. 2011CB922204.
[10]{} R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. [**1**]{}, 223 (1957); Philos. Mag. [**21**]{}, 863 (1970). N. Néel, J. Kröger, L. Limot, K. Palotas, W. A. Hofer, and R. Berndt, Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 016801 (2007). N. Néel, J. Kröger, and R. Berndt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 086805 (2009). M. Ziegler, N. Néel, C. Lazo, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, J. Kröger, and R. Berndt, New. J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 085011(2011). R. Schmidt, C. Lazo, U. Kaiser, A. Schwarz, S. Heinze, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 257202 (2011). M. Polok, D. V. Fedorov, A. Bagrets, P. Zahn, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 245426 (2011). V. Rodrigues, J. Bettini, A. R. Rocha, L. G. C. Rego, and D. Ugarte, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 153402 (2002). V. Rodrigues, J. Bettini, P. C. Silva, and D. Ugarte, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 096801 (2003). S. K. Nielsen, Y. Noat, M. Brandbyge, R. H. M. Smit, K. Hansen, L. Y. Chen, A. I. Yanson, F. Besenbacher, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 245411 (2003). C. Untiedt, D. M. T. Dekker, D. Djukic, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 081401(R) (2004). T. Shiota, A. I. Mares, A. M. C. Valkering, T. H. Oosterkamp, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 125411 (2008). F. Elhoussine, S. M. Tempfli, A. Encinas, and L. Piraux, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1681 (2002). F.-Q. Xie, F. Hüer, F. Pauly, Ch. Obermair, G. Schön, and Th. Schimmel, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 075417 (2010). D. M. Gillingham, I. Linington, C. Müller, and J. A. C. Blanda, J. Appl. Phys. [**93**]{} 7388 (2003). L. de la Vega, A. Martin-Rodero, A. Levy Yeyati, and A. Saúl, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 113107 (2004). M. Dreher, F. Pauly, J. Heurich, J. C. Cuevas, E. Scheer, and P. Nielaba, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 075435 (2005). M. Häfner, J. K. Viljas, D. Frustaglia, F. Pauly, M. Dreher, P. Nielaba, and J. C. Cuevas, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 104409 (2008). V. M. García-Suárez, A. R. Rocha, S.W. Bailey, C. J. Lambert, S. Sanvito, and J. Ferrer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 256804 (2005). D. Jacob, J. Fernández-Rossier, and J. J. Palacios, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 220403(R) (2005). A. Smogunov, A. Dal Corso, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 075418 (2006). A. R. Rocha, T. Archer, and S. Sanvito, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 054435 (2007). F. Tavazza, L. E. Levine, and A. M. Chaka, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 235424 (2010). K. Tao, V. S. Stepanyuk, W. Hergert, I. Rungger, S. Sanvito, and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 057202 (2009). K. Tao, I. Rungger, S. Sanvito, and V. S. Stepanyuk, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 085412 (2010). B. Wang and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 165401 (2011). M. Ternes, C. González, C. P. Lutz, P. Hapala, F. J. Giessibl, P. Jelý´nek, and A. J. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 016802 (2011). G. Kresse and J. Furthm[ü]{}ller, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 11169 (1996). P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 17953 (1994). J. P. Perdew, J. A. Chevary, S. H. Vosko, K. A. Jackson, M. R. Pederson, D. J. Singh, and C. Fiolhais, Phys. Rev. B 46, 6671 (1992). S.-H. Ke, H. baranger, and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 085410 (2004). S. Datta, [*Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995). J. Soler, E. Artacho, J. Gale, A. García, J. Junquera, P. Ordejón, and D. Sánchez-Portal, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. [**14**]{}, 2745 (2002). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3865 (1996). N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 1993 (1991). J. Kröger, N. Néel, and L. Limot, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. [**20**]{}, 223001 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The main objective of this paper consists in creating a new class of copulae from various joint distributions occurring in connection with certain Brownian motion processes. We focus our attention on the distributions of univariate Brownian motions having a drift parameter and their maxima and on correlated bivariate Brownian motions by considering the maximum value of one of them. The copulae generated therefrom and their associated density functions are explicitly given as well as graphically represented.'
title: '**A class of copulae associated with Brownian motion processes and their maxima**'
---
[Michel Adès$^{1*}$, Matthieu Dufour$^1$, Serge B. Provost$^{2}$, Marie-Claude Vachon$^1$]{}\
$^1$[*Département de Mathématiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada*]{}\
$^2$[*Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada*]{}\
$*$ Corresponding author: [email protected]
**Keywor[[d]{}]{}s**: Brownian motion, Copulas, Correlated Brownian processes, Dependence, Two-dimensional Brownian motion.
Introduction
============
This section first presents useful background information on Brownian motion $(\cal{BM})$. Then, copulae are defined and relevant related results are provided.
In 1918, the mathematician Norbert Wiener gave a rigorous formulation of Brownian motion and established its existence, which explains why the alternative name, Wiener process, is also in use. $\cal{BM}$ is utilized in various fiel[[d]{}]{}s of scientific investigation such as Economics, Biology, Communications Theory, Business Administration, and Quantitative Finance. For instance, as pointed out by Chuang (1994), distributional results for $\cal{BM}$ can also be utilized for pricing contingent claims with barriers on price processes; Cao (2017) made use of correlated Brownian motions to solve an optimal investment-reinsurance problem.
Let $\{W_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ and $W_T$ represent the standard $\cal{BM}$ process and its terminal value, $M_t=\max_{0\leq s\leq t}W_s$ and $M_{(s,\,t)}=\max \{W_u,\,s\leq u\leq t\}$. We shall consider the joint distributions of
1. $W_t$ and its maximum $M_t$,
2. $W_T$ and $M_t$,
3. $W_T$ and $M_{(s,\,t)}$,
which have previously been studied by Harrison (1985), Chuang (1996) and Lee (2003), among others.
Some further related results are available in the statistical literature. For example, representations of the joint density function of a $\cal{BM}$ process and its minimum and maximum, which are given for instance in Borodin and Salminen (2002), were shown to be convergent by Choi and Roh (2013). Upper and lower boun[[d]{}]{}s for the distribution of the maximum of a two-parameter $\cal{BM}$ process were obtained by Caba[ñ]{}a and Wschebor (1982). Vardar-Acara et al. (2013) provided explicit expressions for the correlation between the supremum and the infimum of a $\cal{BM}$ with drift. Kou and Zhong (2016) studied the first-passage times of two-dimensional $\cal{BM}$ processes. Haugh (2004) explained how to generate correlatated Brownian motions and points out some applications involving security pricing and porfolio evaluation.
We now review some basic definitions and theorems in connection with copulae. Additional results are available from several authors including Cherubini et al. (2004, 2012), Denuit et al. (2005), Joe (1997), Nelsen (2006), and Sklar (1959).
The main idea behind copulae is that the joint distribution of two or more random variables can be expressed in terms of their marginal distributions and a certain correlation structure. Copulae enable one to separate the effect due to the dependence between the variables from contribution of each of the marginal variables. We focus on the two-dimensional case in this paper. In this framework, a copula function is a bivariate distribution defined on the unit square $\mathbf{I}^2=[0,\,1]^2$ with uniformly distributed margins. Formally, we have:
A function $C:\mathbf{I}^2\mapsto \mathbf{I}$ is a bivariate copula if it satisfies the following properties:
1. For every $y,\,w\in \mathbf{I}$, $$\begin{aligned}
C(y,\,1)&=&y\ \textrm{\ and \ }\ C(1,\,w)=w\,;\\
C(y,\,0)&=&C(0,\,w)=0.\\\end{aligned}$$
2. For every $y_1,\,y_2,\,w_1,\,w_2\in \mathbf{I}$ such that $y_1\leq y_2$ and $w_1\leq w_2$, $$C(y_2,\,w_2)-C(y_2,\,w_1)-C(y_1,\,w_2)+C(y_1,\,w_1)\geq 0,$$
that is, the C-measure of the box vertices lying in $\mathbf{I}^2$ is nonnegative. In particular, the last inequality implies that $C(y,w)$ is increasing in both variables.\
Copulae are useful for capturing the dependence structure of random distributions with arbitrary marginals. This statement is clarified by Sklar’s theorem which is now cited for the bivariate case.
Let $F(x_1,\,x_2)$ be the joint cumulative distribution function of random variables $X_1$ and $X_2$ having continuous marginal distributions $F_1(x_1)$ and $F_2(x_2)$. Then, there exists a unique bivariate copula $C:\mathbf{I}^2\mapsto \mathbf{I}$ such that $$F(x_1,\,x_2)=C\left(F_1(x_1),\,F_2(x_2)\right)\label{Sklar}$$ where $C(\cdot,\,\cdot)$ is a joint distribution function with uniform marginals. Conversely, for any continuous distribution function $F_1(x_1)$ and $F_2(x_2)$ and any copula $C$, the function $F$ defined in equation (\[Sklar\]) is a joint distribution function with marginal distributions $F_1$ and $F_2$.
Sklar’s theorem provides a scheme for constructing copulae. Indeed, the function $$C(u_1,\,u_2)=F\left(F_1^{-1}(u_1),\,F_2^{-1}(u_2)\right)\label{C'=F}$$ is a bivariate copula, where the quasi-inverse $F^{-1}_i$ for $i=1,\,2$ is defined by $$F_i^{-1}(u)=\inf\{x|F_i(x)\geq u\}\quad\forall\,u\in (0,\,1)\label{F-1}.$$ Much of the usefulness of the copulae follows from the fact that they are invariant with respect to strictly increasing transformations. More formally, let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be two continuous random variables with associated copula $C$. Now, letting $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be two strictly increasing functions and denoting by $C_{\alpha,\beta}$ the copula generated by $\alpha(X_1)$ and $\beta(X_2)$, it can be shown that for all $(u_1,\,u_2)\in \mathbf{I}^2,$ $$C_{\alpha,\,\beta}(u_1,u_2)=C(u_1,u_2).\label{C_transformation}$$
Finally, let us denote by $c(\cdot,\cdot)$ the density function corresponding to the copula $C(\cdot,\cdot)$, that is, $$c(u_1,\,u_2)=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u_1\partial u_2}C(u_1,u_2).$$ The following relationship between the joint density $f(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the copula density $c(\cdot,\cdot)$ can easily be obtained from equation (\[Sklar\]): $$f(x_1,x_2)=f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)c(F_1(x_1),F_2(x_2))
\label{f=c}$$ where $f_1(x_1)$ and $f_2(x_2)$ respectively denote the marginal density functions of $X_1$ and $X_2$. Thus, the copula density function can be expressed as follows: $$c(u_1,\,u_2)=\frac{f(F_1^{-1}(u_1),\,F_2^{-1}(u_2))}{f_1(F_1^{-1}(u_1))\, f_2(F_2^{-1}(u_2))}.$$
Jaworski and Krzywda (2013) and Bosc (2012) determined the copulae corresponding to certain correlated Brownian motions. Lager[å]{}s (2010) provides an explicit representation of the copula associated with Brownian motion processes that are reflected at 0 and 1. Several recent articles point out the usefulness of correlated Brownian motions and promote the use of copulae generated therefrom in connection with various applications. For instance, Chen et al. (2016) point out that correlated Brownian motions and their associated copulae can be utilized in the case of correlated assets occurring in risk management, pairs trading and multi-assets derivative’s pricing. Deschatre (2016a,b) proposes to make use of asymmetric copulae generated from a Brownian motion and its reflection to model and control the distribution of their difference with applications to the energy market and the pricing of spread options.
This paper which is principally based on the thesis of Vachon (2008), is organized as follows. Several joint distributions related to certain $\cal{BM}$ processes and their maxima are derived in the second section. The copulae associated with these joint distributions are then constructed in the third section.
Brownian motion and related joint distributions
===============================================
As previously defined, $\{W_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ shall denote a standard $\cal{BM}$ and $M_t=\max_{0\leq s\leq t} W_s$, its maximum on the interval $[0,\,t]$. It is well known (see for instance, Etheridge (2002), Harrison (1990), Karlin and Taylor (1975), Revuz and Yor (2005), Rogers and Williams (2000)) that the joint distribution of $\left(W_t,\,M_t\right)$ and the marginal distribution of $M_t$ are respectively given by $$\mathbb{P}\{M_t\leq a, W_t\leq x\}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-\Phi\left(\frac{x-2a}{\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{if }x\leq a\label{FC_MBS}\\
2\Phi\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-1 &\textrm{if } x>a
\end{array}\right.\quad\forall\,t\in\mathbb{R}_+$$ and $$\mathbb{P}\{M_t\leq a\}=2\Phi\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-1\quad\forall t\in \mathbb{R}_+,\label{F_Max}$$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the standard normal distribution function.
The first proposition of this section provides the joint distribution of $\{W_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\}_{t\geq 0}$, a $\cal{BM}$ with drift $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$, and $M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$, its maximum over the interval ${0\leq s\leq t}$. This section conveniently provides detailed proofs of the distributional results stated in the propositions, whereupon the corresponding copulae will be derived in the next section.
\[FC\_MAX\]*(Harrison (1990))* $$\mathbb{P}\{W^{(\mu,\sigma)}_t\leq x, M^{(\mu,\sigma)}_t\leq y\}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{\rm if $x\leq y$}\nonumber\\
\Phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{\rm if $x>y$}.
\end{array}\right.$$
We first consider the case where $x\leq y$. In light of equation (\[FC\_MBS\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\{W_t\in dx,M_t\leq y\} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\phi\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-\phi\left(\frac{x-2y}{\sqrt{t}}\right)\right){\rm{d}}x,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi(\cdot)$ denotes the standard normal density function.\
Now define $$\mathbb{Q}(A)=\int_A L_t(\omega){\rm d}\mathbb{P}(\omega),\quad A\in \mathfrak{F}_t^0$$ where $L_t=e^{\mu W_t-\frac{1}{2}\mu^2 t}$ is the Radon-Nikodym’s derivative of $\mathbb{Q}$ with respect to $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathfrak{F}_t^0=\sigma(\{W_s, 0\leq s \leq t\})$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R}_+$, is the smallest $\sigma$-algebra generated by the ${\cal{BM}}$ up to time $t$. It follows from Girsanov’s theorem that $\{W_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ is a $\cal{BM}$ with drift $\mu$ under the new measure $\mathbb{Q}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Q}\{W_t\leq x, M_t\leq y\}&=&\int_{\{W_t\leq x,M_t\leq y\}}L_t(\omega){\rm d}\mathbb{P}(\omega)\nonumber\\
&=&E^{\mathbb{P}}[\mathbf{1}_{\{W_t\leq x,M_t\leq y\}} L_t]\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^x e^{\mu z-\frac{\mu^2 t}{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\phi\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-\phi\left(\frac{z-2y}{\sqrt{t}}\right)\right){\rm{d}}z\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^x \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{-\frac{(z-\mu t)^2}{2t}}{\rm{d}}z-e^{2\mu y}\int_{-\infty}^x \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}e^{-\frac{(z-(2y+\mu t))^2}{2t}}{\rm{d}}z\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{2\mu y}\Phi\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right).\label{MAX2}
\end{aligned}$$
Note that the marginal distribution of $M_t$, which is given by $$\mathbb{P}\{M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}=\Phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right),\label{F_Max2}$$ can easily be derived from Proposition \[FC\_MAX\] since for $x>y$, $\{M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\subset\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x\}$.
One can generalize these last results by making use of the following properties of the multivariate normal distribution: $$\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,\rho)=\Phi_2(z_2,\,z_1;\,\rho),\label{Phi2_1}$$ $$\Phi(z_1)-\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,\rho)=\Phi_2(z_1,\,-z_2;\,-\rho),\label{Phi2_2}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_3(z_1,\,z_2,\,z_3;\,\rho_{12},\,\rho_{13},\,\rho_{23})&=&\Phi_3(z_2,\,z_1,\,z_3;\,\rho_{12},\,\rho_{23},\,\rho_{13})\label{Phi3_1}\\
&=&\Phi_3(z_3,\,z_1,\,z_2;\,\rho_{13},\,\rho_{23},\,\rho_{12})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_2(z_2,\,z_3;\,\rho_{23})-\Phi_3(z_1,\,z_2,\,z_3;\,\rho_{12},\,\rho_{13},\,\rho_{23})}\label{Phi_2_3}\\
&=&\Phi_3(-z_1,\,z_2,\,z_3;\,-\rho_{12},\,-\rho_{13},\,\rho_{23}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[Phi\_2\_prop\] Let $z_1,\,z_2,\,z_3$ be real constants and $\rho\geq 0$. If $z_1=-\rho z_2+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\,z_3$, then $$\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi_2(-z_1,\,z_3;\,-\sqrt{1-\rho^2})=\Phi(z_2)\Phi(z_3)\label{Phi2_3}$$ and $$\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi(-z_2)\Phi(z_3)=\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_3;\,\sqrt{1-\rho^2}).\label{Phi2_4}$$
Let $Z_2$ and $Z_3$ be two independent standard normal random variables, and $Z_1$ a random variable defined by $Z_1=-\rho Z_2+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}Z_3$. Note that $Z_1$ has also a standard normal distribution, the random vectors $(Z_1,\,Z_2)$ and $(-Z_1,\,Z_3)$ have bivariate normal distributions with correlation coefficients given by $-\rho$ and $-\sqrt{1-\rho^2}$, respectively. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi_2(-z_1,\,z_3;\,-\sqrt{1-\rho^2})}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\leq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2\}+\mathbb{P}\{-Z_1\leq -z_1,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\leq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}+\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\leq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\geq z_3\}{}\\
& &{}+\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\geq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}+\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\geq z_1,\,Z_2\geq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}.\end{aligned}$$ We now replace $Z_1$ by $-\rho Z_2+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}Z_3$ and $z_1$ by $-\rho z_2+\sqrt{1-\rho}z_3$. Since the events $\{Z_1\leq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\geq z_3\}$ and $\{Z_1\geq z_1,\,Z_2\geq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}$ are clearly empty, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi_2(-z_1,\,z_3;\,-\sqrt{1-\rho^2})}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\leq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}+\mathbb{P}\{Z_1\geq z_1,\,Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{Z_2\leq z_2,\,Z_3\leq z_3\}=\Phi(z_2)\Phi(z_3).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from equations $(\ref{Phi2_2})$ and $(\ref{Phi2_3})$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi_2(-z_1,\,z_3;\,-\sqrt{1-\rho^2})=\Phi(z_2)\Phi(z_3)}\\
&\Rightarrow&\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi(z_3)-\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_3;\,\sqrt{1-\rho^2})=(1-\Phi(-z_2))\Phi(z_3)\\
&\Rightarrow&\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_2;\,-\rho)+\Phi(-z_2)\Phi(z_3)=\Phi_2(z_1,\,z_3;\,\sqrt{1-\rho^2}).\end{aligned}$$
\
\
The joint distributions that will be considered further involve integrals for which closed form representations are given in the next proposition.
\[Int\_Phi3\]Let $a$, $h$, $\theta_i$, $i=1,\,2,\,3$, $\delta_j$ and $\eta_j >0$, $j=0,\,1,\,2,\,3$ be constant, and $\mathbf{R}=[\rho_{ij}]_{i,\,j=1,\,2,\,3}$ be a correlation matrix, then $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{-\infty}^a\exp{(hs)}\Phi_3\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2s}{\eta_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3s}{\eta_3};\mathbf{R}\right)\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta_0}}\label{Phi4_1}\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta_0+\frac{h^2\eta_0^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_4\left(\frac{a-\delta_0^*}{\eta_0},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta_0^*}{\kappa_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2\delta_0^*}{\kappa_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3\delta_0^*}{\kappa_3};\mathbf{R}^*\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_a^{+\infty}\exp{(hs)}\Phi_3\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2s}{\eta_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3s}{\eta_3};\mathbf{R}\right)\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta_0}}\label{Phi4_2}\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta_0+\frac{h^2\eta_0^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_4\left(\frac{-a+\delta_0^*}{\eta_0},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta_0^*}{\kappa_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2\delta_0^*}{\kappa_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3\delta_0^*}{\kappa_3};\mathbf{R}^{**}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_0^*=\delta_0+h\eta_0^2$; $\kappa_i=\sqrt{\theta_i^2\eta_0^2+\eta_i^2}$ for $i=1,\,2,\,3$; $\mathbf{R}^*=[\rho_{ij}^*]_{i,\,j=1,\,2,\,3,\,4}$ with $\rho_{1\,i+1}^*=-{\theta_i\eta_0}/{\kappa_i}$, $i=1,\,2,\,3$; $\rho_{2\,i+1}^*=({\rho_{1i}\eta_1\eta_i+\theta_1\theta_i\eta_0^2})/({\kappa_1\kappa_i})$, $i=2,\,3$; $\rho^*_{34}=({\rho_{23}\eta_2\eta_3+\theta_2\theta_3\eta_0^2})/({\kappa_2\kappa_3})$; and finally $\mathbf{R}^{**}=[\rho_{ij}^{**}]_{i,\,j=1,\,2,\,3,\,4}$ with $\rho_{1i}^{**}=-\rho_{1i}^*$, $i=2,\,3,\,4$; $\rho_{ij}^{**}=\rho_{ij}^*$, $i,j=2,3,4$.
These results are established by making use of properties of the conditional multivariate normal distribution. Note that this proposition is related to a result appearing in Lee (2003) whose derivation relies on the [Esscher transform]{}.
Let $\mathbf{X}=(X_1,\,X_2,\,X_3,\,X_4)'$ be a normally distributed random vector such $E[X_i]=\mu_i$, $Var[X_i]=\sigma_i^2$ and $\mathbf{R}^*=[\rho_{ij}^*]$ for $i,\,j=1,\,2,\,3,\,4$. Then the conditional distribution of $(X_2,\,X_3,\,X_4)$ given $X_1=x_1$ is a trivariate normal distribution (Anderson, 2003) with mean vector $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\mu}^{(1)}+\mathbf{\Sigma}_{12}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{22}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{x}^{(2)}
-\mathbf{\mu}^{(2)}\right)&=&\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mu_2+\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}\rho_{12}\left(x_1-\mu_1\right)\\
\mu_3+\frac{\sigma_3}{\sigma_1}\rho_{13}\left(x_1-\mu_1\right)\\
\mu_4+\frac{\sigma_4}{\sigma_1}\rho_{14}\left(x_1-\mu_1\right)
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_{11}-\mathbf{\Sigma}_{12}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{22}^{-1}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{21}
&=&\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_2^2(1-\rho_{12}^2) & \sigma_2\sigma_3(\rho_{23}-\rho_{12}\rho_{13}) & \sigma_2\sigma_4(\rho_{24}-\rho_{12}\rho_{14})\\
\sigma_2\sigma_3(\rho_{23}-\rho_{12}\rho_{13}) & \sigma_3^2(1-\rho_{13}^2) & \sigma_3\sigma_4(\rho_{34}-\rho_{13}\rho_{14})\\
\sigma_2\sigma_4(\rho_{24}-\rho_{12}\rho_{14}) &\sigma_3\sigma_4(\rho_{34}-\rho_{13}\rho_{14}) & \sigma_4^2(1-\rho_{14}^2)
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_4\left(\frac{x_1-\mu_1}{\sigma_1},\,\frac{x_2-\mu_2}{\sigma_2},\,\frac{x_3-\mu_3}{\sigma_3},\,\frac{x_4-\mu_4}{\sigma_4};\mathbf{R}^*\right)}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{X_1\leq x_1,\,X_2\leq x_2,\,X_3\leq x_3,\,X_4\leq x_4\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{x_1} \mathbb{P}\{X_2\leq x_2,\,X_3\leq x_3,\,X_4\leq x_4\,|\,X_1=s\}\mathbb{P}\left\{X_1\in {\rm{d}}s\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{x_1}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x_2-(\mu_2+\rho_{12}^*\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}(s-\mu_1))}{\sigma_2\sqrt{1-(\rho_{12}^*)^{2}}},\,\ldots,\,\frac{x_4-(\mu_4+\rho_{14}^*\frac{\sigma_4}{\sigma_1}(s-\mu_1))}{\sigma_4\sqrt{1-(\rho_{14}^*)^2}};\right.{}\label{Phi4_3}\\ & &{}\left.\frac{\rho_{23}^*-\rho_{12}^*\rho_{13}^*}{\sqrt{1-(\rho_{12}^*)^2}\sqrt{1-(\rho_{13}^*)^2}},\,\frac{\rho_{24}^*-\rho_{12}^*\rho_{14}^*}{\sqrt{1-(\rho_{12}^*)^2}\sqrt{1-(\rho_{14}^*)^2}},\,\frac{\rho_{34}^*-\rho_{13}^*\rho_{14}^*}{\sqrt{1-(\rho_{13}^*)^2}\sqrt{1-(\rho_{14}^*)^2}}\right){}\nonumber\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{s-\mu_1}{\sigma_1}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\sigma_1}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now letting $x_1=a$, $x_{i+1}=\delta_{i}$, $\mu_1=\delta_0$, $\mu_{i+1}=-\theta_{i}\delta_0$, $\sigma_1=\eta_0$, $\sigma_{i+1}=\kappa_{i}$ for $i=1,\,2,\,3$ and replacing in equation (\[Phi4\_3\]) the elements of the matrix $\mathbf{R}^*$ with their respective values, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_4\left(\frac{a-\delta_0}{\eta_0},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta_0}{\kappa_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2\delta_0}{\kappa_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3\delta_0}{\kappa_3};\mathbf{R}^{*}\right)}\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^a\Phi_3\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2s}{\eta_2},\,\frac{\delta_3+\theta_3s}{\eta_3};\mathbf{R}\right)\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta_0}.\end{aligned}$$ This establishes equation (\[Phi4\_1\]) for $h=0$.
The case $h\neq 0$ follows from the last expression by completing the square in the exponent of $\exp{(hs)}\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)$, so that $$\exp{(hs)}\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)=\exp{(h\delta_0+\frac{h^2\eta_0^2}{2})}\,\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0^*}{\eta_0}\right).$$
Finally, the last result, that is, equation (\[Phi4\_2\]) is similarly obtained on noting that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Phi_4\left(\frac{-x_1+\mu_1}{\sigma_1},\,\frac{x_2-\mu_2}{\sigma_2},\,\frac{x_3-\mu_3}{\sigma_3},\,\frac{x_4-\mu_4}{\sigma_4};\mathbf{R}^{**}\right)}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{(-X_1)\leq -x_1,\,X_2\leq x_2,\,X_3\leq x_3,\,X_4\leq x_4\}\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{X_1\geq x_1,\,X_2\leq x_2,\, X_3\leq x_3,\,X_4\leq x_4\}.\end{aligned}$$
Additionally, as $\delta_3\rightarrow\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{-\infty}^a\exp{(hs)}\Phi_2\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2s}{\eta_2};\,\rho_{12}\right)}\label{Int2_1}\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta_0}\nonumber\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta_0+\frac{h^2\eta_0^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_3\left(\frac{a-\delta_0^*}{\eta_0},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta_0^*}{\kappa_1};\,\rho_{12}^{*},\,\rho_{13}^*,\,\rho_{23}^*\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_a^{+\infty}\exp{(hs)}\Phi_2\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1},\,\frac{\delta_2+\theta_2s}{\eta_2};\,\rho_{12}\right)}\label{Int2_2}\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta_0}{\eta_0}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta_0}\nonumber\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta_0+\frac{h^2\eta_0^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_3\left(\frac{-a+\delta_0^*}{\eta_0},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta_0^*}{\kappa_1};\,-\rho_{12}^{*},\,-\rho_{13}^*,\,\rho_{23}^*\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, as $\delta_2\rightarrow\infty$, it follows from equations (\[Int2\_1\]) and (\[Int2\_2\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{-\infty}^a\exp{(hs)}\Phi\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1}\right)\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta}{\eta}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta}}\label{Int1_1}\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta+\frac{h^2\eta^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_2\left(\frac{a-\delta^*}{\eta},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta^*}{\kappa_1};\,-\frac{\theta_1\eta}{\kappa_1}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_a^{+\infty}\exp{(hs)}\Phi\left(\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1s}{\eta_1}\right)\phi\left(\frac{s-\delta}{\eta}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}s}{\eta}}\label{Int1_2}\\
&=& \exp{\left(h\delta+\frac{h^2\eta^2}{2}\right)}\Phi_2\left(\frac{-a+\delta^*}{\eta},\,\frac{\delta_1+\theta_1\delta^*}{\kappa_1};\,\frac{\theta_1\eta}{\kappa_1}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
These results enable one to establish the distribution of $\left(W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}, \,M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\right)$ within the interval $0<t\leq T$ as specified in the next proposition.
\[M\_t\_W\_T\] *(Chuang (1996) and Lee (2003))* $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right){}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{P\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y|W_T^{(\mu,\,\,\sigma)}-W^{(\mu,\sigma)}_t=z\}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}\times P\{W_T^{(\mu,\,\,\sigma)}-W^{(\mu,\sigma)}_t\in {\rm{d}}z\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y|W_T^{(\mu,\,\,\sigma)}-W^{(\mu,\sigma)}_t=z\}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}\times \phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{x-y}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}{}\label{Mt_1}\\
& &{}+\int_{x-y}^{+\infty}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
By replacing in equation (\[Mt\_1\]) the result of Proposition \[FC\_MAX\], we obtain for the first part of the equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{-\infty}^{x-y}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)\Phi\left(\frac{x-y-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right){}\label{Mt_2}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)\Phi\left(\frac{x-y-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right);\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ as for the second part, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{x-y}^{+\infty}P\{W_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{x-y}^{+\infty}\Phi\left(\frac{-z-(\mu t-x)}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\int_{x-y}^{+\infty}\Phi\left(\frac{-z-(2y+\mu t-x)}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{y-x+\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}},\,\frac{x-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}};\,-\sqrt{1-\frac{t}{T}}\right){}\label{Mt_3}\\
& &-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{y-x+\mu(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}},\,\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}};\,-\sqrt{1-\frac{t}{T}}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from equation (\[Int1\_2\]). On combining the last two results and applying Lemma \[Phi\_2\_prop\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{P\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right)-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
\
As expected, when $t\rightarrow T$, $\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}$.
Next, the joint distribution of $W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ and $M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$, where $M_{(s,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}=\max_{s\leq u\leq t}W_u^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ and $0<s<t\leq T$, is considered.
\[M\_st\]*(Lee (2003))* $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{Mst_2}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\{M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{Mst_1}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let us first consider the joint distribution of a ${\cal{BM}}$ and its maximum on the interval $[s,\,t]$. In that case, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y|W_s^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}=z\}\mathbb{P}\{W_s^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\in {\rm{d}}z\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}-W_s^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}-W_s^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq y-z|W_s^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}=z\}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}-W_s^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,\max_{s\leq u\leq t}\{W^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}_u-W_s^{(\mu,\sigma)}\}\leq y-z\}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_{T-s}^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,\max_{s\leq u\leq t}W^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}_{u-s}\leq y-z\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_{T-s}^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,\max_{0\leq v\leq t-s}W^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}_v\leq y-z\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\mathbb{P}\{W_{T-s}^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x-z,\,M^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}_{t-s}\leq y-z\}\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}.\label{Mst_3a}
\end{aligned}$$ On applying the result of Proposition \[M\_t\_W\_T\] to the first term in the integrand of (\[Mst\_3a\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^y\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-z-\mu (T-s)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-s}},\,\frac{y-z-\mu (t-s)}{\sigma\sqrt{t-s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t-s}{T-s}}\right)\label{Mst_3}{}\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}-\int_{-\infty}^y e^{\frac{2\mu (y-z)}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{x+z-2y-\mu (T-s)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-s}},\,\frac{-y+z-\mu (t-s)}{\sigma\sqrt{t-s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t-s}{T-s}}\right){}\nonumber\\
& &{}\ \ \ \ \times\phi\left(\frac{z-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma\sqrt{s}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\label{Mst_4}{}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sigma\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equation follows from equation (\[Int2\_1\]).
Finally, we obtain result (\[Mst\_1\]) by letting $x$ tend to $+ \infty $ in equation (\[Mst\_2\]).
When $s\rightarrow 0$, $\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}$ and $\mathbb{P}\{M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}\{M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}\leq y\}$.
Consider $\mathbf{W}=(W^1,\,W^2)'$ a Brownian vector where $W^1$ and $W^2$ are two independent standard ${\cal{BM}}$ processes. On letting $\{B^1_t=\sigma_1 (\rho W^2_t+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^1_t)+\mu_1 t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}_+}$ and $\{B^2_t=\sigma_2 W^2_t+\mu_2 t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}_+}$, one can construct a correlated two-dimensional ${\cal{BM}}$ process. Then, it can easily be verified that $\{B^i_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}_+}$ is a $(\mu_i,\,\sigma_i)$-${\cal{BM}}$ for $i=1,\,2$ and the correlation between $B^1_t$ and $B^2_t$ is equal to $\rho$. We say that $(B^1,\,B^2)'$ is a $\left(\mathbf{\mu},\,\mathbf{\Sigma}\right)$-${\cal{BM}}$ with drift vector $$\mathbf{\mu}=(
\mu_1, \mu_2)'$$ and covariance matrix $$\mathbf{\Sigma}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_1^2 & \rho\sigma_1\sigma_2\\
\rho\sigma_1\sigma_2 & \sigma_2^2
\end{array}\right).$$
Finally, we consider the joint distribution of $\left(B^1_t,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\right)$ for correlated ${\cal{BM}}$s where $M^2_{(s,\,t)}=\max_{s\leq u\leq t}B^2_u$ and $0<s<t\leq T$.
\[B1\_M2st\]*(Lee (2004))* $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-\mu_1 T}{\sigma_1\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{M2st_a}\\
& &{}-e^{{2\,\mu_2\, y}/{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2\rho\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}y-\mu_1 T}{\sigma_1\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let $\{Z_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}_+}$ be a stochastic process defined by $$Z_t=\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}B^1_t-\rho B^2_t\quad\forall t\in \mathbb{R}_+.$$ It follows from the construction of $B^1$ and $B^2$ that the process $Z$ is a ${\cal{BM}}$ independent of $B^2$ with drift and variance parameters given by $\left(\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}\mu_1-\rho\mu_2\right)$ and $\sigma_2^2(1-\rho^2)$, respectively. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}\left(Z_T+\rho B^2_T\right)\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y|Z_T=z\}\mathbb{P}\{Z_T\in {\rm{d}}z\}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}{}\label{M2st_0}\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\left(\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}\mu_1-\rho\mu_2\right)T}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Define $z^*={2}x/{\sigma_1}-z$ and consider first the case where $\rho<0$. The following probability has to be determined: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{B^2_T\geq \frac{1}{\rho}z^*,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}-\mathbb{P}\{B^2_T\leq \frac{1}{\rho}z^*,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=&\left[\Phi_2\left(\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
& &{}-\left.\Phi_3\left(\frac{\frac{1}{\rho}z^*-\mu_2 T}{\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\right]{}\nonumber\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\left[\Phi_2\left(\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\right.{}\nonumber\\
& &{}-\left.\Phi_3\left(\frac{\frac{1}{\rho}z^*-2y-\mu_2 T}{\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\right],\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ which on applying equation (\[Phi\_2\_3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{-(z^*-\rho\mu_2 T)}{\rho\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\nonumber\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{-(z^*-\rho(2y+\mu_2 T))}{\rho\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho\mu_2 T}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{M2st_2}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho(2y+\mu_2 T)}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Similary, when $\rho>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{B^2_T\leq \frac{1}{\rho}z^*,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho\mu_2 T}{\rho\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{M2st_1}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho(2y+\mu_2 T)}{\rho\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
On combining equations (\[M2st\_2\]) and (\[M2st\_1\]), we obtain the probability formula $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{\rho B^2_T\leq \frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}x-z,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho\mu_2 T}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{M2st_3}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho(2y+\mu_2 T)}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $s(\rho)=1$ if $\rho>0$ and $-1$ otherwise.
In light of equation $(\ref{M2st_3})$, the result given in equation $(\ref{M2st_0})$ can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho\mu_2 T}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\nonumber\\
& &\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\left(\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}\mu_1-\rho\mu_2\right)T}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}{}\nonumber\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Phi_3\left(\frac{z^*-\rho(2y+\mu_2 T)}{|\rho|\sigma_2\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-s(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber{}\\
& &{}\times\phi\left(\frac{z-\left(\frac{\sigma_2}{\sigma_1}\mu_1-\rho\mu_2\right)T}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}\right)\frac{{\rm{d}}z}{\sigma_2\sqrt{(1-\rho^2)T}}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-\mu_1 T}{\sigma_1\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\nonumber\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu_2 y}{\sigma_2^2}}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2\rho\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_2}y-\mu_1 T}{\sigma_1\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu_2 t}{\sigma_2\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu_2 s}{\sigma_2\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Proposition \[Int\_Phi3\] by letting $a$ tend to $+\infty$.
When $\rho\rightarrow0$, $$\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x\}\mathbb{P}\{M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}.$$
Additionally, when $\mu_1=\mu_2$, $\sigma_1=\sigma_2$ and $\rho=1$, $$\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}=\mathbb{P}\{W^{(\mu_1,\,\sigma_1)}_T\leq x,\,M^{(\mu_1,\,\sigma_1)}_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}.$$
A New Class of Bivariate Copulae
================================
In this section, several bivariate copulae are constructed from the joint distribution functions specified in the previous section.
In light of the invariance properties of copulae, we consider a ${\cal{BM}}$ with $\sigma=1$, since a $(\mu,\sigma)$-${\cal{BM}}$ can be derived from a $\left(\frac{\mu}{\sigma},\,1\right)$-${\cal{BM}}$ via a simple transformation (rescaling).
As well, it follows from equations (\[FC\_MBS\]) and (\[F\_Max\]) that $$F_{M_t}(a)=\mathbb{P}\{M_t\leq a\}=2\Phi\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-1,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F_{W_t,M_t}(x,a)&=&\mathbb{P}\{W_t\leq x,\,M_t\leq a\}\\
&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-\Phi\left(\frac{x-2a}{\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{if }x\leq a\\
2\Phi\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-1 &\textrm{if } x>a.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Let $$F_{W_t}(x)=\mathbb{P}\{W_t\leq x\}=\Phi\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{t}}\right)$$ be the marginal distribution of a standard ${\cal{BM}}$.
It follows from equation (\[C’=F\]) that the copula $C_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v)$ generated by a ${\cal{BM}}$ and its maximum is $$C_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{C1}
u-\Phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-2\Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{v+1}{2}\right)\right) & \textrm{if }u\leq \frac{v+1}{2}\\
v &\textrm{if } u>\frac{v+1}{2},
\end{array}\right.$$ its associated density function $c_{M_t}(u,\,v)$ being $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{c_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,\,v)=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u\partial v}C_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v)}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\left[2\Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{v+1}{2}\right)-\Phi^{-1}(u)\right]\phi\left(2\Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{v+1}{2}\right)-\Phi^{-1}(u)\right)}{\phi\left(\Phi^{-1}\left(\frac{v+1}{2}\right)\right)\phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)\right)}\label{c1}\end{aligned}$$ whenever $u\leq \frac{v+1}{2}$, and zero otherwise. This density is plotted in Figure \[C\_Mt\].
![Density of the copula generated by $W_t$ and $M_t$.[]{data-label="C_Mt"}](MAX_pdf_mu0.jpg)
\
Since the copulae discussed in this paper involve variables that are not even interchangeable, they do not belong to the Archimedean class of copulae. Moreover, they clearly do not belong to the class of Gaussian copulae. They actually constitute a new type of copulae whose distributions conglomerate in the neighborhood of the point (1,1) and, to a lesser extent, near the origin, the corresponding copula density functions being equal to zero beyond a certain treshold that is specified by a relationship between the variables.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
F_{W_t,M_t}(x,\,y;\,\mu)&=&\mathbb{P}\{W^{(\mu,\,1)}_t\leq x, M^{(\mu,\,1)}_t\leq y\}\\
&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{2\mu y}\Phi\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{if $x\leq y$}\\
\Phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{2\mu y}\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{if $x>y$},
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F_{M_t}(y;\,\mu)&=&\mathbb{P}\{M_t^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq y\}\\
&=&\Phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{2\mu y}\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which are the distribution functions obtained in Proposition \[FC\_MAX\] and equation (\[F\_Max2\]).
Let $$F_{W_t}(x;\,\mu)=\mathbb{P}\{W_t^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq x\}=\Phi\left(\frac{x-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)$$ be the distribution function of a $(\mu,\,1)$-${\cal{BM}}$. For $y>0$, the density function of $M_t^{(\mu,\,1)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{M_t}(y;\,\mu)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\phi\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-e^{2\mu y}\left[2\mu\Phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\phi\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the copula $C_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v;\,\mu)$ generated by $W_t^{(\mu,\,1)}$ and $M_t^{(\mu,\,1)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{C_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v;\,\mu)}\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
u-e^{2\mu \zeta(v)}\Phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-\frac{2\zeta(v)}{\sqrt{t}}\right) & \textrm{if }u\leq \Phi\left(\frac{\zeta(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right)\label{C_Mt1}\\
v &\textrm{if } u>\Phi\left(\frac{\zeta(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}}\right),
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding density $c_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v;\,\mu)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{W_t,\,M_t}(u,v;\,\mu)&=&\frac{2e^{2\mu \zeta(v)}\phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-\frac{2\zeta(v)}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}{ f_{M_t}\left(\zeta(v);\,\mu\right)\phi\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)\right)}{}\label{cMt_pdf}\\
& &{}\times\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{2\zeta(v)}{\sqrt{t}}-\Phi^{-1}(u)\right)-\mu\right]\quad\textrm{if }u\leq \Phi\left(\frac{\zeta(v)-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}}\right)\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta(v)=F_{M_t}^{-1}(v;\,\mu)$.
This density function appears in Figure \[C\_Mt\_mu\] for increasing values of $\mu$ ($\mu=-2$, $\mu=0$ and $\mu=10$, respectively). Clearly, the strength of the dependence increases with $\mu$; additionally, as $\mu\rightarrow 0$, $C_{M_t}(u,\,v;\,\mu)\rightarrow C_{M_t}(u,\,v)$.
![Density functions of the copulae generated by $W_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ and $M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ for increasing values of $\mu$.[]{data-label="C_Mt_mu"}](MAX_pdf_mu6.jpg "fig:") ![Density functions of the copulae generated by $W_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ and $M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ for increasing values of $\mu$.[]{data-label="C_Mt_mu"}](MAX_pdf_mu7.jpg "fig:") ![Density functions of the copulae generated by $W_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ and $M_t^{(\mu,\,\sigma)}$ for increasing values of $\mu$.[]{data-label="C_Mt_mu"}](MAX_pdf_mu8.jpg "fig:")
We know from Propositions \[M\_t\_W\_T\] et \[M\_st\] that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{W_T,\,M_t}(x,\,y;\,\mu)&=&\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,1)}\leq x,\,M_t^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right){}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu y}\Phi_2\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
F_{W_T,\,M_{(s,\,t)}}(x,\,y;\,\mu)&=&\mathbb{P}\{W_T^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq x,\,M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-\mu T}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu y}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2y-\mu T}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F_{M_{(s,\,t)}}(y;\,\mu)&=&\mathbb{P}\{M_{(s,\,t)}^{(\mu,\,1)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_2\left(\frac{y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{copule_1}\\
& &{}-e^{\frac{2\mu y}{\sigma^2}}\Phi_2\left(\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sigma\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sigma\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The copula $C_{W_T,\,M_t}(u,\,v;\mu)$ (resp. $C_{W_T,\,M_{(s,\,t)}}(u,\,v;\mu)$) describes the dependence structure induced by $W_T^{(\mu,\,1)}$ and its maximum value on the time interval $[0,\,t]$(resp. $[s,\,t]$). Invoking (\[C’=F\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{C_{W_T,\,M_t}(u,\,v;\mu)}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_2\left(\Phi^{-1}(u),\,\frac{\zeta_1(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right){}\label{copule2}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu \zeta_1(v)}\Phi_2\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-\frac{2\zeta_1(v)}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-\zeta_1(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}}\right),\phantom{\frac{\zeta_2(v)+\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{C_{W_T,\,M_{(s,\,t)}}(u,\,v;\mu)}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\Phi^{-1}(u),\,\frac{\zeta_2(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{\zeta_2(v)-\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{copule3}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu \zeta_2(v)}\Phi_3\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-\frac{2\zeta_2(v)}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-\zeta_2(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{\zeta_2(v)+\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_1(v)=F^{-1}_{M_t}(v;\,\mu)$ and $\zeta_2(v)=F^{-1}_{M_{(s,\,t)}}(v;\,\mu)$.
Finally, consider $(B^1,\, B^2)$ a $\left(\mathbf{\mu^{*}},\mathbf{\Sigma}\right)$-${\cal{BM}}$ where $$\mathbf{\mu^{*}}=(0,\, \mu)'$$ and $$\mathbf{\Sigma}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \rho\\
\rho & 1
\end{array}\right).$$
![Copulae generated by $B^1_T$ and $M^2_{(s,\,t)}$ for increasing values of $\rho$.[]{data-label="C_M2st_B1T"}](B1T_M2st_rho1.jpg "fig:") ![Copulae generated by $B^1_T$ and $M^2_{(s,\,t)}$ for increasing values of $\rho$.[]{data-label="C_M2st_B1T"}](B1T_M2st_rho2.jpg "fig:") ![Copulae generated by $B^1_T$ and $M^2_{(s,\,t)}$ for increasing values of $\rho$.[]{data-label="C_M2st_B1T"}](B1T_M2st_rho3.jpg "fig:")
The first ${\cal{BM}}$ has a zero drift because of the invariance property of copulae. Hence, from Proposition \[B1\_M2st\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{F_{B^1_T,\,M^2_{(s,t)}}(x,y;\mu,\,\rho)}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}\{B^1_T\leq x,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}\leq y\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y-\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu y}\Phi_3\left(\frac{x-2\rho y}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-y-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{y+\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Let us now denote by $$F_{B^1_T}(x)=\Phi\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{T}}\right)$$ the distribution function of the first ${\cal{BM}}$ and by $F_{M_{(s,\,t)}^2}(y;\,\mu)$ the distribution function of $M_{(s,\,t)}^2$ where $F_{M_{(s,\,t)}^2}(y;\,\mu)=F_{M_{(s,\,t)}}(y;\,\mu)$ for all $y>0$.
The bivariate copula $C_{B^1_T,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}}(u,v;\,\mu,\,\rho)$ generated by $B^1_T$ and $M^2_{(s,\,t)}$ is then defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{C_{B^1_T,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}}(u,v;\,\mu,\,\rho)}\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi_3\left(\Phi^{-1}(u),\,\frac{\zeta(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{\zeta(v)-\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right){}\label{Marie}\\
& &{}-e^{2\mu \zeta(v)}\Phi_3\left(\Phi^{-1}(u)-\frac{2\rho \zeta(v)}{\sqrt{T}},\,\frac{-\zeta(v)-\mu t}{\sqrt{t}},\,\frac{\zeta(v)+\mu s}{\sqrt{s}};\,\rho\sqrt{\frac{t}{T}},\,-\rho\sqrt{\frac{s}{T}},\,-\sqrt{\frac{s}{t}}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta(v)=F^{-1}_{M^2_{(s,\,t)}}(v;\,\mu)$. This copula contains all the copulae considered in this section. Indeed, when $\rho$ ten[[d]{}]{}s to $1$, the copula specified by equation (\[Marie\]) converges to that generated by a ${\cal{BM}}$ with drift $\mu$ at $T$ and its own maximum on the interval $[s,\,t]$, which is given in equation (\[copule3\]). From this result, we obtain the copula given in equation (\[copule2\]) by letting $s$ tend to $0$. Finally, as $\rho=1$, $s\rightarrow 0$ and $t\rightarrow T$, the copula specified by equation (\[Marie\]) converges to that given in (\[C\_Mt1\]).
The copula $C_{B^1_T,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}}(u,\,v;\,\mu)$ is plotted in Figure \[C\_M2st\_B1T\] for $\rho=-0.99$, $\rho=0$ and $\rho=0.99$.
Note that when $\rho=0$, $C_{B^1_T,\,M^2_{(s,\,t)}}(u,\,v;\mu,\,\rho)=C_I(u,\,v)$ where $C_I$ is the independent copula defined by $C_I(u,\,v)=uv$ for all $(u,\,v)\in \mathbf{I}^2$.\
The proposed copulae are applicable to certain bivariate data sets for which one of the variables involves maxima. Such observations occur for instance in hydrology, meteorology and financial modeling.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}\
The financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged by the first and third authors. Thanks are also due to Arthur Charpentier, Jean-Fran[ç]{}ois Plante and Bruno R[é]{}millard for their comments on an initial draft of the paper.
[**Orcid**]{}\
Serge B Provost ID 0000-0002-2024-0103
[zzzzz]{} Anderson, T. W. (2003). *An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis*, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Borodin, A. N. and Salminen, P. (2002). *Handbook of Brownian Motion–Facts and Formulae*, Second Edition. Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel. Bosc, D. (2012). Three essays on modeling the dependence between financial assets. Theses, Ecole Polytechnique X. https://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00721674 Caba[ñ]{}a, E. M. and Wschebor, M. (1982). The two-parameter Brownian bridge: Kolmogorov inequalities and upper and lower boun[[d]{}]{}s for the distribution of the maximum. *The Annals of Probability*, 10, 289–302. Cao, Y. (2017). Optimal investment-reinsurance problem for an insurer with jump-diffusion risk process: correlated Brownian motions. *Journal in Interdisciplinary Mathematics*, 2, 497–511. Chen, T., Cheng, X. and Yang, J. (2019). Common decomposition of correlated Brownian motions and its financial applications. *Quantitative Finance - Financial Mathematics*. [arXiv:1907.03295 \[q-fin.MF\]]{}, 47 pages. Cherubini, U., Fabio, G., Mulinacci, S. and Romagno, S. (2012). *Dynamic Copula Metho[[d]{}]{}s in Finance*. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Cherubini, U., Luciano, E. and Vecchiato, W. (2004). *Copula Metho[[d]{}]{}s in Finance*. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Choi, B.-S. and Roh, J.-H. (2013). On the trivariate joint distribution of Brownian motion and its maximum and minimum. *Statistics & Probability Letters*, 83, 1046–1053. Chuang, C. S. (1996). Joint distribution of Brownian motions and its maximum, with a generalization to correlated Brownian motions and applications to barrier options. *Statistics & Probability Letters*, 28, 81–90. Denuit, M., Daehe, J., Goovaerts, M. and Kaas, R. (2005). *Actuarial Theory for Dependent Risks: Measures, Orders and Models*. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Deschatre, T. (2016a). On the control of the difference between two Brownian motions: a dynamic copula approach. *Dependence Modeling*, 4, 141–160. Deschatre, T. (2016b). On the control of the difference between two Brownian motions: an application to energy market modeling. *Dependence Modeling*, 4, 161–183. Etheridge, A. (2002). *A Course in Financial Calculus*. Cambridge University Press. Harrison, M. (1990). *Brownian Motion and Stochastic Flow Systems*. Robert E. Krieger, Malabar, FL. Haugh, M. (2004). The Monte Carlo framework, examples from finance and generating correlated random variables. *Monte Carlo Simulation: IEOR E4703*, 1–10. Jaworski, P. and Krzywda, M. (2013). Coupling of Wiener processes by using copulas. *Statistics & Probability Letters*, 83 (9), 2027–2033. Joe, H. (2001). *Multivariate Models and Dependence Concepts*. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. Karlin, S. and Taylor, H. M. (1975). *A First Course in Stochastic Processes*, Second Edition. Academic Press, New York. Kou, S. and Zhong, H. (2016). First passage times of two-dimensional Brownian motion. *Advances in Applied Probability*, 48, 1045–1060. Lager[å]{}s, A. N. (2010). Copulas for Markovian dependence. *Bernoulli*,16, 331–342. Lee, H. (2003). Pricing equity-indexed annuities with path-dependent options. *Insurance: Mathematics and Economics*, 33, 677–690. Lee, H. (2004). A joint distribution of two-dimensional Brownian motion with an application to an outside barrier option. *Journal of the Korean Statistical Society*, 33, 245–254. Nelsen, R.B. (2006). *An Introduction to Copulas*, Second Edition. Springer, New York. Revuz, D. and Yor, M. (2005). *Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion*, Third Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York. Rogers, L. C. G. and Williams, D. (2000). *Diffusions, Markov Processes and Martingales*. Vol. 1 *Foundations*, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Sklar, A. (1959). Fonctions de r[é]{}partition [à]{} $n$ dimensions et leurs marges. *Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Universit[é]{} de Paris*, 8, 229–231. Vachon, M.-C. (2008). *Mouvement Brownien et Copules*. M[é]{}moire de ma[î]{}trise. Universit[é]{} du Qu[é]{}bec [à]{} Montr[é]{}al. (https://archipel.uqam.ca/ 12790/) Vardar-Acara, C., Zirbel, C. L. and Sz[é]{}kelyc, G. (2013). On the correlation of the supremum and the infimum and of maximum gain and maximum loss of Brownian motion with drift. *Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics*, 248, 6–75.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this fluid dynamics video, we present the first time-resolved measurements of the oscillatory velocity field induced by swimming unicellular microorganisms. Confinement of the green alga *C. reinhardtii* in stabilized thin liquid films allows simultaneous tracking of cells and tracer particles. The measured velocity field reveals complex time-dependent flow structures, and scales inversely with distance. The instantaneous mechanical power generated by the cells is measured from the velocity fields and peaks at 15 fW. The dissipation per cycle is more than four times what steady swimming would require.'
author:
- 'Jeffrey S. Guasto$^{1}$, Karl A. Johnson$^{2}$, and J.P. Gollub$^{1,3}$'
title: Measuring Oscillatory Velocity Fields Due to Swimming Algae
---
Submission Contents {#submission-contents .unnumbered}
===================
There are two videos contained in this submission for the APS DFD 2010 Meeting Gallery of Fluid Motion in Long Beach, CA both in MPEG-4 format:
- **Guasto\_APSDFD2010\_Video1.mp4** - high quality video (26.2 MB) appropriate for the DFD 2010 Gallery of Fluid Motion display.
- **Guasto\_APSDFD2010\_Video2.mp4** - low quality video (8.0 MB) appropriate for web viewing.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank R.E. Goldstein, K. Drescher, E. Lauga, and M.D. Graham for helpful discussions, as well as B. Boyes for technical assistance. This work was supported by NSF Grant DMR-0803153.
J.S. Guasto, K.A. Johnson, and J.P. Gollub, Phys. Rev. Lett., In Press (2010).
| {
"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 |
---
abstract: |
We present a core-collapse supernova model for the extremely luminous Type Ic supernova 2007bi. By performing numerical calculations of hydrodynamics, nucleosynthesis, and radiation transport, we find that SN 2007bi is consistent with the core-collapse supernova explosion of a 43 [$M_{\odot}$]{} carbon and oxygen core obtained from the evolution of a progenitor star with a main sequence mass of 100 [$M_{\odot}$]{} and metallicity of $Z=Z_\odot/200$, from which its hydrogen and helium envelopes are artificially stripped. The ejecta mass and the ejecta kinetic energy of the models are 40 [$M_{\odot}$]{} and $3.6\times
10^{52}$ erg. The ejected [$^{56}$Ni]{} mass is as large as 6.1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}, which results from the explosive nucleosynthesis with large explosion energy. We also confirm that SN 2007bi is consistent with a pair-instability supernova model as has recently been claimed. We show that the earlier light curve data can discriminate between the models for such luminous supernovae.
author:
- '[Takashi Moriya]{}, [Nozomu Tominaga]{}, [Masaomi Tanaka]{}, [Keiichi Maeda]{}, and [Ken’ichi Nomoto]{}'
title: 'A Core-Collapse Supernova Model for the Extremely Luminous Type Ic Supernova 2007bi: An Alternative to the Pair-Instability Supernova Model'
---
Introduction
============
A massive star with the main sequence mass ([$M_{\mathrm{MS}}$]{}) in the range of 10 $-$ 140 [$M_{\odot}$]{} forms an Fe core in its center and eventually collapses. This collapse is thought to end up with the core-collapse supernova (SN) of Type II, Ib, or Ic (Filippenko 1997 for a review). If a star is as massive as [$M_{\mathrm{MS}}$]{}$= 140 - 300$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, the oxygen-rich core becomes dynamically unstable owing to the electron-positron pair creations (Rakavy & Shaviv 1967; Barkat, Rakavy, & Sack 1967). As the internal energy is spent by the pair creations, the core loses the stability and starts to collapse. When the central temperature exceeds $\sim 5\times 10^{9}$ K, the core becomes stable but the temperature is so high that oxygen burning becomes explosive to produce enough energy to unbind the star. A large amount of [$^{56}$Ni]{} is synthesized by the explosive burning ([*e.g.*]{}, Umeda & Nomoto 2002, hereafter UN02; Heger & Woosley 2002) and the subsequent radioactive decays power the light curve. Thus this event is theoretically predicted to be observed as a pair-instability supernova (PISN). Some luminous SNe like SN 2006gy (Ofek et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007) have been suggested to be PISNe (see Section 4.2), but no clear consensus has been reached ([*e.g.*]{}, Kawabata et al. 2009).
Recently, Gal-Yam et al. (2009) (G09 hereafter) suggested that the extremely luminous Type Ic SN 2007bi is the first observed example of the PISN. They showed that the PISN model is consistent with the observed light curve (LC) and the nebular spectra of SN 2007bi. They estimated the masses of C, O, Na, Mg, Ca, and [$^{56}$Ni]{} from the observed optical spectra. Other elements with no strong emission lines in the optical range, Si and S, are assumed to be the same as the PISN model of Heger & Woosley (2002). Young et al. (2010) (Y10 hereafter) showed multi-color observations of SN 2007bi and the metallicity of the host galaxy. However, the above observations of SN 2007bi have not quantitatively been compared with the core-collapse SN models. In view of the importance of clarifying the final fates of very massive stars, we examine how strong the observational constraint on the theoretical models are.
The aim of this Letter is to show that a core-collapse SN model is indeed consistent with the observed properties of SN 2007bi, if the progenitor is as massive as [$M_{\mathrm{MS}}$]{}$\sim 100$ [$M_{\odot}$]{} and the explosion energy is large. This would imply that SN 2007bi might not necessarily be a PISN. In Section 2, we summarize the progenitor models for SN 2007bi and numerical methods used for our calculations of hydrodynamics, nucleosynthesis, and the LC. The core-collapse SN models of SN 2007bi are presented in Section 3 and the results are discussed in Section 4.
Progenitor and Explosion Modeling
=================================
Progenitor
----------
The high peak luminosity and the long rise time of the LC of SN 2007bi (G09, Y10) require a large amount of [$^{56}$Ni]{} ($>3$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, G09) and a large ejecta mass. These observations imply that the progenitor of SN 2007bi is massive. We apply a pre-SN model with [$M_{\mathrm{MS}}$]{} = 100 [$M_{\odot}$]{} calculated by Umeda & Nomoto (2008, UN08 hereafter). UN08 assumed the metallicity of the progenitor models to be $Z=Z_\odot/200$, which is small enough to avoid a large amount of wind mass loss. Then the pre-SN model remains as massive as $M = 83$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, whose carbon + oxygen (C+O) core is massive enough (43 [$M_{\odot}$]{}) to produce a large amount of [$^{56}$Ni]{}.
However, the pre-SN model has a massive H-rich envelope, while SN 2007bi does not show the lines of either H or He. Therefore the progenitor must have lost its H-rich envelope (36 [$M_{\odot}$]{}) and He layer (4 [$M_{\odot}$]{}) during the pre-SN evolution, thus having only the bare C+O core at the explosion. We construct the pre-SN C+O star model of 43 [$M_{\odot}$]{}, by removing the H-rich envelope and He layer from the 83 [$M_{\odot}$]{} star. Note that the metallicity of the host galaxy of SN 2007bi ($Z\sim Z_\odot/3$, Y10) is higher than that of our adopted progenitor ($Z=Z_\odot/200$). The wind mass loss is expected to work more efficiently and the main sequence mass of the progenitor which has the C+O core mass of 43 [$M_{\odot}$]{} might be more massive. The rotation of stars can also play a role in the mass loss ([*e.g.*]{}, Meynet et al. 2003; Hirschi et al. 2004; Maeder et al. 2005; Georgy et al. 2009). Another possible cause of such envelope stripping is the formation of a common envelope during a close binary system, where the smaller mass companion star spirals into the envelope of the more massive star. The outcome depends on whether the energy available from the spiral-in exceeds the binding energy of the common envelope, thus being either a merging of the two stars or the formation of two compact stars, [*e.g.*]{}, a C+O star and a He star.
Explosion Modeling
------------------
We calculate the explosion of the pre-SN C+O star (43 [$M_{\odot}$]{}) as described above. Explosions are induced by a thermal bomb and followed by a one-dimensional Lagrangian code with the piecewise parabolic method (Colella & Woodward 1984). Note that the explosion energy is a free parameter in core-collapse SN explosion models while it is not in PISN explosion models. Explosive nucleosynthesis is calculated as post-processing for the thermodynamical history obtained by the hydrodynamical calculations. The resultant abundance distribution is basically very similar to those calculated by UN08 (see Figures 5 and 6 in UN08).
The dynamics of the ejecta is followed until 1 day after the explosion, when the expansion already becomes homologous ($r\propto v$). The bolometric LCs are calculated for the homologous ejecta by using the LTE radiation transfer code (Iwamato et al. 2000) that includes the radioactive decays of [$^{56}$Ni]{} and $^{56}$Co as energy sources. This code calculates the $\gamma$-ray transport for a constant $\gamma$-ray opacity (0.027 $\mathrm{cm^{2}~g^{-1}}$, Axelrod 1980) and assumes all the emitted positrons are absorbed [*in situ*]{}[^1] . For the optical radiation transport, the Thomson scattering opacity is obtained by calculating the electron density from the Saha equation, and the Rosseland mean opacity is estimated from the empirical relation to the Thomson scattering opacity (Deng et al. 2005).
Core-Collapse Supernova Models for SN 2007bi
============================================
We construct several core-collapse SN models and compare with the observations of the bolometric LC and the line velocities of SN 2007bi shown in Y10. Since the LC of Y10 does not cover the rising part of the LC, we estimate the bolometric magnitude of the rising part from the $R$ band observations (G09) assuming the same bolometric correction (0.45 mag) as in the $R$ band maximum. We also take into account mixing since it is possible that a jet emerges from the central remnant and causes the mixing of the ejecta ([*e.g.*]{}, Maeda & Nomoto 2003, Tominaga 2009).
The LCs of successful models (CC100) are shown in Figure \[07bi-ccLC\]. The kinetic energy ([$E_{\mathrm{kin}}$]{}), ejecta mass ([$M_{\mathrm{ej}}$]{}), and [$^{56}$Ni]{} mass ([$M_{\mathrm{{}^{56}Ni}}$]{}) in the ejecta are [$E_{\mathrm{kin}}$]{} = $3.6\times 10^{52}$ erg, [$M_{\mathrm{ej}}$]{} = 40 [$M_{\odot}$]{}, and [$M_{\mathrm{{}^{56}Ni}}$]{} = 6.1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}, which are the same in all the models. The mass cut between the ejecta and the compact remnant is set at $M_r=3$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}, where $M_r$ is the mass coordinate, so that the ejecta contains 6.1 [$M_{\odot}$]{} of [$^{56}$Ni]{}, which turns out to be consistent with the bolometric LC of SN 2007bi. The kinetic energy [$E_{\mathrm{kin}}$]{} needs to be large to produce [$M_{\mathrm{{}^{56}Ni}}$]{} = 6.1 [$M_{\odot}$]{}. The mass of some elements in the ejecta are summarized in Table \[elem\]. The kinetic energy is as large as those of previously observed SNe which were associated with a gamma-ray burst (SNe 1998bw, 2003dh, 2003lw; [*e.g.*]{}, Nomoto et al. 2006).
We adopt two different degrees of mixing to see its effects on the LC. The full-mixing model assumes that the whole ejecta are uniformly mixed. The half-mixing model assumes that the inner half of the ejecta (in the mass coordinate) is uniformly mixed. One of the effects of the mixing is seen in the rise time of the LC. With mixing, [$^{56}$Ni]{} is distributed closer to the surface of the ejecta, so that the diffusion time is shorter and the rise time becomes shorter. The rise time of the model without mixing is 85 days while the rise times of the half-mixing model and the full-mixing model are 67 days and 52 days, respectively. As the rise time of SN 2007bi is not observationally well-determined, all the models are consistent with the bolometric LC of SN 2007bi. The initial decline part of the calculated LCs before maximum is formed by the shock heating of the envelope and its subsequent cooling due to rapid expansion. Radiation hydrodynamical calculations are required to obtain the realistic LC at this epoch.
In Figure \[07bi-ccPV\], we show the photospheric velocities obtained by the LC calculations. With the photospheric velocities, we also show the observed line velocities of SN 2007bi taken from Figure 17 of Y10. The photospheric velocities of all the models are consistent with the observed lowest line velocities, which are thought to trace the photospheric velocity.
One of the big difference between the core-collapse SN models and the PISN models is the abundance of the elements like Si and S. The abundance of our core-collapse SN model is consistent with the directly estimated abundances from the one-zone model of G09 adopted to the observed emission lines, [*i.e.*]{}, C, O, Na, Mg, Ca, and [$^{56}$Ni]{}. However, it differs significantly in elements whose abundances are only indirectly constrained by the spectra (such as Si and S) as these may have played a role in line cooling processes. In order to confirm that the abundance of the core-collapse SN model are consistent with the nebular spectra, we have to perform spectral synthesis calculations for the realistic hydrodynamical model of ejecta rather than the single-zone adopted by G09. As Si and S have many emission lines in the infrared range, infrared spectra are also helpful to distinguish PISNe from core-collapse SNe. We also point out that, if SN 2007bi is confirmed to be a PISN, we could expect that PISNe played a role in the chemical enrichment in the early Universe and there should be some old stars with chemical compositions expected from PISNe, although they are still not discovered ([*e.g.*]{}, Cayrel et al. 2004).
[ccccccccc]{} 1.4&18.7&1.4&1.5&5.1&2.7&0.5&0.4&6.1 \[elem\]
Conclusions and Discussion
==========================
In this Letter, we have shown that the LC and photospheric velocity of SN 2007bi are well-reproduced by the core-collapse SN model CC100. As some gamma-ray bursts are connected to such high energy Type Ic SNe, the extremely luminous SNe like SN 2007bi could also be connected to gamma-ray bursts which result from very massive stars. If this is the case, extremely luminous SNe like SN 2007bi could be connected to gamma-ray bursts of much more massive star origin than known SNe associated with a gamma-ray burst. Even stars more massive than 300 [$M_{\odot}$]{} could be the origin of luminous SNe ([*e.g.*]{}, Ohkubo et al. 2006, 2009).
We note, however, that, although SN 2007bi may not necessarily be a PISN, the observational data available for SN 2007bi is not sufficient to single out the explosion mechanism. In fact, Kasen & Bildsten (2009) suggested that the magnetar-powered light curve model (also, Maeda et al. 2007; Woosley 2009) might explain the LC of SN 2007bi.
Here we show the comparison between our PISN model and SN 2007bi, and discuss how to distinguish the models for luminous SNe. We also apply such LC comparison to SN 2006gy.
Pair-Instability Supernova Models for SN 2007bi
-----------------------------------------------
In Section 3 (Figure \[07bi-ccLC\]), we have shown that observations of SN 2007bi are well reproduced by the core-collapse SN model (CC100). Here we confirm the claim made by G09 that a PISN model can also be consistent with the bolometric LC of SN 2007bi by using the approximate PISN model PISN270.
The PISN270 model is constructed by scaling the physical structure of the homologously expanding model CC100 to the ejecta model with [$M_{\mathrm{ej}}$]{} = 121 [$M_{\odot}$]{} and [$E_{\mathrm{kin}}$]{} = $7\times 10^{52}$ erg. The ejecta mass [$M_{\mathrm{ej}}$]{} is the same as the C+O core mass of the PISN model with [$M_{\mathrm{MS}}$]{} = 270 [$M_{\odot}$]{} (UN02), and [$E_{\mathrm{kin}}$]{} is obtained from the nuclear energy released by explosive nuclear burning of the C+O core (UN02). Here the same amount of [$^{56}$Ni]{} ([$M_{\mathrm{{}^{56}Ni}}$]{} = 9.8 [$M_{\odot}$]{}) as in the 270 [$M_{\odot}$]{} model (UN02) is assumed to be synthesized in the inner layers. Note that the 270 [$M_{\odot}$]{} model of UN02 still has the H-rich and He envelopes at the time of explosion and, here, we assume that the envelopes were stripped off by some mechanism.
Figure \[fig3\] shows that the bolometric LC of PISN270 (the red line) is consistent with the bolometric LC of SN 2007bi (red open circles). The rise time to the LC peak for PISN270 is $\sim 150$ days, being consistent with the PISN model in G09. This rise time is longer than the core-collapse SN model CC100 (Figure \[fig3\]), because the photon diffusion takes more time in more massive PISN270. Although [$M_{\mathrm{{}^{56}Ni}}$]{} of PISN270 is $\sim$ 1.6 times larger than that of the core-collapse SN CC100 model, the longer rise time lowers the peak brightness powered by the radioactive decay. These two effects make the peak magnitude of PISN270 similar to CC100.
This difference in the rising part of the LC is important to discriminate between the core-collapse SN and the PISN models. Although SN 2007bi was not observed early enough, much earlier observations before the peak could constrain the SN type from the LC. In addition, as already mentioned in Section 3, the abundance of Si and S would also be a key to distinguish between the two models.
Models for SN 2006gy
--------------------
As mentioned in Section 1, there has been some suggestions that the luminous Type IIn SN 2006gy is a PISN ([*e.g.*]{}, Smith et al. 2007). We thus apply our LC models for comparison with SN 2006gy. Figure \[fig3\] shows the bolometric LC of SN 2006gy (filled circles and triangles). As only the $R$ band magnitude was observed in the early epochs of SN 2006gy (the filled square), we cannot construct the bolometric LC at the early epochs but we can constrain the rise time of the LC. Our calculations show that the rise time of the PISN model is too slow to be consistent with SN 2006gy. Although our PISN model does not have a H-rich envelope, the presence of the H-rich envelope could even slow down the brightening ([*e.g.*]{}, Kawabata et al. 2009). Woosley et al. (2008) showed that the interaction between the pulsating core and the envelope can power the LC of SN 2006gy. As a similar mechanism, the interaction of a SN ejecta with its very dense circumstellar matter could convert the kinetic energy of ejecta directly to radiation energy and could also be the origin a luminous SN like SN 2006gy.
We thank the anonimous referees for their advice which improved the text. Numerical calculations were carried out on the general-purpose PC farm at Center for Computational Astrophysics, CfCA, of National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. This research has been supported in part by World Premier International Research Center Initiative, MEXT, and by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the JSPS (18104003, 20540226, 20840007) and MEXT (19047004, 22012003), Japan.
[108]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
Agnoletto, I., et al. 2009, , 691, 1348
Axelrod, T. S. 1980, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California, Santa Cruz
Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, Physical Review Letters, 18, 379
Cayrel, R., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117
Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, J. Comput. Phy., 54, 174
Deng, J., Tominaga, N., Mazzali, P. A., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2005, , 624, 898
Filippenko, A. V. 1997, , 35, 309
Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624 (G09)
Georgy, C., Meynet, G., Walder, R., Folini, D., & Maeder, A. 2009, 502, 611
Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, , 567, 532
Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2004, A&A, 425, 649
Iwamoto, K., et al. 2000, , 534, 660
Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2009, arXiv:0911.0680
Kawabata, K. S., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., Hattori, T., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., & Yamanaka, M. 2009, , 697, 747
Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2003, , 598, 1163
Maeda, K., et al. 2007, , 666, 1069
Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2005, A&A, 429, 581
Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2003, A&A, 404, 975
Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., Suzuki, T., Deng, J. S., & Mazzali, P. A. 2006, Nuovo Cimento B Serie, 121, 1207
Ofek, E. O., et al. 2007, , 659, L13
Ohkubo, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Tsuruta, S., & Rees, M. J. 2006, , 645, 1352
Ohkubo, T., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H., Yoshida, N., & Tsuruta, S. 2009, , 706, 1184
Rakavy, G., & Shaviv, G. 1967, , 148, 803
Smith, N., et al. 2007, , 666, 1116
Tominaga, N. 2009, , 690, 526
Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2002, , 565, 385 (UN02)
Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2008, , 673, 1014 (UN08)
Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, , 450, 390
Woosley, S. E. 2009, arXiv:0911.0698
Young, D. R., et al. 2010, , 512, A70 (Y10)
[^1]: This assumption of the positron absorption does not have much effect on the LCs we show in this paper, because the contribution from the gamma-rays is still a dominant energy source of them.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present the Supermasks in Superposition (SupSup) model, capable of sequentially learning thousands of tasks without catastrophic forgetting. Our approach uses a randomly initialized, fixed base network and for each task finds a subnetwork (supermask) that achieves good performance. If task identity is given at test time, the correct subnetwork can be retrieved with minimal memory usage. If not provided, SupSup can infer the task using gradient-based optimization to find a linear superposition of learned supermasks which minimizes the output entropy. In practice we find that a single gradient step is often sufficient to identify the correct mask, even among 2500 tasks. We also showcase two promising extensions. First, SupSup models can be trained entirely without task identity information, as they may detect when they are uncertain about new data and allocate an additional supermask for the new training distribution. Finally the entire, growing set of supermasks can be stored in a constant-sized reservoir by implicitly storing them as attractors in a fixed-sized Hopfield network.'
author:
- |
Mitchell Wortsman[^1]\
Uiversity of Washington\
Vivek Ramanujan$^*$\
Allen Institute for AI\
Rosanne Liu\
ML Collective\
Aniruddha Kembhavi$^\dagger$\
Allen Institute for AI\
Mohammad Rastegari\
University of Washington\
Jason Yosinski\
ML Collective\
Ali Farhadi\
University of Washington\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Supermasks in Superposition
---
Introduction
============
Learning many different tasks sequentially without forgetting remains a notable challenge for neural networks [@thrun1998lifelong; @zhao1996incremental; @kirkpatrick2017overcoming]. If the weights of a neural network are trained on a new task, performance on previous tasks often degrades substantially [@mccloskey1989catastrophic; @french1999catastrophic; @goodfellow2013empirical], a problem known as *catastrophic forgetting*. In this paper, we begin with the observation that catastrophic forgetting cannot occur if the weights of the network remain fixed and random. We leverage this to develop a flexible model capable of learning thousands of tasks: *Supermasks in Superposition* ([SupSup]{}). [SupSup]{}, diagrammed in [Figure \[fig:teaser\]]{}, is driven by two core ideas: **a)** the expressive power of untrained, randomly weighted subnetworks [@zhou2019deconstructing; @ramanujan2019s], and **b)** inference of task-identity as a gradient-based optimization problem.
#### a) The expressive power of subnetworks
Neural networks may be overlaid with a binary mask that selectively keeps or removes each connection, producing a subnetwork. The number of possible subnetworks is combinatorial in the number of parameters. Researchers have observed that the number of combinations is large enough that even within randomly weighted neural networks, there exist *supermasks* that create corresponding subnetworks which achieve good performance on complex tasks. Zhou *et al.* [@zhou2019deconstructing] and Ramanujan *et al.* [@ramanujan2019s] present two algorithms for finding these supermasks while keeping the weights of the underlying network fixed and random. SupSup scales to many tasks by finding for each task a supermask atop a shared, untrained network.
#### b) Inference of task-identity as an optimization problem
When task identity is unknown, $\text{{SupSup\xspace}}$ can infer task identity to select the correct supermask. Given data from task $j$, we aim to recover and use the supermask originally trained for task $j$. This supermask should exhibit a confident (*i.e.* low entropy) output distribution when given data from task $j$ [@hendrycks2016baseline], so we frame inference of task-identity as an optimization problem—find the convex combination of learned supermasks which minimizes the entropy of the output distribution.
In the rest of the paper we develop and evaluate [SupSup]{}via the following contributions:
1. We propose a new taxonomy of continual learning scenarios. We use it to embed and contextualize related work ([Section \[sec:cl\]]{}).
2. When task identity (ID) is provided during train and test (later dubbed [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}), [SupSup]{}is a natural extension of Mallya *et al.* [@mallya2018piggyback]. By using a randomly weighted backbone and controlling mask sparsity, [SupSup]{}surpasses recent baselines on SplitImageNet [@wen2020batchensemble] while requiring less storage and time costs ([Section \[sec:S1\]]{}).
3. When task ID is provided during train but not test (later dubbed [$\mathsf{GN}$]{}), [SupSup]{}outperforms recent methods that require task ID [@mnist; @kirkpatrick2017overcoming; @cheung2019superposition], scaling to 2500 permutations of MNIST without forgetting. Task ID can be inferred with a single gradient computation ([Section \[sec:S23\]]{}).
4. When task identities are not provided at all (later dubbed [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}), [SupSup]{}can even infer task boundaries and allocate new supermasks as needed ([Section \[sec:S4\]]{}).
5. We introduce an extension to the basic [SupSup]{}algorithm that stores supermasks implicitly as attractors in a fixed-size Hopfield network [@hopfield1982neural] ([Section \[sec:hop\]]{}).
6. Finally, we empirically show that the simple trick of adding *superfluous neurons* results in more accurate task inference ([Section \[sec:s-neuron\]]{}).
![**(left)** During training [SupSup]{}learns a separate supermask (subnetwork) for each task. **(right)** At inference time, [SupSup]{}can infer task identity by superimposing all supermasks, each weighted by an $\alpha_i$, and using gradients to maximize confidence.](figs/teaser_ppt.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
[\[fig:teaser\]]{}
Continual Learning Scenarios and Related Work {#sec:cl}
=============================================
In continual learning, a model aims to solve a number of tasks sequentially [@thrun1998lifelong; @zhao1996incremental] without catastrophic forgetting [@french1999catastrophic; @kirkpatrick2017overcoming; @mccloskey1989catastrophic]. Although numerous approaches have been proposed in the context of continual learning, there lacks a convention of scenarios in which methods are trained and evaluated [@van2019three]. The key identifiers of scenarios include: **1)** whether task identity is provided during training, **2)** provided during inference, **3)** whether class labels are shared during evaluation, and **4)** whether the overall task space is discrete or continuous. This results in an exhaustive set of 16 possibilities, many of which are invalid or uninteresting. For example, if task identity is never provided in training, providing it in inference is no longer helpful. To that end, we highlight four applicable scenarios, each with a further breakdown of discrete vs. continuous, when applicable, as shown in [Table \[tab:scenarios\]]{}.
We decompose continual learning scenarios via a three-letter taxonomy that explicitly addresses the three most critical scenario variations. The first two letters specify whether task identity is given during training ([$\mathsf{G}$]{} if given, [$\mathsf{N}$]{} if not) and during inference ([$\mathsf{G}$]{} if given, [$\mathsf{N}$]{} if not). The third letter specifies a subtle but important distinction: whether labels are shared ([$\mathsf{s}$]{}) across tasks or not ([$\mathsf{u}$]{}). In the unshared case, the model must predict both the correct task ID and the correct class within that task. In the shared case, the model need only predict the correct, shared label across tasks, so it need not represent or predict which task the data came from. For example, when learning 5 permutations of MNIST in the [$\mathsf{GN}$]{} scenario (task IDs given during train but not test), a shared label [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} scenario will evaluate the model on the correct predicted label across 10 possibilities, while in the unshared [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} case the model must predict across 50 possibilities, a more difficult problem.
A full expansion of possibilities entails both [$\mathsf{GGs}$]{} and [$\mathsf{GGu}$]{}, but as [$\mathsf{s}$]{} and [$\mathsf{u}$]{} describe only model *evaluation*, any model capable of predicting shared labels can predict unshared equally well using the provided task ID at test time. Thus these cases are equivalent, and we designate both [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}. Moreover, the [$\mathsf{NNu}$]{} scenario is invalid because unseen labels signal the presence of a new task (the “labels trick” in [@zeno2018task]), making the scenario actually [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}, and so we consider only the shared label case [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}.
We leave out the discrete vs. continuous distinction as most research efforts operate within one framework or the other, and the taxonomy applies equivalently to discrete domains with integer “Task IDs” as to continue domains with “Task Embedding” or “Task Context” vectors. The remainder of this paper follows the majority of extant literature in focusing on the case with discrete task boundaries (see e.g. [@zeno2018task] for progress in the continuous scenario). Equipped with this taxonomy, we review three existing approaches for continual learning.
\[tab:scenarios\]
[width=1]{}
[@l l l l@]{} & & &\
& & &\
[$\mathsf{GG}$]{} & Task **G**iven during train and **G**iven during inference & Either &
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PNN [@rusu2016progressive], BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble], PSP [@cheung2019superposition], “Task learning” [@zeno2018task], “Task-IL” [@van2019three]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Overview of different Continual Learning scenarios. We suggest scenario names that provide an intuitive understanding of the variations in training, inference, and evaluation, while allowing a full coverage of the scenarios previously defined in [@van2019three] and [@zeno2018task]. See text for more complete description.
\
[$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} & Task **G**iven during train, **N**ot inference; **s**hared labels & Either & EWC [@kirkpatrick2017overcoming], SI [@zenke2017continual], “Domain learning” [@zeno2018task], “Domain-IL” [@van2019three]\
[$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} & Task **G**iven during train, **N**ot inference; **u**nshared labels & Discrete only & “Class learning” [@zeno2018task], “Class-IL” [@van2019three]\
[$\mathsf{NNs}$]{} & Task **N**ot given during train **N**or inference; **s**hared labels & Either & BGD, “Continuous/discrete task agnostic learning” [@zeno2018task]\
**(1) Regularization based methods** Methods like Elastic Weight Consolidation (EWC) [@kirkpatrick2017overcoming] and Synaptic Intelligence (SI) [@zenke2017continual] penalize the movement of parameters that are important for solving previous tasks in order to mitigate catastrophic forgetting. Measures of parameter importance vary; e.g. EWC uses the Fisher Information matrix [@pascanu2013revisiting]. These methods operate in the [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} scenario ([Table \[tab:scenarios\]]{}). Regularization approaches ameliorate but do not exactly eliminate catastrophic forgetting.
**(2) Using exemplars, replay, or generative models** These methods aim to explicitly or implicitly (with generative models) capture data from previous tasks. For instance, [@rebuffi2017icarl] performs classification based on the nearest-mean-of-examplars in a feature space. Additionally, [@lopez2017gradient; @chaudhry2018efficient] prevent the model from increasing loss on examples from previous tasks while [@rolnick2019experience] and [@shin2017continual] respectively use memory buffers and generative models to replay past data. Exact replay of the entire dataset can trivially eliminate catastrophic forgetting but at great time and memory cost. Generative approaches can reduce catastrophic forgetting, but generators are also susceptible to forgetting.
**(3) Task-specific model components** Instead of modifying the learning objective or replaying data, various methods [@rusu2016progressive; @yoon2017lifelong; @mallya2018packnet; @mallya2018piggyback; @masse2018alleviating; @xu2018reinforced; @cheung2019superposition; @golkar2019continual; @wen2020batchensemble] use different model components for different tasks. In Progressive Neural Networks (PNN), Dynamically Expandable Networks (DEN), and Reinforced Continual Learning (RCL) [@rusu2016progressive; @yoon2017lifelong; @xu2018reinforced], the model is expanded for each new task. More efficiently, [@masse2018alleviating] fixes the network size and randomly assigns which nodes are active for a given task. In [@mallya2018packnet; @golkar2019continual], the weights of disjoint subnetworks are trained for each new task. Instead of learning the weights of the subnetwork, for each new task Mallya *et al.* [@mallya2018piggyback] learn a binary mask that is applied to a network pretrained on ImageNet. Recently, Cheung *et al.* [@cheung2019superposition] superimpose many models into one by using different (and nearly orthogonal) contexts for each task. The task parameters can then be effectively retrieved using the correct task context. Finally, BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] learns a shared weight matrix on the first task and learn only a rank-one elementwise scaling matrix for each subsequent task.
Our method falls into this final approach (3) as it introduces task-specific supermasks. However, while all other methods in this category are limited to the [$\mathsf{GG}$]{} scenario, SupSup can be used to achieve compelling performance in *all four scenarios*. We compare primarily with BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] and Parameter Superposition (abbreviated PSP) [@cheung2019superposition] as they are recent and performative. BatchE requires very few additional parameters for each new task while achieving comparable performance to PNN and scaling to SplitImagenet. Moreover, PSP outperforms regularization based approaches like SI [@zenke2017continual]. However, both BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] and PSP [@cheung2019superposition] require task identity to use task-specific weights, so they can only operate in the [$\mathsf{GG}$]{} setting.
Methods {#sec:method}
=======
In this section, we detail how [SupSup]{}leverages supermasks to learn thousands of sequential tasks without forgetting. We begin with easier settings where task identity is given and gradually move to more challenging scenarios where task identity is unavailable.
Preliminaries
-------------
In a standard $\ell$-way classification task, inputs $\x$ are mapped to a distribution $\p$ over output neurons $\{1,...,\ell\}$. We consider the general case where $\p = f(\x, W)$ for a neural network $f$ paramaterized by $W$ and trained with a cross-entropy loss. In continual learning classification settings we have $k$ different $\ell$-way classification tasks and the input size remains constant across tasks[^2].
Zhou *et al.* [@zhou2019deconstructing] demonstrate that a trained binary mask (supermask) $M$ can be applied to a randomly weighted neural network, resulting in a subnetwork with good performance. As further explored by Ramanujan *et al.* [@ramanujan2019s], supermasks can be trained at similar compute cost to training weights while achieving performance competitive with weight training.
With supermasks, outputs are given by $\p = f\round{\x, W \odot M}$ where $\odot$ denotes an elementwise product. $W$ is kept frozen at its initialization: bias terms are $\zero$ and other parameters in $W$ are $\pm c$ with equal probability and $c$ is the standard deviation of the corresponding Kaiming normal distribution [@he2015delving]. This initialization is referred to as *signed Kaiming constant* by [@ramanujan2019s] and the constant $c$ may be different for each layer.
Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}: Task Identity Information Given During Train and Inference {#sec:S1}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When task identity is known during training we can learn a binary mask $M^i$ per task. $M^i$ are the only paramaters learned as the weights remain fixed. Given data from task $i$, outputs are computed as $$\label{eq:known-task-id}
\p = f\round{\x, W \odot M^i}$$ For each new task we can either initialize a new supermask randomly, or use a running mean of all supermasks learned so far. During inference for task $i$ we then use $M^i$. illustrates that in this scenario [SupSup]{}outperforms a number of baselines in accuracy on both SplitCIFAR100 and SplitImageNet while requiring fewer bytes to store. Experiment details are in [Section \[sec:exp-s1\]]{}.
Scenarios [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} & [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} : Task Identity Information Given During Train Only {#sec:S23}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now consider the case where input data comes from task $j$, but this task information is unknown to the model at inference time. During training we proceed exactly as in Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}, obtaining $k$ learned supermasks. During inference, we aim to infer task identity—correctly detect that the data belongs to task $j$—and select the corresponding supermask $M^j$.
The [SupSup]{}procedure for task ID inference is as follows: first we associate each of the $k$ learned supermasks $M^i$ with an coefficient $\alpha_i \in [0,1]$, initially set to $1/k$. Each $\alpha_i$ can be interpreted as the “belief” that supermask $M^i$ is the correct mask (equivalently the belief that the current unknown task is task $i$). The model’s output is then be computed with a weighted superposition of all learned masks:
[r]{}[0.39]{}
{width="38.00000%"}
$$\label{eq:sup}
\p(\alpha) = f\round{\x, W \odot \round{ \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i M^i}}.$$
The correct mask $M^j$ should produce a confident, low-entropy output [@hendrycks2016baseline]. Therefore, to recover the correct mask we find the coefficients $\alpha$ which minimize the output entropy $\Hcal$ of $\p(\alpha)$. One option is to perform gradient descent on $\alpha$ via $$\alpha \gets \alpha - \eta \nabla_\alpha \Hcal\round{\p \round{\alpha}}$$ where $\eta$ is the step size, and $\alpha$s are re-normalized to sum to one after each update. Another option is to try each mask individually and pick the one with the lowest entropy output requiring $k$ forward passes. However, we want an optimization method with fixed sub-linear run time (w.r.t. the number of tasks $k$) which leads $\alpha$ to a corner of the probability simplex — *i.e.* $\alpha$ is 0 everywhere except for a single 1. We can then take the nonzero index to be the inferred task. To this end we consider the **One-Shot** and **Binary** algorithms.
**One-Shot:** The task is inferred using a single gradient. Specifically, the inferred task is given by $$\label{eq:oneshot}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_i \round{- \frac{ \partial \Hcal\round{\p \round{\alpha}}}{\partial \alpha_i}}$$ as entropy is decreasing maximally in this coordinate. This algorithms corresponds to one step of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm [@frank1956algorithm], or one-step of gradient descent followed by softmax re-normalization with the step size $\eta$ approaching $\infty$. Unless noted otherwise, $\x$ is a single image and not a batch.
[.46]{}
------------------------------------- -------------- -----------
Algorithm Avg Top 1 Bytes
Accuracy (%)
Upper Bound 92.55 10222.81M
89.58 195.18M
[SupSup]{}([$\mathsf{GG}$]{}) 88.68 100.98M
86.37 65.50M
BatchE ($\ensuremath{\mathsf{GG}}$) 81.50 124.99M
Single Model - 102.23M
------------------------------------- -------------- -----------
\[tab:splitimagenet\]
[.54]{} ![**(left)** **SplitImagenet** performance in Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}. [SupSup]{}approaches upper bound performance with significantly fewer bytes. **(right)** **SplitCIFAR100** performance in Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{} shown as mean and standard deviation over 5 seed and splits. [SupSup]{}outperforms similar size baselines and benefits from *transfer*.](figs/splitcifar100_full.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"} \[fig:splitcifar\]
\[fig:t1\]
**Binary:** Resembling binary search, we infer task identity using an algorithm with $\log k$ steps. At each step we rule out half the tasks—the tasks corresponding to entries in the bottom half of $ - \nabla_\alpha \Hcal\round{\p \round{\alpha}}$. These are the coordinates in which entropy is minimally decreasing. A task $i$ is ruled out by setting $\alpha_i$ to zero and at each step we re-normalize the remaining entries in $\alpha$ so that they sum to one. Pseudo-code for both algorithms may be found in Section \[sec:pseudo\] of the appendix.
Once the task is inferred the corresponding mask can be used as in Equation \[eq:known-task-id\] to obtain class probabilities $\p$. In both Scenario [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} and [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} the class probabilities $\p$ are returned. In [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}, $\p$ forms a distribution over the classes corresponding to the inferred task. Importantly, the superimposed forwards and backward pass (Equation \[eq:sup\]) is much faster than performing a separate forwards pass for each mask, illustrated by Figure \[fig:gpu\_runtime\]. Experiments solving thousands of tasks are detailed in [Section \[sec:exp-s23\]]{}.
Scenario [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}: No Task Identity During Training or Inference {#sec:S4}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task inference algorithms from Scenario [$\mathsf{GN}$]{} enable the extension of [SupSup]{}to Scenario [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}, where task identity is entirely unknown (even during training). If [SupSup]{}is uncertain about the current task identity, it is likely that the data do not belong to any task seen so far. When this occurs a new supermask is allocated, and $k$ (the number of tasks learned so far) is incremented. We consider the **One-Shot** algorithm and say that [SupSup]{}is uncertain when performing task identity inference if $\nu = \texttt{softmax}\round{-\nabla_\alpha \Hcal \round{\p\round{\alpha}}}$ is approximately uniform. Specifically, if $k \max_i \nu_i < 1 + \epsilon $ a new mask is allocated and $k$ is incremented. Otherwise mask $\operatorname*{arg\,max}_i \nu_i$ is used, which corresponds to Equation \[eq:oneshot\]. We conduct experiments on learning up to 2500 tasks entirely without any task information, detailed in [Section \[sec:exp-s4\]]{}. shows that [SupSup]{}in Scenario [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{} achieves comparable performance even to Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}.
Beyond Linear Memory Dependence {#sec:hop}
-------------------------------
\[sec:beyond-linear-mem\] Hopfield networks [@hopfield1982neural] implicitly encode a series of binary strings $\z^i \in \{-1,1\}^d$ with an associated energy function $E_\Psi(\z) = \sum_{uv} \Psi_{uv}\z_u\z_v$. Each $\z^i$ is a minima of $E_\Psi$, and can be recovered with gradient descent. $\Psi \in \R^{d \times d}$ is initially $\zero$, and to encode a new string $z^i$, $\Psi \gets \Psi + \frac{1}{d}\z^i {\z^i}^\top $.
We now consider implicitly encoding the masks in a fixed-size Hopfield network $\Psi$ for Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}. For a new task $i$ a new mask is learned. After training on task $i$, this mask will be stored as an attractor in a fixed size Hopfield network. Given new data during inference we perform gradient descent on the Hopfield energy $E_\Psi$ with the output entropy $\Hcal$ to learn a new mask $\m$. Minimizing $E_\Psi$ will hopefully push $\m$ towards a mask learned during training while $\Hcal$ will push $\m$ to be the correct mask. As $\Psi$ is quadratic in mask size, we will not mask the parameters $W$. Instead we mask the output of every layer except the last, $\textit{e.g.}$ a network with one hidden layer and mask $\m$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f(\x, \m, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{W_2^\top \round{\m \odot \sigma\round{W_1^\top \x }} }\end{aligned}$$ for nonlinearity $\sigma$. The Hopfied network will then be a similar size as the base neural network. We refer to this method as Hop[SupSup]{}and provide additional details in Section \[sec:hop-extended\].
Superfluous Neurons & an Entropy Alternative {#sec:s-neuron}
--------------------------------------------
Similar to previous methods [@van2019three], Hop[SupSup]{}requires $\ell k$ output neurons in Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}. [SupSup]{}, however, is performing $\ell k$-way classification without $\ell k$ output neurons. Given data during inference **1)** the task is inferred and **2)** the corresponding mask is used to obtain outputs $\p$. The class probabilities $\p$ correspond to the classes for the inferred task, effectively reusing the neurons in the final layer.
[SupSup]{}could use an output size of $\ell$, though we find in practice that it helps significantly to add extra neurons to the final layer. Specifically we consider outputs $\p \in \R^{s}$ and refer to the neurons $\{\ell+1,...,s\}$ as superfluous neurons (s-neurons). The standard cross-entropy loss will push the values of s-neurons down throughout training. Accordingly, we consider an objective $\Gcal$ which encourages the s-neurons to have large negative values and can be used as an alternative to entropy in Equation \[eq:oneshot\]. Given data from task $j$, mask $M^j$ will minimize the values of the s-neurons as it was trained to do. Other masks were also trained to minimize the values of the s-neurons, but not for data from task $j$. In Lemma 1 of Section \[sec:analysis\] we provide the exact form of $\Gcal$ in code ($ \Gcal = \texttt{logsumexp}\round{\p}$ with masked gradients for $\p_1,...,\p_\ell$) and offer an alternative perspective on why $\Gcal$ is effective — the gradient of $\Gcal$ for all s-neurons exactly mirrors the gradient from the supervised training loss.
Experiments {#sec:exps}
===========
![Using **One-Shot** to infer task identity, [SupSup]{}outperforms methods with access to task identity. Results shown for PermutedMNIST with LeNet 300-100 **(left)** and FC 1024-1024 **(right)**.[]{data-label="fig:v1-v2"}](figs/v1-v2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Learning 2500 tasks and inferring task identity using the **One-Shot** algorithm. Results for both the [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} and [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{} scenarios with the LeNet 300-100 model using output size 500.[]{data-label="fig:long-zoom"}](figs/long_zoom.pdf){width="94.00000%"}
Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}: Task Identity Information Given During Train and Inference {#sec:exp-s1}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Datasets, Models & Training** In this experiment we validate the performance of [SupSup]{}on SplitCIFAR100 and SplitImageNet. Following Wen *et al.* [@wen2020batchensemble], SplitCIFAR100 randomly partitions CIFAR100 [@cifar] into 20 different 5-way classification problems. Similarly, SplitImageNet randomly splits the ImageNet [@imagenet] dataset into 100 different 10-way classification tasks. Following [@wen2020batchensemble] we use a ResNet-18 with fewer channels for SplitCIFAR100 and a standard ResNet-50 [@he2016deep] for SplitImageNet. The Edge-Popup algorithm from [@ramanujan2019s] is used to obtain supermasks for various sparsities with a layer-wise budget from [@mocanu2018scalable]. We either initialize each new mask randomly (as in [@ramanujan2019s]) or use a running mean of all previous learned masks. This simple method of “Transfer” works very well, as illustrated by . Additional training details and hyperparameters are provided in Section \[sec:hyperparams\].
**Computation** In Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}, the primary advantage of [SupSup]{}from Mallya *et al.* [@mallya2018packnet] or Wen *et al.* [@wen2020batchensemble] is that [SupSup]{}does not require the base model $W$ to be stored. Since $W$ is random it suffices to store only the random seed. For a fair comparison we also train BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] with random weights. The sparse supermasks are stored in the standard `scipy.sparse.csc`[^3] format with 16 bit integers. Moreover, [SupSup]{}requires minimal overhead in terms of forwards pass compute. Elementwise product by a binary mask can be implemented via memory access, *i.e.* selecting indices. Modern GPUs have very high memory bandwidth so the time cost of this operation is small with respect to the time of a forward pass. In particular, on a 1080 Ti this operation requires $\sim 1\%$ of the forward pass time for a ResNet-50, less than the overhead of BatchE (computation in Section \[sec:hyperparams\]).
**Baselines** In , for “Separate Heads” we train different heads for each task using a *trunk* (all layers except the final layer) trained on the first task. In contrast “Separate Heads - Rand W” uses a random trunk. BatchE results are given with the trunk trained on the first task (as in [@wen2020batchensemble]) and random weights $W$. For “Upper Bound”, individual models are trained for each task. Furthermore, the trunk for task $i$ is trained on tasks $1,...,i$. For “Lower Bound” a shared trunk of the network is trained continuously and a separate head is trained for each task. Since catastrophic forgetting occurs we omit “Lower Bound” from (the SplitCIFAR100 accuracy is 24.5%).
Scenarios [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} & [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}: Task Identity Information Given During Train Only {#sec:exp-s23}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our solutions for [$\mathsf{GNs}$]{} and [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} are very similar. Because [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} is strictly more difficult, we focus on only evaluating in Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}. For relevant figures we provide a corresponding table in Section \[sec:tables\].
![**(left)** Testing the FC 1024-1024 model on RotatedMNIST. [SupSup]{}uses **Binary** to infer task identity with a full batch as tasks are similar (differing by only 10 degrees). **(right)** The **One-Shot** algorithm can be used to infer task identity for BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble]. Experiment conducted with FC 1024-1024 on PermutedMNIST using an output size of 500, shown as mean and stddev over 3 runs.[]{data-label="fig:rot-adapt"}](figs/rotate_adapt.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
**Datasets** Experiments are conducted on PermutedMNIST, RotatedMNIST, and SplitMNIST. For PermutedMNIST [@kirkpatrick2017overcoming], new tasks are created with a fixed random permutation of the pixels of MNIST. For RotatedMNIST, images are rotated by 10 degrees to form a new task with 36 tasks in total (similar to [@cheung2019superposition]). Finally SplitMNIST partitions MNIST into 5 different 2-way classification tasks, each containing consecutive classes from the original dataset.
**Training** We consider two architectures: **1)** a fully connected network with two hidden layers of size 1024 (denoted FC 1024-1024 and used in [@cheung2019superposition]) **2)** the LeNet 300-100 architecture [@lecun1989backpropagation] as used in [@frankle2018lottery; @dettmers2019sparse]. For each task we train for 1000 batches of size 128 using the RMSProp optimizer [@tieleman2012lecture] with learning rate $0.0001$ which follows the hyperparameters of [@cheung2019superposition]. Supermasks are found using the algorithm of Mallya *et al.* [@mallya2018packnet] with threshold value 0. However, we initialize the real valued “scores” with Kaiming uniform as in [@ramanujan2019s]. Training the mask is not a focus of this work, we choose this method as it is fast and we are not concerned about controlling mask sparsity as in Section \[sec:exp-s1\].
**Evaluation** At test time we perform inference of task identity once for each batch. If task is not inferred correctly then accuracy is 0 for the batch. Unless noted otherwise we showcase results for the most challenging scenario — when the task identity is inferred using a single image. We use “Full Batch” to indicate that all 128 images are used to infer task identity. Moreover, we experiment with both the the entropy $\Hcal$ and $\Gcal$ (Section \[sec:s-neuron\]) objectives to perform task identity inference.
**Results** illustrates that [SupSup]{}is able to sequentially learn 2500 permutations of MNIST—[SupSup]{}succeeds in performing 25,000-way classification. This experiment is conducted with the **One-Shot** algorithm (requiring one gradient computation) using single images to infer task identity. The same trends hold in , where [SupSup]{}outperforms methods which operate in Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{} by using the **One-Shot** algorithm to infer task identity. In , output sizes of 100 and 500 are respectively used for LeNet 300-100 and FC 1024-1024. The left hand side of illustrates that [SupSup]{}is able to infer task identity even when tasks are similar—[SupSup]{}is able to distinguish between rotations of 10 degrees. Since this is a more challenging problem, we use a full batch and the **Binary** algorithm to perform task identity inference. Figure \[fig:hop-infer\] (appendix) shows that for HopSupSup on SplitMNIST, the new mask $\m$ converges to the correct supermask in $<30$ gradient steps.
**Baselines & Ablations** (left) shows that even in Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}, [SupSup]{}is able to outperform PSP [@cheung2019superposition] and BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] in Scenario [$\mathsf{GG}$]{}—methods using task identity. In (right) we equip BatchE with task inference using our **One-Shot** algorithm. Instead of attaching a weight $\alpha_i$ to each supermask, we attach a weight $\alpha_i$ to each rank-one matrix [@wen2020batchensemble]. Moreover, in Section \[sec:better-baseline\] of the appendix we augment BatchE to perform task-inference using large batch sizes. “Upper Bound” and “Lower Bound” are the same as in Section \[sec:exp-s1\]. Moreover, illustrates the importance of output size. Further investigation of this phenomena is provided by Section \[sec:s-neuron\] and Lemma 1 of Section \[sec:analysis\].
Scenario [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}: No Task Identity During Training or Inference {#sec:exp-s4}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{} Scenario we consider PermutedMNIST and train on each task for 1000 batches (the model does not have access to this iteration number). Every 100 batches the model must choose to allocate a new mask or pick an existing mask using the criteria from Section \[sec:S4\] ($\epsilon = 2^{-3}$). illustrates that without access to any task identity (even during training) SupSup is able to learn thousands of tasks. However, a final dip is observed as a budget of 2500 supermasks total is enforced.
![The effect of output size $s$ on [SupSup]{}performance using the **One-Shot** algorithm. Results shown for PermutedMNIST with LeNet 300-100 **(left)** and FC 1024-1024 **(right)**.[]{data-label="fig:v1-v2-sz"}](figs/v1-v2-sz.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
Supermasks in Superposition ([SupSup]{}) is a flexible and compelling model applicable to a wide range of scenarios in Continual Learning. [SupSup]{}leverages the power of subnetworks [@zhou2019deconstructing; @ramanujan2019s; @mallya2018packnet], and gradient-based optimization to infer task identity when unknown. [SupSup]{}achieves state-of-the-art performance on SplitImageNet when given task identity, and scales to thousands of permutations and almost indiscernible rotations of MNIST without any task information.
A limitation we observed has to do with task identity inference when models are not well calibrated—models that are overly confident for the wrong task. As future work, we hope to explore automatic task inference with more calibrated models [@guo2017calibration], as well as circumventing calibration challenges by using optimization objectives such as self-supervision [@he2019momentum] and energy based models [@grathwohl2019your]. In doing so, we hope to tackle large-scale problems in Scenarios [$\mathsf{GN}$]{} and [$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}.
Broader Impact {#broader-impact .unnumbered}
==============
A goal of continual learning is to solve many tasks with a single model. However, it is not exactly clear what qualifies as a *single model*. Therefore, a concrete objective has become to learn many tasks as efficiently as possible. We believe that [SupSup]{}is a useful step in this direction. However, there are consequences to more efficient models, both positive and negative.
We begin with the positive consequences:
- Efficient models require less compute, and are therefore less harmful for the environment then learning one model per task [@schwartz2019green]. This is especially true if models are able to leverage information from past tasks, and training on new tasks is then faster.
- Efficient models may be run on the end device. This helps to preserve privacy as a user’s data does not have to be sent to the cloud for computation.
- If models are more efficient then large scale research is not limited to wealthier institutions. These institutions are more likely in privileged parts of the world and may be ignorant of problems facing developing nations. Moreover, privileged institutions may not be a representative sample of the research community.
We would also like to highlight and discuss the negative consequences of models which can efficiently learn many tasks, and efficient models in general. When models are more efficient, they are also more available and less subject to regularization and study as a result. For instance, when a high-impact model is released by an institution it will hopefully be accompanied by a Model Card [@mitchell2019model] analyzing the bias and intended use of the model. By contrast, if anyone is able to train a powerful model this may no longer be the case, resulting in a proliferation of models with harmful biases or intended use. Taking the United States for instance, bias can be harmful as models show disproportionately more errors for already marginalized groups [@buolamwini2018gender], furthering existing and deeply rooted structural racism.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We thank Gabriel Ilharco Magalhães and Sarah Pratt for helpful comments. For valuable conversations we also thank Tim Dettmers, Kiana Ehsani, Ana Marasović, Suchin Gururangan, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Connor Shorten, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Samuel McKinney and Kishanee Haththotuwegama.
Algorithm pseudo-code {#sec:pseudo}
=====================
Algorithms \[alg:oneshot\] and \[alg:binary\] respectively provide pseudo-code for the **One-Shot** and **Binary** algorithms detailed in Section \[sec:S23\]. Both aim to infer the task $j \in \{1,...,k\}$ associated with input data $\x$ by minimizing the objective $\Hcal$.
Extended Details for Hop[SupSup]{} {#sec:hop-extended}
==================================
This section provides further details and experiments for Hop[SupSup]{}(introduced in Section \[sec:hop\]). Hop[SupSup]{}provides a method for storing the growing set of supermasks in a fixed size reservoir instead of explicitly storing each mask.
Training
--------
Recall that Hop[SupSup]{}operates in Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} and so task identity is known during training. Instead of explicitly storing each mask, we will instead store two fixed sized variables $\Psi$ and $\mu$ which are both initially $\zero$. The weights of the Hopfield network are $\Psi$ and $\mu$ stores a running mean of all masks learned so far. For a new task $k$ we use the same algorithm as in Section \[sec:exp-s23\] to learn a binary mask $\m^i$ which performs well for task $k$. Since Hopfield networks consider binary strings in $\{-1,1\}^d$ and we use masks $\m^i \in \{0,1\}^d$ we will consider $\z^k = 2\m^k - 1$. In practice we then update $\Psi$ and $\mu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi \gets \Psi + \frac{1}{d}\round{ \z^k {\z^k}^\top - \z^k \round{\Psi \z^k}^\top - \round{\Psi \z^k} {\z^k}^\top - \text{Id}}, & \mu \gets \frac{k-1}{k} \mu + \frac{1}{k} \z^k \end{aligned}$$ where Id is the identity matrix. This update rule for $\Psi$ is referred to as the Storkey learning rule [@storkey1997increasing] and is more expressive than the alternative—the Hebbian rule $\Psi \gets \Psi + \frac{1}{d} \z^k {\z^k}^\top$ [@hopfield1982neural] provided for brevity in Section \[sec:S23\]. With either update rules the learned $\z^i$ will be a minimizer of the Hopfield energy $E_{\Psi}(\z) = \sum_{uv} \Psi_{uv} \z_u \z_v$.
![During *Hopfield Recovery* the new mask $\m$ converges to the correct mask learned during training. Note that $\m^i$ denotes the mask learned for task $i$.[]{data-label="fig:hop-infer"}](figs/hd_crop.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Inference
---------
During inference we receive data $\x$ from some task $j$, but this task information is not given to the model. Hop[SupSup]{}first initializes a new binary string $\z$ with $\mu$. Next, Hop[SupSup]{}uses gradient descent to minimize the Hopfield energy in conjunction with the output entropy using mask $\m = \frac{1}{2}\z + 1$, a process we refer to as *Hopfield Recovery*. Minimizing the energy will hopefully push $\m$ (equivalently $\z$) towards a mask learned during training and minimizing the entropy will hopefully push $\m$ towards the correct mask $\m^j$. We may then use the recovered mask to compute the network output.
In practice we use one pass through the evaluation set (with batch size 64, requiring $T \approx 30$ steps) to recover a mask and another to perform evaluation with the recovered mask. When recovering the mask we gradually increase the strength of the Hopfield term and decrease the strength of the entropy term. Otherwise the Hopfield term initially pulls $\z$ in the wrong direction or the final $\z$ does not lie at a minimum of $E_\Psi$. For step $t \in \{1,...,T\}$, and constant $\gamma$ we use the objective $\Jcal$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Jcal(\z, t) = \frac{\gamma t}{T} E_{\Psi}(\z) + \round{1 - \frac{t}{T}} \mathcal{H}\round{\p}\end{aligned}$$ where $\p$ denotes the output using mask $\m = \frac{1}{2}\z + 1$.
Figure \[fig:hop-infer\] illustrates that after approximately 30 steps of gradient descent on $\z$ using objective $\Jcal$, the mask $\m = \frac{1}{2}\z + 1$ converges to the correct mask learned during training. This experiment is conducted for 20 different random seeds on SplitMNIST (see Section \[sec:exp-s23\]) training for 1 epoch per task. Evaluation with the recovered mask for each seed is then given by Figure \[fig:hop-res\]. As expected, when the correct mask is successfully recovered, accuracy matches directly using the correct mask. For hyperparameters we set $\gamma = 1.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and perform gradient descent during Hopfield recovery with learning rate $0.5 \cdot 10^3$, momentum $0.9$, and weight decay $10^{-4}$.
Network Architecture
--------------------
Let $\texttt{BN}$ denote non-affine batch normalization [@ioffe2015batch], *i.e.* batch normalization with no learned parameters. Also recall that we are masking layer outputs instead of weights, and the weights still remain fixed (see Section \[sec:hop\]). Therefore, with mask $\m = (\m_1, \m_2)$ and weights $W = (W_1, W_2, W_3)$ we compute outputs as $$\begin{aligned}
f(\x, \m, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{ W_3^\top \sigma\round{\m_2 \odot \texttt{BN}\round{ W_2^\top \sigma\round{\m_1 \odot \texttt{BN}\round{W_1^\top \x }} }}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ denotes the Swish nonlinearity [@ramachandran2017searching]. Without masking or normalization $f$ is a fully connected network with two hidden layers of size 2048. We also note that Hop[SupSup]{}requires 10 output neurons for SplitMNIST in Scenario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}, and the composition of non-affine batch normalization with a binary mask was inspired by BatchNets [@frankle2020training].
![Continual learning scenarios detailed in Table \[tab:scenarios\] represented in a tree graph, as in [@zeno2018task].[]{data-label="fig:scenarios"}](figs/res-v2.pdf "fig:"){width=".8\linewidth"} \[fig:hop-res\]
\[ grow = down, level 1/.style = [sibling distance = 6em, level distance=4em]{}, level 2/.style = [sibling distance = 6em, level distance=4em]{}, level 3/.style = [sibling distance = 3.5em, level distance=3.5em]{}, level distance = 4.5em, edge from parent/.style = [draw, -latex]{}, every node/.style = [font=]{}, >=latex \] (tiidinf) \[root\] \[treenode2\] [Task ID given during\
train & inference]{} child [ node (s1) \[env2\] [[$\mathsf{GG}$]{}]{} edge from parent node \[left\] [Yes]{} ]{} child [ node (tiidtrain) \[root\] \[treenode2\] [Task ID given\
during training]{} child [ node (tsly) \[root\] \[treenode2\] [Tasks share\
labels]{} child [ node (s2) \[root\] \[env2\] [[$\mathsf{GNs}$]{}]{} child\[level distance=2.4em\] [ node (TL) \[whiteenv\] edge from parent\[draw=none\] ]{} edge from parent node \[left\] [Yes]{} ]{} child [ node (s3) \[root\] \[env2\] [[$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}]{} edge from parent node \[right\] [No]{} ]{} edge from parent node \[left\] [Yes]{} ]{} child [ node (tsln) \[root\] \[treenode2\] [Tasks share\
labels]{} child [ node (s4) \[root\] \[env2\] [[$\mathsf{NNs}$]{}]{} edge from parent node \[right\] [Yes]{} ]{} edge from parent node \[right\] [No]{} ]{} edge from parent node \[right\] [No]{} ]{};
Augmenting BatchE For Scnario [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} {#sec:better-baseline}
================================================
In Section \[sec:exp-s23\] we demonstrate that BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] is able to infer task identity using the **One-Shot** algorithm. In this section we show that, equipped with $\Hcal$ from Section \[sec:method\], BatchE can also infer task identity by using a large batch size. We refer to this method as Augmented BatchE (ABatchE).
For clarity we describe ABatchE for one linear layer, *i.e.* we describe the application of ABatchE to $$\begin{aligned}
f(\x, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{W^\top \x}\end{aligned}$$ for input data $\x \in \R^m$ and weights $W \in \R^{m \times n}$. In BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble], $W$ is trained on the first task then frozen. For task $i$ BatchE learns “fast weights” $r_i \in \R^{m}$, $s_i \in \R^{n}$ and outputs are computed via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ogbe}
f(\x, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{\round{W \odot r_i s_i^\top }^\top \x}.\end{aligned}$$ Wen *et al.* [@wen2020batchensemble] further demonstrate that Equation \[eq:ogbe\] can be vectorized as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vbe}
f(\x, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{ \round{W^\top \round{\x \odot r_i }} \odot s_i }\end{aligned}$$ or, for a batch of data $X \in \R^{b \times m}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bvbe}
f(X, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{ \round{\round{X \odot R^{b}_i } W} \odot S^{b}_i }.\end{aligned}$$ In Equation \[eq:bvbe\], $R^b_i \in \R^{b \times m}$ is a matrix where each of the $b$ rows is $r_i$ (likewise $S^b_i \in \R^{b \times n}$ is a matrix where each of the $b$ rows is $s_i$).
As in Section \[sec:S23\] we now consider the case where data $X \in \R^{b \times m}$ comes from task $j$ but this information is not known to the model. For ABatchE we repeat the data $k$ times, where $k$ is the number of tasks learned so far, and use different “fast weights” for each repetiton. Specifically, we consider repeated data $\tilde X \in \R^{bk \times m}$ and augmented matricies $\tilde R \in \R^{bk \times m}$ and $\tilde S \in \R^{bk \times n}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde X = \begin{bmatrix} X \\ X \\ \vdots \\ X \end{bmatrix}, \ \ \ \ \ \tilde R =\begin{bmatrix} R^b_1 \\ R^b_2 \\ \vdots \\ R^b_k \end{bmatrix}, \ \ \ \ \ \tilde S =\begin{bmatrix} S^b_1 \\ S^b_2 \\ \vdots \\ S^b_k \end{bmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ Outputs are then computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bvabe}
f(X, W) = \texttt{softmax}\round{ \round{\round{\tilde X \odot \tilde R } W} \odot \tilde S }\end{aligned}$$ where the $b$ rows $(bi,...,bi + b-1)$ of the output correspond exactly to Equation \[eq:bvbe\]. The task may then be inferred by choosing the $i$ for which the rows $(bi,...,b(i+1) - 1)$ minimize the objective $\Hcal$. If $f(X, W)_i$ denotes row $i$ of $f(X, W)$ then for objective $\Hcal$ the inferred task for ABatchE is $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,min}_i \sum_{\omega = 0}^{b-1} \Hcal\round{f(X, W)_{bi + \omega}}.\end{aligned}$$ To extend ABatchE to deep neural networks the matricies $\tilde R$ and $\tilde S$ are constructed for each layer.
One advantage of ABatchE over [SupSup]{}is that no backwards pass is required. However, ABatchE uses a very large batch size for large $k$, and the forward pass therefore requires more compute and memory. Another disadvantage of ABatchE is that the performance of ABatchE is limited by the performance of BatchE. In Section \[sec:exp-s23\] we demonstrate that [SupSup]{}outperforms BatchE when BatchE is given task identity information.
Since the objective for ABatchE need not be differentiable we also experiment with an alternative metric of confidence $\Mcal(\p) = -\max_i \p_i$. We showcase results for ABatchE on PermutedMNIST in for various values of $b$. The entropy objective $\Hcal$ performs better than $\Mcal$, and forgetting is only mitigated when using 16 images ($b=16$). With 250 tasks, $b=16$ corresponds to a batch size of 4000.
![Testing ABatchE on PermutedMNIST with LeNet 300-100 **(left)** and FC 1024-1024 **(right)** with output size 100.[]{data-label="fig:abe"}](figs/abe.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Extended Training Details {#sec:hyperparams}
=========================
SplitCIFAR-100 ([$\mathsf{GG}$]{})
----------------------------------
As in [@wen2020batchensemble] we train each model for 250 epochs per task. We use standard hyperparameters—the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] with a batch size of 128 and learning rate 0.001 (no warmup, cosine decay [@cosine]). For [SupSup]{}we follow [@ramanujan2019s] and use non-affine normalization so there are no learned parameters. We do have to store the running mean and variance for each task, which we include in the parameter count. We found it better to use a higher learning rate (0.1) when training BatchE (Rand $W$), and the standard BatchE number is taken from [@wen2020batchensemble].
SplitImageNet ([$\mathsf{GG}$]{})
---------------------------------
We use the Upper Bound and BatchE number from [@wen2020batchensemble]. For [SupSup]{}we train for 100 epochs with a batch size of 256 using the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] with learning rate 0.001 (5 epochs warmup, cosine decay [@cosine]). For [SupSup]{}we follow [@ramanujan2019s] and use non-affine normalization so there are no learned parameters. We do have to store the running mean and variance for each task, which we include in the parameter count.
[$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} Experiments
------------------------------
We clarify some experimental details for [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{} experiments & baselines. For the BatchE [@wen2020batchensemble] baseline we find it best to use kaiming normal initialization with a learning rate of 0.01 (0.0001 for the first task when the weights are trained). As we are considering hundreds of tasks, instead of training separate heads per tasks when training BatchE we also apply the rank one pertubation to the final layer. PSP [@cheung2019superposition] provides MNISTPerm results so we use the same hyperparameters as in their code. We compare with rotational superposition, the best performing model from PSP.
Speed of the Masked Forward Pass
--------------------------------
We now provide justification for the calculation mentioned in Section \[sec:exp-s1\]—when implemented properly the masking operation should require $\sim 1\%$ of the total time for a forward pass (for a ResNet-50 on a NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti GPU). It is reasonable to assume that selecting indices is roughly as quick as memory access. A NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti has a memory bandwidth of 480 GB/s. A ResNet-50 has around $2.5\cdot 10^7$ 4-byte (32-bit) parameters—roughly 0.1 GB. Therefore, indexing over a ResNet-50 requires at most $0.1 \text{ GB} / \left(480\text{ GB/s}\right) \approx 0.21\text{ ms}$. For comparison, the average forward pass of a ResNet-50 for a $3\times 224\times 224$ image on the same GPU is about 25 ms.
Note that NVIDIA hardware specifications generally assume best-case performance with sequential page reads. However, even if real-world memory bandwidth speeds are 60-70% slower than advertised, the fraction of masking time would remain in the $\leq 3$% range.
Tree Representation for the Continual Learning Scenarios
========================================================
In Figure \[fig:scenarios\] the Continual Learning scenarios are represented as a tree. This resembles the formulation from [@zeno2018task] with some modifications, *i.e.* “Tasks share output head?” is replaced with “Tasks share labels” as it is possible to share the output head but not labels, *e.g.* [SupSup]{}in [$\mathsf{GNu}$]{}.
Corresponding Tables {#sec:tables}
====================
In this section we provide tabular results for figures from Section \[sec:exps\].
\[tab:t1\]
\[tab:v1-v2-left\]
\[tab:v1-v2-right\]
\[tab:long\]
\[tab:rot-adapt-left\]
\[tab:rot-adapt-right\]
\[tab:v1-v2-sz-left\]
\[tab:v1-v2-sz-right\]
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
In this section we assume a slightly more technical perspective. The aim is not to formally prove properties of the algorithm. Rather, we hope that a more mathematical language may prove useful in extending intuition. Just as the empirical work of [@frankle2018lottery; @zhou2019deconstructing; @ramanujan2019s] was given a formal treatment in [@malach2020proving], we hope for more theoretical work to follow.
Our grounding intuition remains from Section \[sec:S23\]—the correct mask will produce the lowest entropy output. Moreover, since entropy is differentiable, gradient based optimization can be used to recover the correct mask. However, many questions remain: Why do superfluous neurons (Section \[sec:s-neuron\]) help? In the case of MNISTPermuation, why is a single gradient sufficient? Although it is a simple case, steps forward can be made by analyzing the training of a linear head on fixed features. With *random* features, training a linear head on fixed features is considered in the literature of reservoir computing [@schrauwen2007overview], and more [@bengio2006convex].
Consider $k$ different classification problems with fixed features $\phi(\x) \in \R^m$. Traditionally, one would use learned weights $W \in \R^{m \times n}$ to compute *logits* $$\begin{aligned}
\y = W^\top \phi(\x)\end{aligned}$$ and output classification probabilities $\p = \texttt{softmax}(\y)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\p_v = \frac{\exp(\y_v)}{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'})}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that with [SupSup]{}we compute the *logits* for task $i$ using fixed random weights $W$ and a learned binary mask $M^i \in \{0,1\}^{m \times n}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\y = \round{W \odot M^i}^\top \phi(\x)\end{aligned}$$ where $\odot$ denotes an element-wise product and no bias term is allowed. Moreover, $W_{uv} = \xi_{uv} \sqrt{{2} /{m}} $ where $\xi_{uv}$ is chosen independently to be either $-1$ or $1$ with equal probability and the constant $\sqrt{{2} /{m}}$ follows Kaiming initialization [@he2015delving].
Say we are given data $\x$ from task $j$. From now on we will refer to task $j$ as the *correct* task. Recall from [Section \[sec:S23\]]{} that [SupSup]{}attempts to infer the *correct* task by using a weighted mixture of masks $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:susu-elm}
\y = \round{ W \odot \sum_i \alpha_i M^i}^\top \phi(\x)\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $\alpha_i$ sum to one, and are initially set to $1/k$.
To infer the correct task we attempt to construct a function $\Gcal(\y; \alpha)$ with the following property: For fixed data, $\Gcal$ is minimized when $\alpha = \e_j$ ($\e_j$ denotes a $k$-length vector that is 1 in index $j$ and 0 otherwise). We can then infer the correct task by solving a minimization problem.
As in **One-Shot**, we use a single gradient computation to infer the task via $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_i \round{ -\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} }.\end{aligned}$$ A series of Lemmas will reveal how a single gradient step may be sufficient when tasks are unrelated (*e.g.* as in PermutedMNIST). We begin with the construction of a useful function $\Gcal$, which will correspond exactly to $\Gcal$ in Section \[sec:s-neuron\]. As in Section \[sec:s-neuron\], this construction is made possible through superfluous neurons (s-neurons): The true labels are in $\{1,...,\ell \}$, and a typical output is therefore length $\ell$. However, we add $n-\ell$ s-neurons resulting in a vector $\y$ of length $n$.
Let $\mathbf{S}$ denote the set of s-neurons and $\mathbf{R}$ denote the set of *real* neurons where $|\mathbf{S}| = n-\ell$ and $|\mathbf{R}| = \ell$. Moreover, assume that a standard cross-entropy loss is used during training, which will encourage s-neurons to have small values.
\[lemma:constructg\] It is possible to construct a function $\Gcal$ such that the gradient matches the gradient from the supervised training loss $\Lcal$ for all s-neurons. Specifically, $\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial y_v} = \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial y_v}$ for all $v \in \mathbf{S}$ and 0 otherwise.
Let $g_v = \frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial y_v}$. It is easy to ensure that $g_v = 0$ for all $v \not\in \mathbf{S}$ with a modern neural network library like PyTorch [@paszke2019pytorch] as *detaching*[^4] the outputs from the neurons $v \not\in \mathbf{S}$ prevents gradient signal from reaching them. In code, let `y` be the outputs and `m` be a binary vector with $\texttt{m}_v = 1$ if $v \in \mathbf{S}$ and 0 otherwise, then $$\begin{aligned}
\texttt{y = (1 - m) * y.detach() + m * y}\end{aligned}$$ will prevent gradient signal from reaching $\y_v$ for $v \not\in \mathbf{S}$.
Recall that the standard cross-entropy loss is $$\begin{aligned}
\Lcal(\y) = -\log \round{\frac{\exp(\y_c)}{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'})}}
= - \y_c + \log\round{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'})}\end{aligned}$$ where $c \in \{1,...,\ell\}$ is the correct label. The gradient of $\Lcal$ to any s-neuron $v$ is then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial \y_v} = \frac{\exp(\y_v)}{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'})}.\end{aligned}$$ If we define $\Gcal$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gcal(\y; \alpha) = \log\round{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'})}\end{aligned}$$ then $g_v = \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial y_v}$ as needed. Expressed in code $$\begin{aligned}
&\texttt{y = model(x)}; \ \ \ \texttt{G = torch.logsumexp((1 - m) * y.detach() + m * y, dim=1)}\end{aligned}$$ where `model(...)` computes Equation \[eq:susu-elm\].
In the next two Lemmas we aim to show that, in expectation, $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} \leq 0$ for $i \neq j$ while $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_j} > 0$. Recall that $j$ is the *correct* task—the task from which the data is drawn—and we will use $i$ to refer to a different task.
When we take expectation, it is with respect to the random variables $\xi, \{M^\omega\}_{\omega \in \{1,..,k\}}$, and $\x$. Before we proceed further a few assumptions are formalized, *e.g.* what it means for tasks to be unrelated.
**Assumption 1:** We assume that the mask learned on task $i$ will be independent from the data from task $j$: If the data is from task $j$ then $\phi(\x)$ and $M^i$ and independent random variables.
**Assumption 2:** We assume that a negative weight and positive weight are equally likely to be masked out. As a result, $\E{\xi_{uv}M_{uv}^i} = 0$. Note that when $\E{\phi(\x)} = 0$, which will be the case for zero mean random features, there should be little doubt that this assumption should hold.
If data $\x$ comes from task $j$ and $i \neq j$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\E{-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} } \leq 0\end{aligned}$$
We may write the gradient as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemgrad}
\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} = \sum_{v=1}^n \frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} \frac{\partial \y_v}{\partial \alpha_i} \end{aligned}$$ and use that $\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} = 0$ for $v \not \in \mathbf{S}$. Moreover, $\y_v$ may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\y_v = \sum_{u = 1}^n \phi(\x)_u W_{uv} \round{\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i M^i_{uv}}\end{aligned}$$ with $W_{uv} = \xi_{uv} \sqrt{2 / m}$ and so Equation \[eq:lemgrad\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} = \frac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt m} \sum_{v \in \mathbf{S}} \sum_{u = 1}^n \frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the expectation (and using linearity) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:grad-simple}
\E{\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i}} = \frac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt m} \sum_{v \in \mathbf{S}} \sum_{u = 1}^n \E{ \frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i }.\end{aligned}$$ In Lemma \[lem:tech\] we formally show that each term in this sum is greater than or equal to 0, which completes this proof. However, we can see informally now why expectation should be close to 0 if we ignore the gradient term as $$\begin{aligned}
\E{ \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i } = \E{ \phi(\x)_u } \E{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i } = 0\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality follows from Assumption 1 and the latter follows from Assumption 2.
We have now seen that in expectation $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} \leq 0$ for $i \neq j$. It remains to be shown that we should expect $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_j} > 0$.
If data $\x$ comes from the task $j$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\E{-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_j}} > 0.\end{aligned}$$
Following Equation \[eq:grad-simple\], it suffices to show that for $u \in \{1,...,m\}$, $v \in \mathbf{S}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\E{ -\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^j } > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $v \in \mathbf{S}$ we may invoke Lemma \[lemma:constructg\] to rewrite our objective as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lem-new-obj}
\E{- \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^j } > 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lcal$ is the supervised loss used for training. Recall that in the mask training algorithm, real valued scores $S_{uv}^j$ are associated with $M_{uv}^j$ [@ramanujan2019s; @mallya2018piggyback]. The update rule for $S_{uv}^j$ on the backward pass is then $$\begin{aligned}
S_{uv}^j \gets S_{uv}^j + \eta \round{- \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} }\end{aligned}$$ for some learning rate $\eta$. Following Mallya *et al.* [@mallya2018piggyback] (with threshold 0, as used in Section \[sec:exp-s23\]), we let $M_{uv}^j=1$ if $S_{uv}^j > 0$ and otherwise assign $M_{uv}^j=0$. As a result, we expect that $M_{uv}^j$ is 1 when $- \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} $ is more consistently positive than negative. In other words, the expected product of $M_{uv}^j$ and $- \frac{\partial \Lcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} $ is positive, satisfying Equation \[eq:lem-new-obj\].
Together, three Lemmas have demonstrated that in expectation $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} \leq 0$ for $i \neq j$ while $-\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_j} > 0$. Accordingly, we should expect that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{arg\,max}_i \round{ -\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \alpha_i} }.\end{aligned}$$ returns the correct task $j$. While a full, formal treatment which includes the analysis of noise is beyond the scope of this work, we hope that this section has helped to further intuition. However, we are missing one final piece—what is the relation between $\Gcal$ and $\Hcal$?
It is not difficult to imagine that $\Hcal$ should imitate the loss, which attempts to raise the score of one logit while bringing all others down. Analytically we find that $\Hcal$ can be decomposed into two terms as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Hcal\round{\p} &= -\sum_{v=1}^n \p_v \log \p_v \\
&= -\sum_{v=1}^n \p_v \log \round{\frac{\exp\round{\y_v}}{\sum_{v'=1}^n \exp\round{\y_v'} }} \\
&= \round{-\sum_{v=1}^n \p_v \y_v} + \log \round{\sum_{v'=1}^n \exp\round{\y_v'} }\end{aligned}$$ where the latter term is $\Gcal$. With more and more neurons in the output layer, $\p_v$ will become small moving $\Hcal$ towards $\Gcal$.
Additional Technical Details
============================
\[lem:tech\] If $j$ is the true task and $i \neq j$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:technical}
\E{\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i} \geq 0\end{aligned}$$
Recall from Lemma \[lemma:constructg\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Gcal}{\partial \y_v} = \p_v = \frac{\exp(\y_v)}{\sum_{v' = 1}^n \exp(\y_{v'}) }\end{aligned}$$ and so we rewrite equation \[eq:technical\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i} \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ By the law of total expectation $$\begin{aligned}
\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i} = \E{ \E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \left| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \right| } }\end{aligned}$$ and so it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:suffices1}
\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \left| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \right| = \kappa } \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ for any $\kappa \geq 0$. In the case where where $\kappa = 0$ Equation \[eq:suffices1\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:suffices2}
\E{ 0 \p_v \Bigg| \left| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \right| = 0 } = 0\end{aligned}$$ and so we are only left to consider $\kappa > 0$. Note that $\kappa > 0$ restricts $M_{uv}^i$ to be 1.
Again invoking the law of total expectation we rewrite Equation \[eq:suffices2\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \left| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \right| } \\
&= \E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa }\PR{\phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa} \\
&+ \E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa }\PR{\phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa}.
\end{split} \label{eq:lawtotalexp2}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since the data is from task $j \neq i$, we can use Assumption 1 and 2 to show that each of the cases above is equally likely. Formally, $$\begin{aligned}
&\PR{\phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa} \\
&= \PR{ \round{\curly{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa} \cap \curly{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = 1 }} \cup \round{\curly{ \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \cap \curly{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -1 }}} \\
&= \PR{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa } \PR{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = +1 } + \PR{ \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \PR{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -1 } \\
&= \PR{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa } \PR{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -1 } + \PR{ \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \PR{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = +1 } \\
&= \PR{ \round{\curly{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa} \cap \curly{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -1 }} \cup \round{\curly{ \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \cap \curly{ \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = +1 }}} \\
&=\PR{\phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa} \end{aligned}$$ and so we may factor out the probability terms in Equation \[eq:lawtotalexp2\]. Accordingly, it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:final-obj}
\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } + \E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa } \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Before we proceed, we will introduce a function $h$ which we use to denote $$\begin{aligned}
h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} = \kappa \frac{\exp(\y_v + \kappa)}{\exp(\y_v + \kappa) + \sum_{v' \neq v}\exp(\y_{v'})}.\end{aligned}$$ for $\kappa > 0$. We will make use of two interesting properties of $h$.
We first note that $h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} + h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} \geq 0$, which is formally shown in \[lemma:hprop1\].
Second, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } \\ &= \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which we dissect in Lemma \[lemma:hprop2\].
Utilizing these two properties of $h$ we may show that Equation \[eq:final-obj\] holds as $$\begin{aligned}
&\E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } + \E{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i \Bigg| \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa } \\
\begin{split}
&= \int_\R h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} \ d\PR{ \p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } \\
&\ \ + \int_\R h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} \ d\PR{ \p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa }
\end{split}\\
&= \int_\R \round{ h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} + h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} } \ d\PR{ \p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } \\
&\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:hprop1\] $h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} + h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} \geq 0$.
Recall that $\kappa \geq 0$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
&\exp(\y_v + \kappa) \sum_{v'} \exp(\y_{v'}) \geq \exp(\y_v - \kappa)\sum_{v'} \exp(\y_{v'}) \\
\begin{split}
&\Rightarrow \ \exp(\y_v + \kappa) \round{\exp(\y_v - \kappa) + \sum_{v'} \exp(\y_{v'})}
\\ &\ \ \ \ \ \ \geq \exp(\y_v - \kappa)\round{ \exp(\y_v + \kappa) + \sum_{v'} \exp(\y_{v'})}
\end{split} \\
&\Rightarrow \kappa \frac{\exp(\y_v + \kappa)}{\exp(\y_v + \kappa) + \sum_{v' \neq v}\exp(\y_{v'})}
\geq \kappa \frac{\exp(\y_v - \kappa)}{\exp(\y_v - \kappa) + \sum_{v' \neq v}\exp(\y_{v'})}\end{aligned}$$ and we may then subtract the term on the right from both sides.
\[lemma:hprop2\] Consider take $i \neq j$ where $j$ is the correct task. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \label{eq:lemmab3}
&\PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = \kappa } \\ &= \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = -\kappa}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Note that this equation is satisfied when $\kappa = 0$ (since $-0 = 0$). For the remainder of this proof we will instead consider the case where $\kappa > 0$ (and so $M_{uv}^i = 1$).
If we define $\rho$ as $\rho = \round{\PR{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa} + \PR{\phi(\x)_u = -\kappa}}^{-1}$ then may decompose Equation \[eq:lemmab3\] into four terms. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = \kappa } \PR{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa}\rho \\
&+ \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \PR{\phi(\x)_u = -\kappa} \rho\\
&=\PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = \kappa } \PR{\phi(\x)_u = \kappa}\rho \\
&+ \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = -\kappa } \PR{\phi(\x)_u = -\kappa} \rho.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Equality follows from the fact that term 1 and 3 are equal, as are terms 2 and 4. We will consider terms 1 and 3, as the other case is nearly identical.
Let $H$ be the event where $\phi(\x)_u = \kappa, M_{uv}^i = 1$ and all other random variables (except for $\xi_{uv}$) take values such that, if $\xi_{uv} =+1$ then $\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa}$. On the other hand, if $\xi_{uv} =-1$ then $\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa}$. Then, subtracting term 3 from term 1 (and factoring out the shared term) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, \kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = \kappa } \\ &- \PR{\p_v \phi(\x)_u \xi_{uv} M_{uv}^i = h\round{\{\y_v\}, -\kappa} | \phi(\x)_u = \kappa }
\end{split} \\
&=\PR{ \xi_{uv} = +1 | H } - \PR{ \xi_{uv} = -1 | H } =0\end{aligned}$$ since $\xi_{uv}$ is independent of $H$, and $\xi_{uv}= -1$ and $+1$ with equal probability.
[^1]: Equal contribution. $^\dagger$Also affiliated with the University of Washington. Code available at <https://github.com/RAIVNLab/supsup> and correspondence to [[email protected]]([email protected]).
[^2]: In practice the tasks do not all need to be $\ell$-way — output layers can be padded until all have the same size.
[^3]:
[^4]: <https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/autograd.html>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we numerically study the impact heavy field degrees of freedom have on vacuum metastability in a toy model, with the aim of better understanding how the decoupling theorem extends to semiclassical processes. We observe that decoupling applies to partial amplitudes associated with fixed final state field configurations emerging from the tunneling processes, characterized by a scale such as the inverse radius of a spherically symmetric bubble, and not directly on the total lifetime (as determined by the “bounce”). More specifically, tunneling amplitudes for bubbles with inverse radii smaller than the scale of the heavier fields are largely insensitive to their presence, while those for bubbles with inverse radii larger than that scale may be significantly modified.'
author:
- 'Hiren H. Patel'
- Branimir Radovčić
bibliography:
- 'tunneldec.bib'
title: On the Decoupling Theorem for Vacuum Metastability
---
ACFI-T17-05\
ZTF-EP-17-04
Introduction
============
Recently, Branchina [@Branchina:2013jra; @Branchina:2014usa; @Branchina:2014rva] has observed that in contrast to the perturbative contributions to a physical process derived from an effective theory conforming to the decoupling theorem [@Appelquist:1974tg], non-perturbative tunneling contributions may exhibit much greater sensitivity to the scale of new physics than intuition would suggest.
The observation was made in the context of electroweak vacuum metastability, where additional higher-dimensional operators added to the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential parameterizing new physics near the Planck scale appeared to increase the zero-temperature tunneling rate by over 700 orders of magnitude relative to the Standard Model rate [@Isidori:2001bm; @EliasMiro:2011aa; @Degrassi:2012ry]. This effect was subsequently confirmed in [@DiLuzio:2015iua; @Andreassen:2016cvx], and can be traced down to the modification of the bounce solution that is much smaller with field values reaching the Planck scale. Although we do not dispute the effect, since the field value in the center of the bounce solution reaches values on the order of $\Lambda_\text{UV}$, we believe that the analysis is somewhat inconsistent from the effective field theory (EFT) point of view. More specifically, the finite set of operators alone no longer appropriately parametrize new physics appearing at that scale. Additionally, we find it concerning from the standpoint of the decoupling theorem, where intuition suggests that the addition of new physics should not significantly affect rates at the low scale.
We revisit this phenomenon to improve our conceptual understanding of how decoupling operates for semiclassical processes in a toy $\phi^4$ theory. To avoid the inconsistency associated with a naive EFT parametrization, we couple the theory to a heavy scalar or to a heavy fermion as representative models of short distance physics. To consistently capture the effect of heavy physics on tunneling, we work with a more complete functional form of the action approximated by an expansion in the coupling constant. We find that the addition of a fermion with a sufficiently large coupling constant can significantly modify tunneling rates, as originally observed by Branchina.
Below, we argue that vacuum tunneling is not necessarily a low energy process, and therefore decoupling does not necessarily apply to the total rate. Rather, it applies to partial amplitudes associated with fixed final state field configurations emerging from the tunneling processes. As a result, one should not expect the total tunneling rate of the metastable vacuum to be insensitive to new physics.
Particle decay
==============
To motivate this discussion, we illustrate in a hypothetical scenario how new physics could have a drastic effect in the more familiar process of neutron decay: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1: & \qquad n \rightarrow p e^- \bar\nu\\
\Gamma_2: & \qquad n \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar\nu
\end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$ The neutron initial state represents the unstable electroweak vacuum in our analogy, while the individual modes of decay correspond to two possible emerging field configurations in a tunneling event. The first listed channel is the familiar neutron beta decay with a $Q$-value of 0.782 MeV. The second channel is the forbidden $B$-violating process with a much larger $Q$-value of 805 MeV. The total width of the neutron is given by the sum of partial widths $\Gamma = \Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2$. In the low energy theory, the total width is dominated by $\Gamma_1$.
Consider the addition of a heavy particle, representing new physics, of mass $M = 500\text{ MeV}$ that couples to both channels. How would the total lifetime of the neutron be altered by this new degree of freedom? Although the contribution to $\Gamma_1$ would be suppressed by $Q^2/M^2 \sim 10^{-6}$, it would be incorrect to conclude that the total width $\Gamma$ would be insensitive to new physics. The second channel has a much larger $Q$-value, and the contributing virtualities would sample the presence of new physics, effectively generating a very large $\Gamma_2$. As a result, the lifetime of the neutron in our hypothetical example would be significantly shortened by the presence of new physics.
Applying this to the problem of vacuum metastability, the presence of new physics at a scale $\Lambda$ may magnify the “high energy” partial width tunneling amplitudes which were small before the addition of new physics. Below, we show how this happens in a toy $\phi^4$ theory.
Low energy theory
=================
Throughout this study, our low energy theory will be the real scalar $\phi^4$ theory, with the potential $$\label{eq:lowEnergyPot}
V(\phi) = \frac{1}{2} m_\phi^2 \phi^2 - \eta_\phi \phi^3 + \frac{1}{8} \lambda_\phi \phi^4$$ suitably modified to exhibit an instability. We will consider this theory in two separate cases. In the first case, which we call the “asymmteric double well potential" the low energy constants $m_\phi^2$, $\eta_\phi$ and $\lambda_\phi$ are all taken positive. In the second case, which we call the “unbounded potential", we take $\lambda_\phi$ negative and, for simplicity, $\eta_\phi=0$. In both cases, the low energy metastable phase is at $\phi=0$.
Evaluation of Partial Tunneling Amplitudes {#sec:PartialAmplitude}
==========================================
Instead of the full width as calculated semiclassically by methods developed originally by Coleman and Callan [@Coleman:1977py; @Callan:1977pt], we are interested in the effect of new physics on amplitudes for exclusive final states, corresponding to specific profiles of the field that emerges upon tunneling. This is because we would like to study the sensitivity of new physics on these amplitudes separately. Technically, we expect that upon a consistent evaluation of such amplitudes, the sum over the corresponding partial widths should yield the full width that matches the method of Coleman and Callan. However we are not aware of a method in the literature to compute these amplitudes[^1]. Fortunately, we will not need the full machinery for the careful evaluation of partial widths. Instead we will be content to investigate just the representative contributions to an exclusive amplitude, which we summarize here.
We are interested in calculating the amplitude for the system to make a transition from the false vacuum $\phi_\text{FV} = 0$ at time $t_i\rightarrow-\infty$ to a specified final state $\phi_\text{f}$ at time $t_\text{f}$. The Feynman path integral representation of this amplitude is $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \phi_\text{f}(\textbf{x})\vert e^{-i H (t_\text{f}-t_\text{i})} \vert \phi_\text{FV}(\textbf{x}) \rangle\ = \int_{\phi_\text{FV}}^{\phi_\text{f}} \mathcal{D} \phi \, e^{i S[\phi(x)]}\,,\\
S[\phi(t,\textbf{x})] = \int_{t_\text{i}}^{t_\text{f}} dt \int d^3 \textbf{x} \, \mathcal{L}[\phi(t,\textbf{x})]\,,\\
\label{eq:lagrangian}\mathcal{L}[\phi(t,\textbf{x})] = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\frac{d \phi}{d t}\Big)^2 - \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi)^2 - V(\phi)\,.\end{gathered}$$ A proper evaluation of this amplitude in the stationary phase approximation would require one to solve a partial differential equation with insufficient symmetry to reduce it to an ordinary differential equation. To make analytic progress we shall compute a representative contribution to this amplitude by transforming the field theoretic problem to a one dimensional quantum mechanical problem[^2] by restricting the integral to a single family of paths parametrized by one dynamical coordinate $f(t)$. This is arranged by fixing the spacial field profile up to one free dynamical coordinate $f(t)$ at each point in time.
In what follows, we will use the family of Gaussian bubbles $$\label{eq:gaussianfamily}
\phi_\text{G}(t,\textbf{x})=f(t) e^{- r^2/R^2}\,,$$ dependent upon the dynamical coordinate $f(t)$, and a scale parameter $R$ which will be related to the specific final state for the tunneling process. The dynamical coordinate satisfies $f(t\rightarrow-\infty) = 0$ corresponding to the false vacuum as the initial state $\phi = \phi_\text{FV} \equiv 0$, and $f(t_\text{f}) = f_\text{f}$ corresponding to the emerging bubble as the final state $$\label{eq:finalbubble}
\phi_\text{f} = f_\text{f}e^{-r^2/R^2}.$$ The scale parameter $R$ and the field value at the center of the final state bubble $f_\text{f}$ are connected by energy conservation $$E[\phi_\text{f}(\textbf{x})] = \int d^3 \textbf{x} [\frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi_\text{f}(\textbf{x}))^2 + V(\phi_\text{f}(\textbf{x}))] = 0 \,,$$ and ultimately fixes $f_\text{f} \sim R^{-1}$. Although the precise form we take for the family of field configurations is not crucial to our analysis, we emphasize that the parameter $R^{-1}$ which sets the scale of the final state bubble is like the $Q$-value of the particle decay analogy of the previous section. That is, we will find that tunneling processes for large $R$ is like the particle decay process with small $Q$-value and is insensitive to new physics, while those that tunnel to small $R$ are like particle decay processes with large $Q$-value making them more sensitive to new physics. This is not surprising since Fourier modes of the field profile are peaked at $f_\text{f}/R$.
From the field theory Lagrangian in (\[eq:lagrangian\]), we obtain the reduced Lagrangian for the dynamical variable $f$ $$\begin{gathered}
L_\text{R}[f(t)] = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\frac{d f}{d t}\Big)^2 \frac{\pi^{3/2} R^3}{2 \sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{2} f^2 \frac{3 \pi^{3/2} R}{2 \sqrt{2}} \\
- \int d^3 \textbf{x} \, V(f e^{- r^2/R^2})\,.\end{gathered}$$ We achieve canonical normalization for the kinetic term by making the change of variables $t = \frac{\pi^{3/2} R^3}{2 \sqrt{2}} t_\text{R}$ yielding $$L_\text{R}[f(t_\text{R})] = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\frac{d f}{d t_\text{R}}\Big)^2 - U(f)\,,$$ where the reduced potential for $f$ is $$\label{eq:ReducedPotential}
U(f)= \frac{3 \pi^3 R^4}{16} f^2 + \frac{\pi^{3/2} R^3}{2 \sqrt{2}} \int d^3 \textbf{x} \, V(f e^{- r^2/R^2}) \,.$$ Using this action, we can compute the tunneling amplitude in the WKB approximation, $$A_{f_\text{f}} \sim e^{- \int_{f_\text{i}}^{f_\text{f}} \sqrt{2 U(f)} df} \,,$$ subject to $$U(f_\text{i})=U(f_\text{f})=0\,.$$ In this picture, the reduced potential $U$ can be understood as the one the system has to effectively tunnel through to emerge as the profile given in (\[eq:finalbubble\]), and therefore depends on $R$.
Introducing New physics
=======================
We would like to avoid characterizing the effect of new physics by a limited set of high dimensional operators for consistency reasons explained in the introduction. Instead, we will consider the effect of a heavy scalar $S$ or a heavy fermion $\psi$ to represent new physics. We couple the heavy scalar $S$ to $\phi$ by the addition of the potential $$V(\phi,S) =\frac{1}{2} m_S^2 S^2 + \frac{1}{8} \lambda_S S^4 + \frac{1}{2} \eta_P \phi S^2 + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_P \phi^2 S^2\,.$$ Alternatively, we couple the heavy fermion $\psi$ of mass $m_\psi$ by adding a Yukawa coupling of the form. $$\mathcal{L}(\phi,\psi) = -y \phi \bar{\psi}\psi\,.$$
We now decide on how to compute the effects of new physics on tunneling amplitudes. Our strategy follows that of Weinberg [@Weinberg:1992ds], wherein the heavy degrees of freedom are integrated out in matter analogous to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation $$\begin{gathered}
Z = \int \mathcal{D} \phi\, \mathcal{D} S\, e^{i S[\phi, S]} = \int \mathcal{D} \phi\, e^{i W[\phi]}\,, \text{ or}\\
Z = \int \mathcal{D} \phi\, \mathcal{D} \psi\mathcal{D} \bar\psi\, e^{i S[\phi, \bar\psi, \psi]} = \int \mathcal{D} \phi\, e^{i W[\phi]}\end{gathered}$$ yielding an action functional $W[\phi]$ which is equal to the sum of connected diagrams with external $\phi$ lines and internal $S$ or $\psi$ lines. The partial tunneling amplitude will subsequently be evaluated based on $W[\phi]$ as outlined in the previous section. However $W[\phi]$ is a complicated nonlocal functional of $\phi(x)$, and evaluating it for an arbitrary profile as in (\[eq:gaussianfamily\]) is impossible. However, as Weinberg argues, a tractable approximation can be made based on the coupling constant expansion if the quartic self coupling $\lambda_\phi$ and the coupling to new physics $\lambda_\text{portal} = \{\lambda_P \text{ or } y^2\}$ satisfy the relationship $$\lambda_\phi^2 \sim \lambda_\text{portal}\,,$$ similar to the one used to analyze the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism[@Coleman:1973jx]. In that case, the leading contribution in the coupling constant expansion is the one loop effective potential (with only new physics integrated out) evaluated at the Gaussian bubble $$W[\phi_G] = \int d^4 x \big[\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi - V^\text{1-loop}_\text{eff}(\phi_\text{G}(x)) + \ldots \big] \,$$ and will be the order to which all subsequent calculations are accurate. We emphasize that apart from the coupling constant expansion, we do not make any further approximations. Retaining just the first few terms in the inverse mass expansion is inconsistent since the field strengths in the bubbles may be large.
Finally, since the low energy constants determine the measured masses and couplings of scalar quanta in the metastable point, we will work in the effective potential scheme where the renormalized parameters satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EffPotScheme}
V''_\text{eff}(0) = m_\phi^2\,,\enspace V'''_\text{eff}(0) = -6\eta_\phi\,, \enspace V''''_\text{eff}(0) = 3\lambda_\phi\end{gathered}$$ to prevent them from being modified upon the addition of new physics.
Asymmetric double well potential
================================
We begin our analysis for the asymmetric double well potential given in (\[eq:lowEnergyPot\]), with positive low energy constants $m_\phi^2$, $\eta_\phi$ and $\lambda_\phi$. Throughout this and the next section we work in units normalized by the $\phi$ mass, so that $m_\phi=1$ and all other dimensional parameters are quoted in units of $m_\phi$. Furthermore in this section, we fix the model parameters to be $\eta_\phi=0.25$, $\lambda_\phi=0.01$, $m_S=15$, $\eta_P=0.25$, $\lambda_P=1$, $m_\psi=15$ and $y=0.8$.
The tree-level potential (corresponding to no new physics) and the one-loop effective potentials (with only $S$ or $\psi$ integrated out) are displayed in Fig. \[fig:pot\]. Since they are evaluated in the effective potential scheme (\[eq:EffPotScheme\]), the potential near the metastable point (upper panel) remains unaffected by the addition of new physics. However, at larger field values (lower panel) the effect of new physics is apparent.
![The double well potential for $\phi$ alone in blue, with scalar $S$ in red, and fermion $\psi$ in green. The upper panel shows the potentials for small field values, and are visually indistinguishable.[]{data-label="fig:pot"}](pot.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"} ![The double well potential for $\phi$ alone in blue, with scalar $S$ in red, and fermion $\psi$ in green. The upper panel shows the potentials for small field values, and are visually indistinguishable.[]{data-label="fig:pot"}](pot2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}
Following the method in Sec. \[sec:PartialAmplitude\], we calculate the partial amplitude of the false vacuum decay at $\phi=0$ into a final state bubble of the form in (\[eq:finalbubble\]). The requirement of energy conservation fixes the relationship between the bubble size $R$ and amplitude $f_\text{f}$. In the absence of new physics, this relationship is determined by the tree level action and is given by $$R^2(f_\text{f}) =\frac{216 \sqrt{2}}{-72\sqrt{2} m_\phi^2 + 64\sqrt{3} \eta_\phi f_\text{f} - 9 \lambda_\phi f_\text{f}^2} \,.$$ The relationship in the presence of new physics requires the effective potential and we determine it numerically. In Fig. \[fig:bubble\] we show the profile for a final state bubble with and without new physics for a fixed value of the field at the center of $f_\text{f} = 47$. Although the final states are not exactly the same, we see that there is a characteristic scale $f_\text{f} \sim R^{-1}$ associated with the final state bubbles. The addition of a boson $S$ stabilizes the effective potential. Therefore to maintain energy conservation, the bubble must have a larger radius. The addition of a fermion $\psi$ has the opposite effect, forcing a smaller bubble. Note that bubbles with $f_\text{f}$ much larger than the true minimum are not possible. Furthermore, since the scalar $S$ stabilizes the potential bringing the minimum to lower field values, some bubbles which were previously possible are no longer available as final states.
![The final state bubbles for $f_\text{f}=47$ without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red, fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:bubble"}](bubble.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
We proceed to evaluate the partial amplitude by reducing the field theory problem to a quantum mechanical problem by restricting the path integral to the family of Gaussian bubbles given in (\[eq:gaussianfamily\]). Without new physics, reduced quantum mechanical potential $U(f)$ for the dynamical variable $f(t)$ is $$U(f)=\frac{\pi^3 R^6}{16} \Big( \frac{3}{R^2} f^2 + m_\phi^2 f^2 - \frac{8\eta_\phi}{3\sqrt{6}} f^3 + \frac{\lambda_\phi}{8\sqrt{2}} f^4 \Big)\,.$$ With new physics, there is an additional contribution from the effective potential, which we evaluate numerically. We show the reduced potential $U$ the system must tunnel through in Fig. \[fig:U\] for two representative final state bubbles, $f_\text{f}=47$ and $f_\text{f}=147$. Observe that new physics significantly changes this potential for final state bubbles which are smaller than the scale set by new physics at $m_S=m_\psi=15$.
![Reduced potential $U(f)$ which a final state bubble has to tunnel through. Upper panel: $f_\text{f}=47$, lower panel: $f_\text{f}=147$. Without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red and with fermion $\psi$ in green. Note that the stabilizing effect of the scalar $S$ has shut down the decay channel to an $f_\text{f}=147$ bubble.[]{data-label="fig:U"}](U.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"} ![Reduced potential $U(f)$ which a final state bubble has to tunnel through. Upper panel: $f_\text{f}=47$, lower panel: $f_\text{f}=147$. Without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red and with fermion $\psi$ in green. Note that the stabilizing effect of the scalar $S$ has shut down the decay channel to an $f_\text{f}=147$ bubble.[]{data-label="fig:U"}](U2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:SE\] we plot the WKB exponent $\int_{0}^{f_\text{f}} \sqrt{2 U(f)} df$ which controls the partial tunneling rate as a function of $f_\text{f}$ characterizing the scale of the final state bubble. The minimum of WKB exponent at a low scale of $f_\text{f}^\text{crit} \approx 9$ corresponds to a close approximation of the Coleman-Callan bounce which dominates the total rate. Notice that for bubbles of smaller radius (large $f_\text{f}$), the WKB exponent is greatly modified by the presence of new physics. But, the amplitude for the decay into the dominant final state bubble $f_\text{f}^\text{crit}$ remains relatively unaffected. Therefore, in this model, the total metastable decay rate (summed over all final states) will remain unaffected. Although not displayed here, we have numerically confirmed that new physics decouples from the low energy WKB exponent like $m_S^{-2}$ or $m_\psi^{-2}$.
![WKB exponent for different final state bubbles, characterized by scale $f_\text{f}$ without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red, and fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:SE"}](SR.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"} ![WKB exponent for different final state bubbles, characterized by scale $f_\text{f}$ without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red, and fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:SE"}](SR2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"} ![WKB exponent for different final state bubbles, characterized by scale $f_\text{f}$ without new physics in blue, and with new physics scalar $S$ in red, and fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:SE"}](SR3.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}
Unbounded Potential
===================
We now turn to the case of the unbounded potential where we take (\[eq:lowEnergyPot\]) with $\lambda_\phi$ negative and small, and for simplicity $\eta_\phi=0$. This is similar to the Standard Model potential for high field values. For our numerical study, we fix the model parameters to be $m_\phi=1$, $\eta_\phi=0$, $\lambda_\phi=-0.1$, $m_S=30$, $\eta_P=0$, $\lambda_P=1$, $m_\psi=30$ and $y=0.8$. We display the form of the tree-level potential (no new physics) and one-loop effective potentials (with $S$ or $\psi$ integrated out) in Fig. \[fig:pot2\]. As before, since the renormalized parameters are defined in the effective potential scheme, the shape of the potential remains unchanged near the location of the metastable vacuum.
![The unbounded potential for $\phi$ alone in blue, with the scalar $S$ in red, and with the fermion $\psi$ in green. The upper panel shows the potentials for small field values, and are visually indistinguishable.[]{data-label="fig:pot2"}](pot3.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"} ![The unbounded potential for $\phi$ alone in blue, with the scalar $S$ in red, and with the fermion $\psi$ in green. The upper panel shows the potentials for small field values, and are visually indistinguishable.[]{data-label="fig:pot2"}](pot4.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\columnwidth"}
Before we continue, we remind the reader the situation for this theory in the absence of new physics [@Affleck:1980mp]. The total rate is conventionally determined by solving for the field configuration (bounce) that minimizes the Euclidean action. However, by simple scaling arguments, one can show no such solution is to be found since a lower action can be obtained for smaller bounces. However, a limiting value of the action exists and can be extracted by temporarily imposing a constraint $$\int d^4 x \phi^n(x) = \rho^{4-n} \,,$$ to the bounce. This allows one to solve for the minimum for the action, corresponding to the constrained bounce. The result can be inserted in the action, and upon taking the limit $\rho\rightarrow0$, the limiting value of $$\label{eq:constrainedAction}
S = \frac{8 \pi^2}{3 \vert\lambda_\phi\vert} \,$$ is obtained.
What does this imply when new physics is added to the model? Since the dominant contribution to the tunneling amplitude comes from a narrow configuration with an infinite field strength at the center, we expect amplitudes to small Gaussian bubbles (large $f_\text{f}$) to be significantly modified. We confirm this expectation below by evaluating the partial amplitudes to Gaussian bubbles as outlined in Sec \[sec:PartialAmplitude\].
In Fig. \[fig:bubble2\] we show an example final state Gaussian bubble with and without new physics for fixed field value of $f_\text{f}=100$ inside the bubble. In Fig. \[fig:U2\] we display the reduced potential $U(f)$ which the system must tunnel through to reach the final state bubble. As in the case of the asymmetric double well, new physics makes a substantial modification to the reduced potential since the size of the chosen final state bubble is much smaller than the scale set by new physics ($m_S=m_\psi=30$).
![The final state bubble with $f_\text{f}=100$ with only scalar $\phi$ in blue and with new physics scalar $S$ in red and fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:bubble2"}](bubble2.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![Reduced potential $U(f)$ which a final state bubble with $f_\text{f}=100$ has to tunnel through in blue, with scalar $S$ in red and with fermion $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:U2"}](U3.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![WKB exponent for different final state bubbles for only $\phi$ in blue, with $S$ in red and with $\psi$ in green.[]{data-label="fig:SE2"}](SR4.pdf){width="1.\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:SE2\] we plot the WKB exponent $\int_{0}^{f_\text{f}} \sqrt{2 U(f)} df$ which controls the partial tunneling rate as a function of $f_\text{f}$ characterizing the scale of the final state bubble. The blue curve corresponds to the low energy theory, and is monotonically decreasing without exhibiting a local minimum. This is a reflection of the absence of a stationary solution, and where the limiting value as $f_\text{f}\rightarrow\infty$ closely approximates the value given in (\[eq:constrainedAction\]) as determined by constrained bounce.
The addition of new physics significantly modifies the amplitudes corresponding to final states of small bubbles which we now elaborate. The red curve in Fig. \[fig:SE2\] is the result of adding the heavy scalar $S$. The WKB exponent has a local minimum corresponding to a critical bubble $f_\text{f}^\text{crit}$ due to the presence of a new stabilizing scale $m_S$, and gives the dominant contribution to the total width of the metastable vacuum. Furthermore, the WKB exponent for bubbles whose inverse radius is larger than the scale of new physics have been significantly modified, exhibiting the expected sensitivity to new physics.
One might wonder how the critical bubble and the associated WKB exponent behaves as $m_S$ is increased. We can find the behavior by first retaining the leading term of the large $m_S$ expansion of the one loop effective potential to construct the action functional $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:asymW}
W[\phi] = \int d^4 x \big[\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu \phi \partial^\mu \phi - V(\phi) \\
- \frac{1}{64\pi^2} \frac{\lambda_P^3}{3} \frac{\phi^6}{m_S^2} + \mathcal{O}\big(\frac{1}{m_S^4}\big)\big].\end{gathered}$$ Then the asymptotic behavior of the WKB exponent follows, which allows us to find the asymptotic behavior of the critical Gaussian bubble, its size, and the critical WKB exponents $$\label{eq:critBubb}
f^\text{crit}_\text{f} \sim a\frac{1}{\lambda_P^{3/4}} \sqrt{m_\phi m_S}\,,$$ $$R^\text{crit} \sim b \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_\phi}} (f^\text{crit}_\text{f})^{-1}\,,$$ $$\label{eq:critWKB}
\int_{0}^{f_\text{f}} \sqrt{2 U(f^\text{crit}_\text{f})} df \sim \frac{1}{\lambda_\phi} + c \frac{\lambda_P^{3/2}}{\lambda_\phi^2} \frac{m_\phi}{m_S}\,,$$ as $m_S\rightarrow\infty$, with $a$, $b$, and $c$ positive. Since $f_\text{f}^\text{crit}$ in (\[eq:critBubb\]) only grows like $\sqrt{m_S}$, it is never able to reach the scale of new physics $m_S$, a posteriori justifying the approximation in (\[eq:asymW\]). Furthermore, as $m_S$ is raised, the scalar $S$ representing new physics decouples from the WKB exponent in (\[eq:critWKB\]), and the critical bubble goes over to the massless case that is obtained by the method of constrained bounce. We note that the scaling derived above may be different for other theories, such as if $\eta_\phi \neq 0$. But because the scalar $S$ effectively stabilizes the potential, it must decouple from the full width as $m_S\rightarrow\infty$.
For fermionic new physics, the effect is the opposite. For a heavy fermion $\psi$, the WKB exponent is given by the green curve in Fig. \[fig:SE2\]. The destabilizing effect of adding a fermion prevents a local minimum from developing. As a result, the total width continues to be dominated by infinitesimally small bubbles with field strengths that lie far beyond the scale of new physics, but without a limiting value. While the heavy fermion decouples from the partial amplitude as $m_\psi\rightarrow\infty$ for any given final state Gaussian bubble of fixed $f_\text{f}$, it does not decouple from the *total* decay width. We point out that the reason for the drastic change in the total width is due to the unboundedness of the low energy potential $V(\phi)$ with $\lambda < 0$.
We have not resummed large logarithms through the renormalization group equations (RGEs). While its inclusion can quantitatively change the impact of new physics on the total width, our point concerning the decoupling of new physics from partial amplitudes is unchanged. This is because for final state bubbles with an inverse radius smaller than the scale of new physics, the running of coupling constants are induced by RGEs with beta functions appropriate only to low energy physics. The effect of new physics on the WKB exponent will continue to be non-logarithmic as in (\[eq:critWKB\]), and will decouple from the amplitude. However, for inverse radii larger than the scale of new physics, the beta function is altered, causing a sizeable change in the WKB exponent.
We close this section with a few remarks concerning the implications of our findings on the vacuum instability in the standard model. In the standard model the inverse radius of the dominant bounce is $10^{17}$ GeV. In this regime, the scalar potential is well approximated by the quartic term, making it similar the case of the “unbounded potential” studied above. Our findings suggest that adding a fermionic degree of freedom above that scale with a sufficiently large coupling would lead to a large change in the total width of the vacuum, confirming the original observation by Branchina. However, our result does not suffer from the breakdown of the effective theory.
Discussion and Summary
======================
In this paper, we numerically studied the impact new physics at the high scale may have on vacuum metastability in the $\phi^4$ theory without resorting to an effective theory description which is liable to break down. We showed that some form of the decoupling theorem applies to partial amplitudes for decay processes to specific final state bubbles of a characteristic size. Amplitudes for decay to final state bubbles of inverse radii larger than the scale of new physics can be significantly modified by the addition of new physics, while those for bubbles of smaller inverse radii are insensitive to new physics. Because the total lifetime is given by the sum over partial rates for all possible final states, the inclusion of new physics may have the paradoxic effect of significantly altering the lifetime due to its effect on bubbles of large inverse radii. Our findings suggest that the addition of scalar degrees of freedom has a stabilizing effect, and therefore decouples from the total lifetime. But the addition of fermionic degrees of freedom with large Yukawa couplings can destabilize the system to the extent that its effect does not decouple.
BR is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. BR acknowledges project 8799 by the Croatian Science Foundation.
[^1]: A preliminary formalism has been outlined in [@Dine:2012tj] in the context of studying the effect of Lorentz transformation of tunneling rates.
[^2]: For a similar idea used to analyze electroweak sphaleron transitions, [@Tye:2015tva].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that in resistive nanowires out of equilibrium containing either single- or two-channel Kondo impurities the distribution function $f(E,U)$ obeys scaling behavior in terms of the quasiparticle energy $E$ and the bias voltage $U$. The numerically calculated $f(E,U)$ curves explain quantitatively recent experiments on Cu and Au nanowires. The systematics of the impurity concentration $c_{imp}$ extracted from the comparison between theory and results on various Cu and Au samples strongly suggests that in these systems the scaling arises from magnetic Kondo impurities.'
address:
- '$^a$Institut für Theorie der Kondensierten Materie, University of Karlsruhe, POB 6980, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany'
- '$^b$Department of Physics and $^c$Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Technical University of Budapest'
- '$^d$Solid State and Optical Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, POB 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary'
author:
- 'J. Kroha$^a$ and A. Zawadowski$^{b,c,d}$'
title: ' Theory of the non-equilibrium quasiparticle distribution induced by Kondo defects'
---
[2]{} Electronic interactions in solids are usually investigated by means of linear response or by spectroscopic measurements which essentially probe the system in thermodynamic equilibrium. In an important series of experiments [@pothier.97; @pierre.00] the Saclay group demonstrated that unique information about the energy dependence of the interactions in a mesoscopic wire can be extracted from the shape of the distribution function $f_x(E,U)$ of quasiparticles (qp) with energy $E$ at a position $x$ in the wire, when a controlled non-equilibrium situation is established by applying a finite transport voltage $U$. In resistive Cu and Au nanowires out of equilibrium the theoretically expected double-step form of $f_x(E,U)$ [@nagaev.92] was found to be rounded such that it obeys the scaling property $f_x(E,U)=f_x(E/eU)$, when $U$ [*exceeds*]{} a certain energy scale [@pothier.97; @pierre.00]. By a phenomenological analysis within 2nd order perturbation theory, the origin of the scaling behavior was traced back to an effective electron-electron interaction $v(\omega )$ which scales with the energy transfer $\omega $ as $v(\omega ) \propto 1/\omega $ [@pothier.97]. Such an $\omega$ dependence implies, in particular, that $v(\omega )$ has no essential momentum dependence and, hence, should be of local origin. Moreover, within the perturbative treatment it implies a logarithmic divergence of the energy relaxation rate at the Fermi energy $E_F$. The latter has generated substantial interest because of the possible relation to the problem of dephasing saturation [@mohanty.97] in mesoscopic systems.\
Anomalous low–energy behavior of local origin can be induced by the Fermi surface singularities characteristic for Kondo type systems [@hewson.93; @coxzawa.98]. Inelastic scattering by Kondo impurities was discussed in [@zawadowski.69]. Based on these considerations, the single–channel Kondo (1CK) [@glazman.01] and the two–channel Kondo (2CK) effect [@kroha.00], possibly produced by degenerate dynamical defects [@coxzawa.98], have been proposed as the origin of the anomalous energy relaxation. In this Letter we show that a very small concentration $c_{imp}$ of either 1CK or 2CK impurities leads to the observed scaling behavior of $f_x(E,U)$, when $eU$ exceeds an intrinsic energy scale $eU^*$ which is essentially equal to the Kondo temperature $T_K$. The numerical results are in excellent quantitative agreement with the experimental curves [@pothier.97; @pierre.00], with $c_{imp}$ the only adjustable parameter of the theory. A detailed analysis suggests that the scaling behavior in Cu and Au wires is due to magnetic Kondo impurities.
Let us first set up the general formalism for calculating $f_x(E,U)$ in a resistive nanowire of length $L$, subject to the boundary conditions that the left ($x=0$) and the right ($x=L$) leads are in equilibrium at their respective chemical potentials, i.e. $f_{x=0}(E,U)=f^o(E)$, $f_{x=L}(E,U)=f^o(E+eU)$, where $f^o(E)=1/({\rm e}^{E/T}+1)$ is the Fermi distribution ($k_B=1$). The lesser ($<$) and the greater ($>$) conduction electron Keldysh Green’s functions read $G^<_{x} (\vec p,E) = -2\pi i f_x(\vec p)\, {\rm Im}
G^r_{x} (\vec p,E)$ and $G^>_{x} (\vec p,E) = 2\pi i [1-f_x(\vec p)]\, {\rm Im}
G^r_{x} (\vec p,E)$, respectively, where $E$ and $\vec p$ denote energy and momentum of the quasiparticles in a small volume centered around $x$, in which the external fields may be considered constant. A superscript $^r$ indicates here and in the following a retarded propagator. In a disordered electron system with diffusion constant $D$ the stationary quantum Boltzmann equation for the distribution as function of the qp energy $E$ takes the diffusive form [@nagaev.92], $$-D \nabla _x^2 f_x(E,U) = {\cal C} \{ f_x(E,U) \} \ ,
\label{eq:boltzmann}$$ The collision integral $\cal C$ is expressed in terms of the selfenergies $\Sigma ^{\gtrless}$ for scattering into ($<$) and out of ($>$) states with given energy $E$ ($N_o$ = density of states per spin) as $${\cal C} = \frac{1}{2\pi N_o} \sum _p
[ \Sigma _x ^<(E) G_{x}^>(\vec p,E) - \Sigma _x^>(E) G_{x}^<(\vec p, E) ] \ .
\label{eq:collision}$$ In the absence of any interactions (${\cal C} \equiv 0$ in Eq. (\[eq:boltzmann\])) the distribution function has the double–step shape, $$f_x(E,U)=\frac{x}{L} f^o(E+eU) +\Bigl(1- \frac{x}{L} \Bigr) f^o(E)\ .
\label{eq:distribution0}$$ For a small concentration of Kondo defects $c_{imp}$, in addition to the static impurities, the conduction electron selfenergy is given in terms of the single-particle $t$–matrix
of the defect, $t_{x}^{\gtrless}(E)$, as $\Sigma_x^{\gtrless} = c_{imp} t_{x}^{\gtrless}$. $t_{x}^{\gtrless}(E)$ mediates energy transfer between electrons in that it couples the dynamical defect both to the in or outgoing electron and to intermediate particle–hole pairs. The elastic scattering parts of $t_{x}^{\gtrless}(E)$ cancel each other exactly in $\cal C$. We emphasize that, apart from the assumption of small $c_{imp}$, the present formulation, Eqs. (\[eq:boltzmann\]), (\[eq:collision\]), contains no approximations, once the $t$–matrix is known.
As pointed out in Ref. [@pothier.97], the precise energy dependence of the electron-electron vertex is crucial for whether or not $f_x(E,U)$ obeys a non-equilibrium scaling property, but has been notoriously difficult to calculate for the Kondo problem. While 4th order (unrenormalized) perturbation theory yields the correct power law for scaling [@glazman.01], partial summations of logarithmic terms give corrections violating scaling [@glazman.01; @goeppert.01]. However, such summations are valid only for $T,E \gg T_K$ [@hewson.93], Chapt. 3, while the non-equilibrium situation ($eU > T_K$, $T\ll T_K$) may involve all energies $T\leq E \lesssim eU$.
Therefore, we use the slave boson formalism, where certain exact properties of the auxiliary particle propagators are known [@mengemuha.88; @costi.94; @coxruck.93]. To describe 1CK as well as 2CK impurities we use the SU(N)$\times$SU(M) Anderson impurity model in the Kondo limit, denoting the spin degeneracy by $N$ and the number of identical, conserved conduction electron channels by $M$. Following the notation of Ref. [@coxruck.93], the hamiltonian reads, $$\begin{aligned}
H= H_o +
\varepsilon _d \sum _{\sigma}
f^{\dagger }_{\sigma } f^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma}
+ V \sum _{p,m,\sigma}
(f^{\dagger }_{\sigma} b_{\bar{m}}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{pm\sigma} + h.c.) \ ,
\label{eq:hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ subject to the operator constraint $\hat Q = \sum _{\sigma} f^{\dagger }_{\sigma } f^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma}
+ \sum _{m} b^{\dagger }_{\bar m} b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\bar m}
\equiv 1$. $H_o=\sum _{\vec p,m,\sigma}\varepsilon _p
c^{\dagger}_{\vec pm\sigma} c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\vec pm\sigma}$ describes the conduction band. The auxiliary fermion and boson operators, $f^{\dagger }_{\sigma }$, $b^{\dagger }_{\bar m}$, create the local defect in its quantum state $\sigma$ or in the unoccupied state, respectively. In the 1CK case ($N=2$, $M=1$) of a magnetic Anderson impurity $\sigma $ denotes spin, and $m=1$ has no relevance. For a 2CK defect ($N=2$, $M=2$), $\sigma$ is identified with a pseudospin, e.g. the parity of the local defect wave function, and $m=1,2$ is the conduction electron spin, acting as the channel degree of freedom. The equilibrium Kondo temperature of the model is $T^{(0)}_K \simeq E_F (N N_o J)^{(M/N)} {\rm e}^{-1/(N N_o J)}$, with $J = |V|^2/|\varepsilon_d|$ the effective spin exchange coupling. The bare auxiliary particle propagators read $G^{r\ (0)}_f( \omega ) =1/(\omega +i0)$ and $G^{r\ (0)}_b( \omega ) =1/(\omega +\varepsilon _d +i0)$. Here we have gauged the zero of the slave particle energy such that the pole of $G^r_f$ is at $\omega =0$.
The numerical evaluations of physical quantities will be done within the non–crossing approximation (NCA) which is shown diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:diagrams\] a). The corresponding equations for the auxiliary fermion and boson selfenergies $\Sigma _f^{\gtrless}$, $\Sigma _b^{\gtrless}$ in non-equilibrium read [@hettler.94], $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma _f^{\gtrless}\equiv
\frac{G^{\gtrless}_f(\omega)}{|G^{r}_{f}(\omega)|^{2}} &=&
- \frac{M \Gamma}{N_o} \int \frac{d\varepsilon}{2\pi i}\,
G^{\gtrless}_{x}\, (- \varepsilon )
G^{\gtrless}_b(\omega + \varepsilon)
\label{eq:NCA1} \\
\Sigma _b^{\gtrless}\equiv
\frac{G^{\gtrless}_b(\omega)}{|G^{r}_{b}(\omega)|^{2}} &=&
+ \frac{N \Gamma} {N_o} \int \frac{d\varepsilon}{2\pi i}\,
G^{\lessgtr}_{x}\, ( \varepsilon )
G^{\gtrless}_f(\omega + \varepsilon) \ ,
\label{eq:NCA2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma = \pi N_o|V|^2$ is the effective hybridization, and $G^{\gtrless}_{x}\, ( \varepsilon ) =
\sum _p G^{\gtrless}_{x}\, (\vec p,\varepsilon )$. This set of selfconsistent, non–linear equations is closed by the Kramers-Kroenig relations, $G_{f,b}^{r}(\omega ) = - \int d\varepsilon/(2\pi i)\, G_{f,b}^{<}(\omega )/
(\omega-\varepsilon+i0)$, which follow from causality and the fact that the auxiliary particle Green’s functions have only forward in time propagating parts. Within NCA the single–electron $t$–matrix due to the Kondo impurity is $$\begin{aligned}
t_{x}^{\gtrless}(E ) =
- \frac{\Gamma}{\pi N_o} \int \frac{d\varepsilon}{2\pi i}\,
G^{\gtrless}_{f}\, (E + \varepsilon )
G^{\lessgtr}_b(\varepsilon) \ .
\label{eq:tmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ By writing the renormalized auxiliary propagators as the bare ones with selfenergy insertions and using $|V|^2G_b^{r (0)}(\omega \approx 0)=J$, it is seen that the present formulation includes the Kondo induced electron-electron vertex of $O(J^3)$ and $O(J^4)$, with the points 3 and 4 connected (Fig. \[fig:diagrams\] c)). The exchange diagrams (points 3 and 2 connected) are not included. However, this does not change the scaling properties (see below). By self-consistency, NCA goes beyond this two-particle scattering approximation considered in Ref. [@glazman.01].
The NCA in non-equilibrium includes both an inelastic spin relaxation rate and scaling behavior in terms of the applied bias. It is instructive to investigate these properties for a single Kondo impurity before we present the numerical solutions. The Kondo scale $T_K$ is influenced by the step heights in $f_x(E,U)$, Eq. (\[eq:distribution0\]), and the size of the corresponding logarithmic terms in the Kondo vertex, which is reduced compared to equilibrium. This leads to a suppression of $T_K$, e.g. in the middle of the wire ($x/L = 1/2$), $$T_K = \sqrt{(eU/2)^2 + T_{K}^{(0)\ 2}}-eU/2 \stackrel{eU\gg T_{K}^{(0)}}
{\simeq}
\frac{T_{K}^{(0)\ 2}}{eU} \ .
\label{eq:TKeU}$$ At an arbitrary position $x/L$, for $eU \gg T_K^{(0)}$ we have $T_K = T_K^{(0)\ 1/\eta }/(eU)^{(1/\eta) -1}$, where $\eta = {\rm max} [x/L, 1-x/L]$. At the same time, there is an inelastic spin relaxation rate $1/\tau _s$, since in the non-equilibrium electron sea (Eq. (\[eq:distribution0\])) there is finite phase space available for scattering even at $T=0$. Technically, this relaxation rate appears as the imaginary part of the pseudofermion selfenergy, $\Sigma _f^r(\omega=0)$, which carries the local spin degree of freedom. To leading order in $J$ it is obtained by inserting the bare propagators $G_{f,b}^{\gtrless ^{(0)}}$ in the diagram Fig. \[fig:diagrams\] b), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_s} =
2\pi M N \frac{x}{L} \Bigl( 1 - \frac{x}{L}\Bigr) (N_o J)^2 eU \ .
\label{eq:taueU0}\end{aligned}$$ This is analogous to the well–known Korringa spin relaxation rate [@hewson.93], with $T$ replaced by $eU$. Solving Eqs. (\[eq:NCA1\]), (\[eq:NCA2\]) selfconsistently in the complete range of validity of NCA, $T_K \lesssim eU \ll E_F$, we find that beyond perturbation theory $1/\tau_s$ depends on $eU$ and $T_K$ only, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_s} =
\frac{x}{L} \Bigl( 1 - \frac{x}{L}\Bigr) H_{M,N}\Bigl(
\frac{eU}{T_K}\Bigr) eU \ ,
\label{eq:taueU}\end{aligned}$$ where the universal function $H_{M,N}(y) \to \pi M/[2N{\rm ln}^2 (y)]$ for $y\gg 1$ [@kroha.01], in accordance with Ref. [@glazman.01]. Inserting $1/\tau _s$ into the pseudoparticle propagators, it cuts off all logarithmic contributions of perturbation theory. Thus, the low–$T$ scale of the non-equilibrium Kondo system is $T_o = {\rm max} [T_K(eU), 1/2\tau _s (eU)]$. The crossover from the Kondo (Eq. (\[eq:TKeU\])) or $T$ limited life time to the inelastic scale (Eq. (\[eq:taueU\])) occurs as function of $eU$ at a bias $eU^*$. It follows from the universality of $1/\tau _s$ that $eU^*$ is only a function of $T_K^{(0)}$, i.e., for dimensional reasons, $eU^* = A_{M,N} T_K^{(0)}$. Numerically we find $A_{1,2}= 1.48\pm 0.08$ and $A_{2,2}= 1.39\pm 0.05$. For $eU >eU^*$ $T_K$ has lost its relevance, and for $eU \gtrsim 10 eU^*$ one has with good accuracy $1/\tau _s \propto eU$, when $eU$ is varied by a factor of $\sim 4$, wherein the $eU$ dependence of the log terms is weak.
To investigate scaling of $f_x(E,U)$ we must consider the energy dependence of the exact pseudoparticle Green’s functions, $G_{f,b}^{\gtrless}(\omega)$, from which all other physical quantities are derived. It is known that in equilibrium at $T=0$ it is determined by an infinite logarithmic series which results in power law behavior, $G_f^{\gtrless}(\omega)
\propto i \Theta ( \pm \omega )|\omega |^{-\alpha _f}$, $G_b^{\gtrless}(\omega) \propto i\Theta ( \pm \omega )|\omega |
^{-\alpha _b}$ for $\omega \lesssim T_K^{(0)}$. The exponents $\alpha_f$, $\alpha_b$ are due to an orthogonality catastropy in the auxiliary propagators and have characteristic values $\alpha _f = \alpha _b = 1/2$ for the 1CK and $\alpha _f = M/(M+N)$, $\alpha _b = N/(M+N)$ for the 2CK fixed point of the model Eq. (\[eq:hamiltonian\]) (Kondo limit) [@costi.94; @coxruck.93]. We can exploit this knowledge to determine the frequency dependence of $G_{f,b}^{\gtrless}(\omega)$ away from equilibrium without explicitly summing up the logarithmic series. At finite bias $eU \gg T_K$ this series consists of similar terms as in equilibrium, however with three modifications: ($i$) Because of the inelastic relaxation rate $1/\tau _s =2\gamma $ all frequency arguments are shifted, $\omega = \omega + i \gamma$. ($ii$) $G_f(\omega )$ has a singularity at $\omega = 0 + i\gamma$, but there are two singularities in $G_b^{\gtrless}(\omega )$ at $\omega = 0 + i b \gamma $ and at $\omega = eU + i b \gamma $, where $b$ is a numerical factor. ($iii$) Each frequency integral involving $G_b^{\gtrless} (\varepsilon + \omega )$, like, e.g., in Eq. (\[eq:NCA1\]), carries a prefactor $M$, and each of the two singularities in $G_b^{\gtrless}$ gives a singular contribution of equal weight at the external frequency $\omega=0$. This can be seen as an effective doubling of $M$. Points ($i$)–($iii$) can be verified by iterating Eqs. (\[eq:NCA1\]), (\[eq:NCA2\]), starting from the bare propagators $G_{f,b}^{\gtrless\ (0)}$. As a result, we obtain at $x/L = 1/2$ damped power law behavior for the auxiliary propagators in non–equilibrium, $$\begin{aligned}
G_f^{>}(\omega ) &\propto& i {\rm Im}
\frac {1-f_{1/2}(E,U)}{(\omega + i \gamma )^{\alpha _f'}}
\label{eq:Gf_noneq} \\
G_b^{>}(\omega ) &\propto& i {\rm Im}\Bigl[
\frac {1-f_{1/2}(E,U)}{(\omega + i b \gamma )^{\alpha _b'}} +
\frac {1-f_{1/2}(E,U)}{(\omega -eU + i b \gamma)^{\alpha _b'}}
\Bigr] \ .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The exact exponents [@coxruck.93] in the non-equilibrium situation (with $M \to 2M$ in the logarithmic series) are $\alpha _f' = 2M/(2M+N)$, $\alpha_b' = N/(2M+N)$. The $\omega$ dependence Eq. (\[eq:Gf\_noneq\]) should extend from $\omega =0$ up to the smallest energy scale of the model, i.e. for $eU > eU^*$ up to $\omega = eU$, since in this case the Kondo scale has disappeared. The behavior described above is confirmed by our numerical NCA solutions. For $x/L \to 0$ or $x/L \to 1$ the solution crosses over to the equilibrium one, as expected. The modification of the exponents $\alpha _f'$, $\alpha _b'$ compared to their equilibrium values is reminiscent of a doubling of the channel number due to the two Fermi edges. It remains to be seen whether a strong coupling region ($T_K^{(0)}<eU<eU^*$) can be realized where such behavior can be observed in the presence of $1/\tau _s \simeq O(eU)$. The latter was neglected in Ref. [@coleman.00]. Here we are interested in scaling at large bias ($eU \gg eU^*$). Inserting the power law forms Eq. (\[eq:Gf\_noneq\]) into Eqs. (\[eq:NCA1\])–(\[eq:tmatrix\]), dividing Eq. (\[eq:NCA1\]) by $(eU)^{\alpha _f'}$ and Eq. (\[eq:NCA2\]) by $(eU)^{\alpha _b'}$, and using the exact result $\alpha _f' + \alpha _b' =1$, it is seen that the NCA equations contain only dimensionless energies, $\varepsilon /eU$ etc. Power counting arguments [@coxruck.93] show that this is reproduced in arbitrary selfconsistent order in $\Gamma$ beyond NCA. In the presence of a finite concentration $c_{imp}$, $f_x(E,U)$ is determined by the selfconsistent coupled set of equations (\[eq:boltzmann\]), (\[eq:collision\]) and (\[eq:NCA1\])–(\[eq:tmatrix\]). It follows that the solution obeys scaling, $f_x(E,U)=f_x(E/eU)$ for $eU > eU^*$. Our numerical solutions show scaling within a factor of 4 to 9 in $eU$, depending on parameters, wherein log corrections to $1/\tau_s \propto eU$, Eq. (\[eq:taueU\]), are small. Note that the power law behavior Eq. (\[eq:Gf\_noneq\]) and the fact that the low-energy cutoff $1/\tau _s$ itself is proportional to $eU$ (up to small log corrections) cooperate to produce scaling. For $eU \lesssim 10 eU^*$ we find deviations from scaling, because then the latter condition is no longer fulfilled. This provides for $T \ll T_K^{(0)}$ a rough estimate, and for $T > T_K^{(0)}$ an upper bound on $T_K^{(0)}$; in the experiments [@pothier.97; @pierre.00] $T \lesssim T_K^{(0)} \ll eU$.
For the numerical evaluations we assume magnetic
[2]{} (1CK) impurities (2CK impurities give very similar results) and take $T_K^{(0)} \approx 0.1$ K in Cu and $T_K^{(0)} \approx 0.5$ K in Au wires (corresponding to $N_oJ = 0.041$ and $N_oJ = 0.048$, respectively), consistent with the above estimate and with independent estimates of $T_K^{(0)}$ for these samples [@pierre.00]. After $T_K^{(0)}$ is fixed, $c_{imp}$ is the only adjustable parameter of the theory. The results for $f_x(E,U)$, as measured by a tunnel junction attached to the wire, are shown in Fig. \[fig:distribution\]. Excellent quantitative agreement with experiments [@pothier.97; @pierre.00] is obtained for all samples. In Au wires the fitted values of $c_{imp}$ are consistent with (although somewhat higher than) independent estimates of the magnetic impurity concentration [@pierre.00], considering the roughness of both estimates. This suggets that the scaling behavior of $f_x(E,U)$ in the Au samples is due to magnetic (1CK) impurities. Furthermore, in all Cu samples the fitted $c_{imp}$ is $\sim 10^{2}$ times smaller than in Au. This systematics is in accordance with $c_{imp}$ estimated from the plateau in the $T$ dependence of the dephasing time $\tau _{\varphi}$ in similarly prepared samples [@pierre.00; @gougam.00].\
In conclusion we have shown that single– or two–channel Kondo impurities in quantum nanowires induce scaling behavior of the non-equilibrium distribution function $f_x(E,U)$ at a bias $eU$ exceeding an energy scale $eU^*\approx T_K^{(0)}$. The results give a detailed explanation of related experiments. In the small bias or strong coupling regime ($T_K>eU$), 1CK and 2CK impurities must show qualitatively different behavior, as the former become potential scatterers with frozen spin dynamics, contrary to the latter with (ideally) non–zero entropy at $T=0$. The quantitative comparison between the present theory and experiments suggests that in Au and at least partially in Cu nanowires both the scaling of $f_x(E,U)$ [@pothier.97; @pierre.00] and the plateau in the low–$T$ dephasing time $\tau _{\varphi}$ [@gougam.00] are due to magnetic Kondo impurities. A unique test for magnetic impurities will be measuring $f_x(E,U)$ in a magnetic field.
We are grateful to H. Pothier, B. Al’tshuler, N. O. Birge, J. v. Delft, M. Devoret, D. Esteve, A. Rosch, and P. Wölfle for helpful discussions. This work was supported by DFG through SFB195, by Hungarian grants OTKA T024005, T029813, T034243 and by the A. v. Humboldt foundation.
[99]{}
H. Pothier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3490 (1997); F. Pierre et al., cond-mat/0012038.
K. E. Nagaev, Phys. Lett. A [**169**]{} 103 (1992).
P. Mohanty, E.M.Q. Jariwala and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3366 (1997).
A. C. Hewson, [*The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
D. L. Cox and A. Zawadowski, Adv. Phys. [**47**]{}, 599 (1998).
J. Sólyom, A. Zawadowski, Z. Phys. B [**226**]{}, 116 (1996).
A. Kaminski, L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2400 (2001).
J. Kroha, Adv. Solid State Phys. [**40**]{}, 216 (2000).
G. Göppert and H. Grabert, cond-mat/0009446.
B. Menge and E. Müller-Hartmann, Z. Phys. B [**73**]{}, 225 (1988).
T. A. Costi, P. Schmitteckert, J. Kroha, and P. Wölfle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1275 (1994); J. Kroha, P. Wölfle, and T. A. Costi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 261 (1997).
D. L. Cox and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phy. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1613 (1993).
M. H. Hettler, J. Kroha and S. Hershfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1967 (1994); Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 5649 (1998).
J. Kroha and A. Rosch, in preparation.
P. Coleman, C. Hooley and O. Parcollet, cond-mat/0012005.
A.B. Gougam et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. [**118**]{}, 447 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We introduce the notion of weak-2-local derivation (respectively, $^*$-derivation) on a C$^*$-algebra $A$ as a (non-necessarily linear) map $\Delta : A\to A$ satisfying that for every $a,b\in A$ and $\phi\in A^*$ there exists a derivation (respectively, a $^*$-derivation) $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b)$. We prove that every weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ is a linear derivation. We also show that the same conclusion remains true for weak-2-local $^*$-derivations on finite dimensional C$^*$-algebras.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.'
- 'Departamento de An[á]{}lisis Matem[á]{}tico, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain.'
author:
- Mohsen Niazi
- 'Antonio M. Peralta'
title: 'Weak 2-local derivations on $\mathbb{M}_n$'
---
[^1]
Introduction and preliminaries
==============================
“Derivations appeared for the first time at a fairly early stage in the young field of C$^*$-algebras, and their study continues to be one of the central branches in the field” (S. Sakai, 1991 [@Sak91 Preface]). We recall that *derivation* from an associative algebra $A$ into an $A$-bimodule $X$ is a linear mapping $D: A\to X$ satisfying $$D(a b) = D(a) b +a D(b), \ \ (a,b\in A).$$ If $A$ is a C$^*$-algebra and $D$ is a derivation on $A$ satisfying $D(a^*) = D(a)^*$ ($a\in A$), we say that $D$ is *$^*$-derivation* on $A$.
Some of the earliest, remarkable contributions on derivations are due to Sakai. For example, a celebrated result due to him shows that every derivation on a C$^*$-algebra is continuous [@Sak60]. A subsequent contribution proves that every derivation on a von Neumann algebra $M$ is inner, that is, for every derivation $D$ on $M$ there exists ${a}\in M$ satisfying $D(x)= [{a},x] = {a} x- x {a},$ for every $x\in M$ (cf. [@Sak Theorem 4.1.6]).
We recall that, accordingly to the definition introduced by R.V. Kadison in [@Kad90], a linear mapping $T$ from a Banach algebra $A$ into a $A$-bimodule $X$ is said to be a *local derivation* if for every $a$ in $A$, there exists a derivation $D_{a}: A\to X$, depending on $a$, such that $T(a)= D_{a} (a)$. The contribution due to Kadison establishes that every continuous local derivation from a von Neumann algebra $M$ into a dual $M$-bimodule $X$ is a derivation. B.E. Johnson proves in [@John01] that every local derivation from a C$^*$-algebra $A$ into a Banach $A$-bimodule is a derivation.
A very recent contribution, due to A. Ben Ali Essaleh, M.I. Ramírez and the second author of this note, establishes a new characterization of derivations on a C$^*$-algebra $A$, in weaker terms than those in the definition of local derivations given by Kadison (cf. [@BenAliPeraltaRamirez]). A linear mapping $T: A\to A$ is a *weak-local derivation* if for every $a\in A$ and every $\phi\in A^{*},$ there exists a derivation $D_{a,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$ and $\phi$, satisfying $\phi T (a) = \phi D_{a,\phi} (a)$ (cf. [@BenAliPeraltaRamirez Definition 1.1 and page 3]). Theorem 3.4 in [@BenAliPeraltaRamirez] shows that every weak-local derivation on a C$^*$-algebra is a derivation.
When in the definition of local derivation we relax the condition concerning linearity but we assume *locality* at two points, we find the notion of 2-local derivation introduced by P. Šemrl in [@Semrl97]. Let $A$ be a Banach algebra. A (non-necessarily linear) mapping $\Delta: A\to A$ is said to be a *2-local derivation* if for every $a,b\in A$ there exists a derivation $D_{a,b}: A\to A$, depending on $a$ and $b$, satisfying $\Delta (a) = D_{a,b} (a)$ and $\Delta (b) = D_{a,b} (b)$. Šemrl proves in [@Semrl97 Theorem 2] that for an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space $H$, every 2-local derivation on the algebra $B(H)$ of all linear bounded operators on $H$ is linear and a derivation. S.O. Kim and J.S. Kim gave in [@KimKim04] a short proof of the fact that every 2-local derivation on $M_n$, the algebra of $n \times n$ matrices over the complex numbers, is a derivation. In a recent contribution, S. Ayupov and K. Kudaybergenov prove that every 2-local derivation on an arbitrary von Neumann algebra is a derivation (see [@AyuKuday2014]).
In this note we introduce the following new class of mappings on C$^*$-algebras:
\[def weak-2-local\] Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra, a [(]{}non-necessarily linear[)]{} mapping $\Delta: A\to A$ is said to be a weak-2-local derivation [(]{}respectively, a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation[)]{} on $A$ if for every $a,b\in A$ and $\phi\in A^*$ there exists a derivation [(]{}respectively, a $^*$-derivation[)]{} $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b)$.
The main result of this paper (Theorem \[t weak-2-local derivations on Mn are derivations\]) establishes that every (non-necessarily linear) weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ is a linear $^*$-derivation. We subsequently prove that every weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on a finite dimensional C$^*$-algebra is a linear $^*$-derivation. These results deepen on our knowledge about derivations on C$^*$-algebras and the excellent behavior that these operators have in the set of all maps on a finite dimensional C$^*$-algebra.
As in previous studies on 2-local derivations and $^*$-homomorphisms (cf. [@AyuKuday2014; @KOPR2014; @BurFerGarPe2014RACSAM; @BurFerGarPe2014JMAA] and [@AyuKudPe2014]), the techniques in this paper rely on the Bunce-Wright-Mackey-Gleason theorem [@BuWri92], however, certain subtle circumstances and pathologies, which are intrinsical to the lattice $\mathcal{P} (M_n)$ of all projections in $M_n,$ increase the difficulties with respect to previous contributions. More concretely, the just mentioned Bunce-Wright-Mackey-Gleason theorem asserts that every bounded, finitely additive (vector) measure on the set of projections of a von Neumann algebra $M$ with no direct summand of Type $I_2$ extends (uniquely) to a bounded linear operator defined on $M$. Subsequent improvements due to S.V. Dorofeev and A.N. Sherstnev establish that every completely additive measure on the set of projections of a von Neumann algebra with no type $I_n$ ($n<\infty$) direct summands is bounded ([@Doro; @Shers2008]). In the case of $M_n$, there exist completely additive measures on $\mathcal{P} (M_n)$ which are unbounded (see Remark \[r non boundedness of completely additive measure on PMn\]). We establish a new result on non-commutative measure theory by proving that every weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ ($n\in \mathbb{N}$) is bounded on the set $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$ (see Proposition \[p boundedness of Delta\]). This result shows that under a weak algebraic hypothesis we obtain an analytic implication, which provides the necessary conditions to apply the Bunce-Wright-Mackey-Gleason theorem.
In this paper we also prove that every weak-2-local derivation on $M_2$ is a linear derivation. Numerous topics remain to be studied after this first answers. Weak-2-local derivations on $M_n$ and weak-2-local ($^*$-)derivations on von Neumann algebras and C$^*$-algebras should be examined.
General properties of weak-2-local derivations
==============================================
Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra. Henceforth, the symbol $A_{sa}$ will denote the self-adjoint part of $A$. It is clear, by the Hahn-Banach theorem, that every weak-2-local derivation $\Delta$ on $A$ is 1-homogeneous, that is, $\Delta (\lambda a) = \lambda \Delta (a),$ for every $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}$, $a\in A.$
We observe that the set Der$(A)$, of all derivations on $A$, is a closed subspace of the Banach space $B(A)$. This fact can be applied to show that a mapping $\Delta : A \to A$ is a weak-2-local derivation if and only if for any set $V\subseteq A^*$, whose linear span is $A^*$, the following property holds: for every $a,b\in A$ and $\phi\in V$ there exists a derivation $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b)$. This result guarantees that in Definition \[def weak-2-local\] the set $A^*$ can be replaced, for example, with the set of positive functionals on $A$.
Let $\Delta : A\to A$ be a mapping on a C$^*$-algebra. We define a new mapping $\Delta^{\sharp} : A\to A$ given by $\Delta^{\sharp} (a) := \Delta (a^*)^*$ ($a\in A$). Clearly, $\Delta^{\sharp \sharp} = \Delta$. It is easy to see that $\Delta$ is linear (respectively a derivation) if and only if $\Delta^{\sharp}$ is linear (respectively, a derivation). We also know that $\Delta (A_{sa}) \subseteq A_{sa}$ whenever $\Delta^{\sharp} = \Delta$.
Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra. A mapping $\Delta: A\to A$ is said to be a *weak-2-local $^*$-derivation* on $A$ if for every $a,b\in A$ and $\phi\in A^*$ there exists a $^*$-derivation $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $$\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a) \hbox{ and }\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b).$$
Clearly, every weak-2-local $^*$-derivation $\Delta$ on $A$ is a weak-2-local derivation and $\Delta^{\sharp} = \Delta$. However, we do not know if every weak-2-local derivation with $\Delta^{\sharp} = \Delta$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation. Anyway, for a weak-2-local derivation $\Delta: A\to A$ with $\Delta^{\sharp} = \Delta,$ the mapping $\Delta|_{A_{sa}} : A_{sa} \to A_{sa}$ is a weak-2-local Jordan derivation, that is, for every $a,b\in A_{sa}$ and $\phi\in (A_{sa})^*,$ there exists a Jordan $^*$-derivation $D_{a,b,\phi}: A_{sa}\to A_{sa}$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $$\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a) \hbox{ and }\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b).$$ To see this, let $a,b\in A_{sa}$ and $\phi\in (A_{sa})^*$, by assumptions, there exists a derivation $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$, depending on $a$, $b$ and $\phi$, such that $\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b)$. Since $\phi \Delta (a) = \phi \Delta (a)^* = \phi D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp} (b)$, we get $$\phi \Delta (a) = \phi \frac12 \left(D_{a,b,\phi}-D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp}\right) (a), \hbox{ and } \phi \Delta (b) = \phi \frac12 \left(D_{a,b,\phi}-D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp}\right) (b),$$ where $\frac12 \left(D_{a,b,\phi}-D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp}\right)$ is a $^*$-derivation on $A.$
The following properties can be also deduced from the fact stated in the second paragraph of this section.
\[l sharp\] Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra. The following statements hold:
1. The linear combination of weak-2-local derivations on $A$ is a weak-2-local derivation on $A$;
2. A mapping $\Delta : A\to A$ is a weak-2-local derivation if and only if $\Delta^{\sharp}$ is a weak-2-local derivation;
3. A mapping $\Delta : A\to A$ is a weak-2-local derivation if and only if $\Delta_s=\frac12 (\Delta+ \Delta^{\sharp})$ and $\Delta_a= \frac{1}{2 i} (\Delta- \Delta^{\sharp})$ are weak-2-local derivations. Clearly, $\Delta$ is linear if and only if both $\Delta_s$ and $\Delta_a$ are.
$(a)$ Suppose $\Delta_1,\ldots, \Delta_n : A\to A$ are weak-2-local derivations and $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n$ are complex numbers. Given $a,b\in A$ and $\phi \in A^*$, we can find derivations $D^{j}_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$ satisfying $\phi \Delta_j (a) = \phi D^{j}_{a,b,\phi} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta_j (b) = \phi D^{j}_{a,b,\phi} (b)$, for every $j=1,\ldots, n$. Then $$\phi \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \Delta_j \right) (a) = \phi \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j D^{j}_{a,b,\phi} \right) (a)$$ and $$\phi \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \Delta_j \right) (b) = \phi \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j D^{j}_{a,b,\phi} \right) (b),$$ which proves the statement.
$(b)$ Suppose $\Delta : A\to A$ is a weak-2-local derivation. Given $a,b\in A$, $\phi \in A^*$, we consider the mapping $\phi^*\in A^*$ defined by $\phi^* (a) := \overline{\phi(a^*)}$ ($a\in A$). By the assumptions on $\Delta$ there exists a derivation $D_{a,b,\phi}: A\to A$ such that $\phi^* \Delta (a^*) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (a^*)$ and $\phi \Delta (b^*) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi} (b^*)$. We deduce from the above that $\phi \Delta^{\sharp} (a) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp} (a)$ and $\phi \Delta^{\sharp} (b) = \phi D_{a,b,\phi}^{\sharp} (b)$, which proves the statement concerning $\Delta^{\sharp}$. Since $\Delta^{\sharp\sharp} = \Delta$ the reciprocal implication is clear.
The statement in $(c)$ follows from $(a)$ and $(b)$.
\[r weak-2-local \*derivation\]
A $^*$-derivation on a C$^*$-algebra $A$ is a derivation $D$ on $A$ satisfying $D^{\sharp} = D,$ equivalently, $D (a^*)= D(a)^*,$ for every $a\in A.$ It is easy to see that, for each $^*$-derivation $D$ on $A$, the mapping $D|_{A_{sa}} : A_{sa}\to A_{sa}$ is a Jordan derivation, that is, $D(a \circ b) = a\circ D(b) + b\circ D(a),$ for every $a,b\in A_{sa},$ where $a\circ b = \frac12 (ab + ba)$ [(]{}we should recall that $A_{sa}$ is not, in general, an associative subalgebra of $A$, but it is always a Jordan subalgebra of $A$[)]{}.
Conversely, if $\delta: A_{sa}\to A_{sa}$ is a Jordan derivation on $A_{sa},$ then the linear mapping $\widehat{\delta}: A\to A,$ $\widehat{\delta} (a+i b) = \delta (a) + i \delta (b)$ is a Jordan $^*$-derivation on $A$, and hence a $^*$-derivation by [@John96 Theorem 6.3] and [@PeRu Corollary 17]. When $M$ is a von Neumann algebra, we can deduce, via Sakai’s theorem [(]{}cf. [@Sak Theorem 4.1.6][)]{} that for every Jordan derivation $\delta: M_{sa}\to M_{sa},$ there exists $z\in i M_{sa}$ satisfying $\delta (a) = [z,a],$ for every $a\in M.$
\[l linearity on Msa\] Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on a C$^*$-algebra $A$. Then $\Delta(a+ i b) = \Delta(a) + i \Delta (b) = \Delta (a-i b)^*$, for every $a,b\in A_{sa}$.
Let us fix $a,b\in A_{sa}.$ By assumptions, for each $\phi\in A^*$ with $\phi^* = \phi$ (that is, $\phi (a^*) = \overline{\phi(a)}$ ($a\in A$). There exists a $^*$-derivation $D_{a,a+ib,\phi}$ on $A,$ depending on $a+ib$, $a$ and $\phi$, such that $$\phi \Delta (a+ i b) = \phi D_{a,a+i b,\phi} (a+ i b) = \phi D_{a,a+i b,\phi} (a) + i \phi D_{a,a+i b,\phi} (b),$$ and $$\phi \Delta (a) = \phi D_{a,a+ i b,\phi} (a).$$ Then $\Re\hbox{e} \phi \Delta (a+ i b) = \phi D_{a,a+i b,\phi} (a),$ for every $\phi\in A^*$ with $\phi^* = \phi$, which proves that $\Delta (a+ i b) + \Delta (a+ i b)^* = 2 \Delta (a)$. We can similarly check that $\Delta (a+ i b) - \Delta (a+ i b)^* = 2 i \Delta (b)$.
It is well known that every derivation $D$ on a unital C$^*$-algebra $A$ satisfies that $D(1) =0.$ Since the elements in $A^*$ separate the points in $A$, we also get:
\[l Delta(1)=0\] Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a unital C$^*$-algebra. Then $\Delta(1)=0$.$\hfill\Box$
\[l Delta(1-x)+Delta(x)\] Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a unital C$^*$-algebra $A$. Then $\Delta(1-x)+\Delta(x)=0$, for every $x\in A$.
Let $x\in A$. Given $\phi\in A^*,$ there exists a derivation $D_{x,1-x,\phi}: A\to A$, such that $\phi \Delta (x) = \phi D_{x,1-x,\phi} (x)$ and $\phi \Delta (1-x) = \phi D_{x,1-x,\phi} (1-x)$. Therefore, $$\phi (\Delta(1-x)+\Delta(x)) = \phi D_{x,1-x,\phi} (1-x +x) = 0.$$ We conclude by the Hahn-Banach theorem that $\Delta(1-x)+\Delta(x)=0$.
\[p Delta(p) p\] Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a unital C$^*$-algebra, and let $p$ be a projection in $A$. Then $$p\Delta(p)p=0\quad\textrm{and}\quad (1-p)\Delta(p)(1-p)=0.$$
Let $\phi$ be a functional in $A^*$ satisfying $\phi = (1-p)\phi (1-p).$ Pick a derivation $D_{p,\phi}: A\to A$ satisfying $\phi \Delta (p) = \phi D_{p,\phi} (p).$ Then $$\phi \Delta (p) = \phi \left( D_{p,\phi} (p) p + p D_{p,\phi} (p)\right) = 0,$$ where in the last equality we applied $\phi = (1-p)\phi (1-p).$ Lemma 3.5 in [@BenAliPeraltaRamirez] implies that $(1-p)\Delta(p)(1-p)=0.$ Replacing $p$ with $1-p$ and applying Lemma \[l Delta(1-x)+Delta(x)\], we get $0 = p \Delta (1-p) p = - p \Delta (p) p .$
The first statement in the following proposition is probably part of the folklore in the theory of derivations, however we do not know an explicit reference for it.
\[p restriction\] Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra, $D:A\rightarrow A$ a derivation [(]{}respectively, a $^*$-derivation[)]{}, and let $p$ be a projection in $A$. Then the operator $pDp|_{pAp}:pAp\rightarrow pAp$, $x\mapsto pD(x) p$ is a derivation [(]{}respectively, a $^*$-derivation[)]{} on $pAp$. Consequently, if $\Delta: A\to A$ is a weak-2-local derivation [(]{}respectively, a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation[)]{} on $A$, the mapping $p\Delta p|_{pAp} : pAp \to pAp,$ $x\mapsto p \Delta (x) p$ is a weak-2-local derivation [(]{}respectively, a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation[)]{} on $pAp$.
Let $T$ denote the linear mapping $pDp|_{pAp}:pAp\rightarrow pAp$, $x\mapsto p D(x) p$. We shall show that $T$ is a derivation on $pAp$. Let $x,y\in pAp$. Since $px=xp = x$ and $py=yp= y$, we have $$T(xy) = p D(xy)p = p D(x) y p+ p x D(y) p$$ $$= pD(x)p y+ x pD(y)p = T(x) y+ x T(y).$$
weak-2-local derivations on matrix algebras
===========================================
In this section we shall study weak-2-local derivations on matrix algebras.
\[l trace zero\] Let $\Delta: M_n \to M_n$ be a weak-2-local derivation on $M_n$. Let $tr$ denote the unital trace on $M_n$. Then, $tr \Delta (x) =0$, for every $x\in M_n$.
Let $x$ be an arbitrary element in $M_n$. By Sakai’s theorem (cf. [@Sak Theorem 4.1.6]), every derivation on $M_n$ is inner. We deduce from our hypothesis that there exists an element $z_{x,tr}$ in $M_n$, depending on $tr$ and $x$, such that $tr \Delta(x)= tr [z_{x,\phi},x]= tr (z_{x,\phi} x - x z_{x,\phi}) =0$.
The algebra $M_2$ of all 2 by 2 matrices must be treated with independent arguments.
We set some notation. Given two elements $\xi,\eta$ in a Hilbert space $H$, the symbol $\xi\otimes \eta$ will denote the rank-one operator in $B(H)$ defined by $\xi\otimes \eta (\kappa) = (\kappa |\eta) \xi.$ We can also regard $\phi=\xi\otimes \eta$ as an element in the trace class operators (that is, in the predual of $B(H)$) defined by $\xi\otimes \eta (a) = (a(\xi)| \eta)$ ($a\in B(H)$).
\[t w-2-local derivations on M2\] Every weak-2-local derivation on $M_2$ is linear and a derivation.
Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local derivation on $M_2$. To simplify notation we set $e_{ij}=\xi_i\otimes \xi_j$ for $1\leq i,j\leq 2$, where $\{\xi_1,\xi_2\}$ is a fixed orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^2$. We also write $p_1=e_{11}$ and $p_2=e_{22}$. The proof is divided into several steps.
Lemma \[l trace zero\] shows that $$\label{eq trace zero on the image}
tr \Delta (x) =0,$$ for every $x\in M_2$.
*Step I.* Let us write $\displaystyle \Delta(p_1)=\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \lambda_{ij} e_{ij}$, where $\lambda_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}$. For $\phi= \xi_1\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$ there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)
$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$ and $p_1$, such that $\phi\Delta(p_1)=\phi[z,p_1]$. Since $$\label{[z,p1]}
[z,p_1]= -z_{12} e_{12}+ z_{21} e_{21},$$ we deduce that $\lambda_{11} =\phi \Delta (p_1) = \phi [z,p_1] = 0$. Since $\lambda_{11}+\lambda_{22}= tr \Delta (p_1) = 0$, we also have $\lambda_{22} =0$. Therefore, $$\Delta(p_1)=\lambda_{12} e_{12}+\lambda_{21} e_{21}.$$
Defining $z_0:=\lambda_{21} e_{21}-\lambda_{12} e_{12}$, it follows that $\widetilde{\Delta} = \Delta-[z_0,.]$ is a weak-2-local derivation (cf. Lemma \[l sharp\]$(a)$) which vanishes at $p_1$. Applying Lemma \[l Delta(1-x)+Delta(x)\], we deduce that $$\label{eq Delta at p1 and p2} \widetilde{\Delta} (p_1)= \widetilde{\Delta} (p_2)=0.$$
*Step II.* Let us write $\displaystyle \widetilde{\Delta} (e_{12})=\sum_{i,j=1}^2\lambda_{ij} e_{ij}$, with $\lambda_{22}= -\lambda_{11}$ (cf. ). For $\phi= \xi_1\otimes \xi_2 \in M_2^*$, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$ and $e_{12}$, such that $\phi\widetilde{\Delta}(e_{12})=\phi[z,e_{12}]$. Since $$\label{[z,p12]}
[z,e_{12}]=-z_{21}p_1+(z_{11}-z_{22})e_{12}+z_{21}p_2,$$ we see that $\lambda_{21}=0$.
For $\phi= \xi_1\otimes \xi_1 - \xi_1\otimes \xi_2 \in M_2^*$, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $p_1$ and $e_{12}$, such that $\phi\widetilde{\Delta}(p_1)=\phi[z,p_1]$ and $\phi\widetilde{\Delta}(e_{12})=\phi[z,e_{12}]$. The identities and (and ) imply that $\lambda_{11}=-z_{21}$ and $0= -z_{21}$, and hence $\lambda_{11}=0$. Therefore, there exists a complex number $\delta$ satisfying $$\label{Delta(p12)}
\widetilde{\Delta}(e_{12})=\delta e_{12} = \left[z_1, e_{12} \right],$$ where $z_1 = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\delta &0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
$. We observe that $[z_1,\lambda p_1 + \mu p_2] =0$, for every $\lambda,\mu\in \mathbb{C}$. Thus, the mapping $\widehat{\Delta} = \widetilde{\Delta}- [z_1,.] =\Delta -[z_0,.]-[z_1,.]$ is a weak-2-local derivation satisfying $$\label{eq widehatDelta} \widehat{\Delta} (e_{12}) = \widehat{\Delta} ( p_1 ) = \widehat{\Delta} ( p_2 )=0.$$
*Step III.* Let us write $\displaystyle \widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=\sum_{i,j=1}^2\lambda_{ij} e_{ij}$, with $\lambda_{11}= -\lambda_{22}$ (see Lemma \[l trace zero\]). For $\phi=\xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$ and $e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=\phi[z,e_{21}]$. Since $$\label{[z,p21]}
[z,e_{21}]=z_{12}p_1-(z_{11}-z_{22})e_{21}-z_{12}p_2,$$ we see that $\lambda_{12}=0$.
Take now $\phi = \xi_1\otimes \xi_1 - \xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$. By hypothesis, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $p_1$ and $e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(p_1)=\phi[z,p_1]$ and $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=\phi[z,e_{21}]$. We deduce from , and that $z_{12} = \lambda_{11}$ and $z_{12} = 0,$ which gives $\lambda_{11}=0$.
For $\phi = \xi_2\otimes \xi_1- \xi_1\otimes \xi_2\in M_2^*$, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $e_{12}$ and $e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{12})=\phi[z,e_{12}]$ and $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=\phi[z,e_{21}]$. We apply , and to obtain $-\lambda_{21} = z_{11}- z_{22}$ and $0= \phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{12}) = z_{11}- z_{22},$ which proves that $\lambda_{21}=0$. Therefore $$\label{Delta(p21)}
\widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=0.$$
We shall finally prove that $\widehat{\Delta}\equiv 0$, and consequently $\Delta= [z_0,.]+[z_1,.]$ is a linear mapping and a derivation.
*Step IV.* Let us fix $\alpha,\beta \in \mathbb{C}$. We write $\displaystyle \widehat{\Delta}(\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \lambda_{ij} e_{ij}$, where $\lambda_{11}= -\lambda_{22}$. For $\phi= \xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $e_{12}$ and $\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{12})=\phi[z,e_{12}]$ and $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21})=\phi[z,\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}]$. Since $$\label{[z,ap12+p21]}
[z,\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}] = (\beta z_{12}-\alpha z_{21}) p_1 +\alpha (z_{11}-z_{22}) e_{12}$$ $$+ \beta (z_{22}-z_{11}) e_{21}+(\alpha z_{21}- \beta z_{12}) p_2,$$ we have $\lambda_{12}= \alpha (z_{11}-z_{22})$. Now, the identities and imply $z_{11}-z_{22}=0$, and hence $\lambda_{12}=0$.
For $\phi=\xi_1\otimes \xi_2\in M_2^*$ there exists an element $z= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
z_{11} & z_{12} \\
z_{21} & z_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $e_{21}$ and $\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(e_{21})=\phi[z,e_{21}]$ and $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=\phi[z,\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}]$. We deduce from , and , that $\lambda_{21} = \beta(z_{22}-z_{11})$ and $z_{22}-z_{11}=0$, witnessing that $\lambda_{21}=0$.
For $\phi = \xi_1\otimes \xi_1+\beta \xi_2\otimes \xi_1+\alpha \xi_1\otimes \xi_2\in M_2^*$ there exists an element $z$ in $M_2$, depending on $\phi$, $p_1$ and $\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}$, such that $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(p_1)=\phi[z,p_1]$ and $\phi\widehat{\Delta}(\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=\phi[z,\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}]$. It follows from and that $\lambda_{11}+\beta \lambda_{12}+\alpha \lambda_{21}=\beta z_{12}-\alpha z_{21}$, and $-\beta z_{12}+\alpha z_{21}=0$, which implies that $\lambda_{11}=0$, and hence $$\label{Delta(ap12+p21)}
\widehat{\Delta}(\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=0,$$ for every $\alpha, \beta\in \mathbb{C}$.
*Step V.* In this step we fix two complex numbers $t,\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$, and we write $\displaystyle \widehat{\Delta}(t p_1+ \alpha e_{12} )=\sum_{i,j=1}^2\lambda_{ij} e_{ij}$, with $\lambda_{11}= -\lambda_{22}$. Applying that $\widehat{\Delta}$ is a weak-2-local derivation with $\phi= \xi_1\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, $e_{12}$ and $t p_1+ \alpha e_{12}$, we deduce from the identity $$\label{[z,tp1+ap12]}
[z,tp_1+\alpha e_{12}] =-\alpha z_{21} p_1+(\alpha z_{11}- t z_{12}-\alpha z_{22}) e_{12}$$ $$+t z_{21} e_{21}+\alpha z_{21} p_2,$$ combined with and , that $-\alpha z_{21} = \lambda_{11}$, and $z_{21} =0,$ and hence $\lambda_{11}=0$.
Repeating the above arguments with $\phi = \xi_1\otimes \xi_2\in M_2^*$, $p_{1}$ and $t p_1+\alpha e_{12}$, we deduce from , and , that $\lambda_{21}= t z_{21}$ and $z_{21} =0$, which proves that $\lambda_{21}=0$.
A similar reasoning with $\phi= t \xi_1\otimes \xi_1 -\alpha \xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, $\alpha e_{12} +\alpha e_{21}$ and $t p_1+ \alpha e_{12}$, gives, via , , and , that $t \lambda_{11}-\alpha \lambda_{12}= t \alpha z_{12} - t \alpha z_{21} -\alpha^2 z_{11} +\alpha^2 z_{22}$ and $t \alpha z_{12} - t \alpha z_{21} -\alpha^2 z_{11} +\alpha^2 z_{22} =0$. Therefore $\alpha \lambda_{12}=0$ and $$\label{Delta(tp1+a p12)}
\widehat{\Delta}(t p_1+ \alpha e_{12} )=0,$$ for every $t,\alpha\in \mathbb{C}$.
A similar argument shows that $$\label{Delta(tp1+b p21)}
\widehat{\Delta}(t p_1+ \beta e_{21} )=0,$$ for every $t,\beta\in \mathbb{C}$.
*Step VI.* In this step we fix $t,\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}$, and we write $$\displaystyle \widehat{\Delta}(tp_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=\sum_{i,j=1}^2\lambda_{ij} e_{ij},$$ with $\lambda_{11}= -\lambda_{22}$. Applying that $\widehat{\Delta}$ is a weak-2-local derivation with $\phi= \alpha \xi_1\otimes \xi_2 +\beta \xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, $p_1$ and $t p_1+\alpha e_{12}+ \beta e_{21}$, we deduce from the identity $$\label{[z,tp1+a p12+b p21]}
[z,tp_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}] = (\beta z_{12}-\alpha z_{21})p_1+(\alpha z_{11}-\alpha z_{22}-t z_{12})e_{12}$$ $$+ (\beta z_{22}-\beta z_{11}+t z_{21})e_{21}+(\alpha z_{21}-\beta z_{12})p_2,$$ combined with and , that $\beta \lambda_{12} + \alpha \lambda_{21}= t (\alpha z_{21}- \beta z_{12})$ and $\alpha z_{21}- \beta z_{12}=0$, which gives $\beta \lambda_{12} + \alpha \lambda_{21}=0$.
Repeating the above arguments with $\phi = t \xi_1\otimes \xi_1 +\alpha \xi_1\otimes \xi_2\in M_2^*$, $e_{21}$ and $t p_1+ \alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}$, we deduce from , and , that $t \lambda_{11}+\alpha \lambda_{21}= \beta (t z_{12}+ \alpha z_{22}-\alpha z_{11})$, and $t z_{12}+ \alpha z_{22}-\alpha z_{11}=0$ and hence $t \lambda_{11}+\alpha \lambda_{21}=0$.
A similar reasoning with $\phi= t \xi_1\otimes \xi_1 + \beta \xi_2\otimes \xi_1\in M_2^*$, $e_{12}$ and $t p_1+ \alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}$, gives, via , and , that $t \lambda_{11}+ \beta \lambda_{12}=\alpha(-t z_{21} +\beta z_{11} -\beta z_{22})$ and $-t z_{21} +\beta z_{11} -\beta z_{22}=0$. Therefore $t \lambda_{11}+ \beta \lambda_{12}=0$. The equations $\beta \lambda_{12} + \alpha \lambda_{21}=0$, $t \lambda_{11}+\alpha \lambda_{21}=0$, and $t \lambda_{11}+ \beta \lambda_{12}=0$ imply that $t \lambda_{11}= \beta \lambda_{12}=\alpha \lambda_{21}=0$, which, combined with , and , prove that $$\label{Delta(tp1+a p12+b p21)}
\widehat{\Delta}(t p_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=0,$$ for every $t,\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{C}$.
Finally, since $$[z,t p_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}+ s p_2]=[z,(t-s) p_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}],$$ for every $z\in M_2$, it follows from the fact that $\widehat{\Delta}$ is a weak-2-local derivation, , and the Hahn-Banach theorem that $$\widehat{\Delta}(t p_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21}+ s p_2)= \widehat{\Delta}((t-s) p_1+\alpha e_{12}+\beta e_{21})=0,$$ for every $t,s,\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}$, which concludes the proof.
The rest of this section is devoted to the study of weak-2-local derivations on $M_n$. For later purposes, we begin with a strengthened version of Lemma \[p Delta(p) p\].
\[l almost orthogonality\] Let $\Delta: M\to M$ be a weak-2-local projection on a von Neumann algebra $M$. Suppose $p,q$ are orthogonal projections in $M$, and $a$ is an element in $M$ satisfying $p a = ap = q a = aq =0$. Then the identities: $$p\Delta (a+ \lambda p +\mu q) q = p\Delta (\lambda p +\mu q) q, \hbox{ and, } p\Delta (a+ \lambda p ) p = \lambda p\Delta ( p ) p=0,$$ hold for every $\lambda,\mu\in \mathbb{C}.$ Furthermore, if $b$ is another element in $M$, we also have $$q \Delta (b+ \lambda p) q= q \Delta (b) q, \hbox{ and } q \Delta (q b q+ \lambda q) q= q \Delta (q b q) q.$$
Clearly, $p+q$ is a projection in $M$. Let $\phi$ any functional in $M_*$ satisfying $\phi = (p+q) \phi (p+q).$ By hypothesis, there exists an element $z_{\phi,\lambda p +\mu q,a+\lambda p+\mu q}\in M$, depending on $\phi,$ $\lambda p+\mu q,$ and $a+\lambda p+\mu q$, such that $$\phi \Delta (a+\lambda p +\mu q) = \phi [z_{\phi,\lambda p+\mu q,a+\lambda p+\mu q} ,a+\lambda p +\mu q],$$ and $$\phi \Delta ( \lambda p +\mu q) = \phi [z_{\phi,\lambda p+\mu q,a+\lambda p+\mu q},\lambda p+\mu q].$$ Since $$\phi [z_{\phi,\lambda p+\mu q,a+\lambda p+\mu q} ,a+\lambda p +\mu q] = \phi [z_{\phi,\lambda p+\mu q,a+\lambda p+\mu q},\lambda p+\mu q],$$ we deduce that $\phi (\Delta (a+\lambda p +\mu q) - \Delta ( \lambda p +\mu q ) )=0$, for every $\phi \in M_*$ with $\phi = (p+q) \phi (p+q).$ Lemma 2.2 in [@BenAliPeraltaRamirez] implies that $$(p+q) \Delta (a+\lambda p +\mu q) (p+q) = (p+q) \Delta (\lambda p +\mu q) (p+q).$$ Multiplying on the left by $p$ and on the right by $q$, we get $p\Delta (a+ \lambda p +\mu q ) q = p\Delta ( \lambda p +\mu q ) q$. The other statements follow in a similar way.
\[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] Let $\Delta: M \to M$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a von Neumann algebra $M$. Then for every family $\{p_1,\ldots,p_n\}$ of mutually orthogonal projections in $M$, and every $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n$ in $\mathbb{C},$ we have $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j \right) = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta (p_j).$$
Let $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ be mutually orthogonal projections in $M$. First, we observe that, by the last statement in Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\], for any $1\leq i,k\leq n,\ i\ne k,$ we have $$(p_i+p_k) \Delta(\lambda_ip_i+\lambda_kp_k)(p_i+p_k)$$ $$= (p_i+p_k) \Delta((\lambda_i-\lambda_k)p_i + \lambda_k(p_i+p_k))(p_i+p_k) = (p_i+p_k) \Delta((\lambda_i-\lambda_k)p_i)(p_i+p_k)$$ $$=(p_i+p_k) \lambda_i\Delta(p_i)(p_i+p_k)-(p_i+p_k) \lambda_k\Delta(p_i)(p_i+p_k)$$ $$=(p_i+p_k) \lambda_i\Delta(p_i)(p_i+p_k)-(p_i+p_k) \lambda_k\Delta(p_i+ p_k -p_k)(p_i+p_k)$$ $$= (p_i+p_k) \lambda_i\Delta(p_i)(p_i+p_k) + (p_i+p_k) \lambda_k\Delta(p_k)(p_i+p_k),$$ where the last step is obtained by another application of Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\]. Multiplying on the left hand side by $p_i$ and on the right hand side by $p_k$ we obtain: $$\label{eq p_i+p_j}
p_i \Delta(\lambda_ip_i\!+\!\lambda_kp_k)p_k = \lambda_ip_i\Delta(p_i)p_k\! +\! \lambda_kp_i \Delta(p_k)p_k,\ (1\leq i,k\leq n,\ i\ne k).$$
Let us write $\displaystyle r=1-\sum_{j=1}^n p_j$ and $$\label{eq 0301 2}
\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right) = r\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)r + \sum_{i=1}^n \left(p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)r \right)$$ $$+\sum_{k=1}^n \left( r\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)p_k \right)+\sum_{i,k=1}^n \left(p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)p_k\right).$$
Applying Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\] we get: $\displaystyle r\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)r=0.$ Given $1\leq i\leq n,$ the same Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\] implies that $$\label{eq 0301 3}
p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)r=p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1,j\ne i}^n\lambda_jp_j+\lambda_ip_i\right)r = \lambda_ip_i\Delta(p_i)r,$$ and similarly $$\label{eq 0301 4}
r\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)p_i = \lambda_ir\Delta(p_i)p_i,\quad \textrm{and} \quad p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)p_i=0.$$
Given $1\leq i,k\leq n,$ $i\ne k$, Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\] proves that $$\label{eq 0301 5}
p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_jp_j\right)p_k = p_i\Delta\left(\sum_{j=1,j\ne i,k}^n\lambda_jp_j + \lambda_ip_i + \lambda_kp_k\right)p_k$$ $$= p_i\Delta(\lambda_ip_i + \lambda_kp_k)p_k = \hbox{(by \eqref{eq p_i+p_j})}= \lambda_ip_i\Delta(p_i)p_k + \lambda_kp_i\Delta(p_k)p_k.$$
We also have: $$\label{eq 03032015} \Delta (p_j) = p_j \Delta(p_j) r + r \Delta (p_j) p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{n} p_j \Delta(p_j) p_k + p_k \Delta(p_j) p_j.$$
Finally, the desired statement follows from , , , , and .
\[c to propo additivity on orthogonal projections\] Let $\Delta: M \to M$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a von Neumann algebra. Suppose $a$ and $b$ are elements in $M$ which are written as finite linear complex linear combinations $\displaystyle a= \sum_{i=1}^{m_1} \lambda_{i} p_i$ and $\displaystyle b= \sum_{j=1}^{m_2} \mu_{j} q_j$, where $p_1,\ldots, p_{m_1},q_1,\ldots,q_{m_2}$ are mutually orthogonal projections [(]{}these hypotheses hold, for example, when $a$ and $b$ are algebraic orthogonal self-adjoint elements in $M$[)]{}. Then $\Delta (a+ b) = \Delta (a) + \Delta (b).$ $\hfill\Box$
Let $\Delta: M\to M$ be a weak-2-local derivation on a von Neumann algebra. Let $\mathcal{P}(M)$ denote the set of all projections in $M$. Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] asserts that the mapping $\mu:\mathcal{P}(M)\rightarrow M$, $p\mapsto \mu(p):=\Delta(p)$ is a finitely additive measure on $\mathcal{P}(M)$ in the usual terminology employed around the Mackey-Gleason theorem (cf. [@BuWri92], [@Doro], and [@Shers2008]), i.e. $\mu (p+q) = \mu(p) + \mu (q)$, whenever $p$ and $q$ are mutually orthogonal projections in $M$. Unfortunately, we do not know if, the measure $\mu$ is, in general, bounded.
We recall some other definitions. Following the usual nomenclature in [@Doro; @Shers2008; @AyuKuday2014] or [@KOPR2014], a scalar or signed measure $\mu: \mathcal{P} (M) \to \mathbb{C}$ is said to be *completely additive* or a *charge* if $$\label{eq completely additive}
\mu\left(\sum\limits_{i\in I} p_i\right) =\sum\limits_{i\in I}\mu(p_i)$$ for every family $\{p_i\}_{i\in I}$ of mutually orthogonal projections in $M.$ Where $\displaystyle \sum\limits_{i\in I} p_i$ is the sum of the family $(p_i)$ with respect to the weak$^*$-topology of $M$ (cf. [@Sak Page 30]), and in the right hand side, the convergence of an uncountable family is understood as summability in the usual sense. The main results in [@Doro1990] shows that if $M$ is a von Neumann algebra of type $I$ with no type $I_n$ ($n<\infty$) direct summands and $M$ acts on a separable Hilbert space, then any completely additive measure on $\mathcal{P}(M)$ is bounded. The conclusion remains true when $M$ is a continuous von Neumann algebra (cf. [@Doro], see also [@Shers2008]). The next remark shows that is not always true when $M$ is a type $I_n$ factor with $2\leq n<\infty$.
\[r non boundedness of completely additive measure on PMn\][In $M_n$ (with $2\leq n<\infty$) every family of non-zero pairwise orthogonal projections is necessarily finite so, every finitely additive measure $\mu$ on $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$ is completely additive. However, the existence of unbounded finitely additive measures on $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$ is well known in literature, see, for example, the following example inspired by [@Wright1998]. By the arguments at the end of the proof of [@Wright1998 Theorem 3.1], we can always find a countable infinite set of projections $\{p_n : n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ which is linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and we can extend it, via Zorn’s lemma, to a Hamel base $\{ z_{j} : j\in \Lambda \}$ for $(M_n)_{sa}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. Clearly, every element in $M_n$ can be written as a finite $\mathbb{Q}\oplus i \mathbb{Q}$-linear combination of elements in this base. If we define a $\mathbb{Q}\oplus i \mathbb{Q}$-linear mapping $\mu : M_n \to \mathbb{C}$ given by $$\mu (z_j) := \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
(n+1), & \hbox{if $z_j = p_n$ for some natural number $n$};\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ Clearly, $\mu|_{\mathcal{P} (M_n)} : \mathcal{P} (M_n) \to \mathbb{C}$ is an unbounded completely additive measure.]{}
We shall show later that the pathology exhibited in the previous remark cannot happen for the measure $\mu$ determined by a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ (cf. Proposition \[p boundedness of Delta\]). The case $n=2$ was fully treated in Theorem \[t w-2-local derivations on M2\].
\[p additivity on M3\] Let $\Delta: M_3\to M_3$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation. Suppose $p_1,p_2, p_3$ are mutually orthogonal minimal projections in $M_3$, $e_{k3}$ is the unique minimal partial isometry in $M_3$ satisfying $e_{k3}^* e_{k3} = p_{3}$ and $e_{k3} e_{k3}^* = p_k$ [(]{}$k=1,2$[)]{}. Let us assume that $\Delta (p_j) = \Delta (e_{k3})=0$, for every $j=1,2,3,$ $k=1,2.$ Then $$\displaystyle \Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{3} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right) =0,$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\mu_1,\mu_2$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Along this proof we write $M= M_3$. For each $i\neq j$ in $\{1,2, 3\}$, we shall denote by $e_{ij}$ the unique minimal partial isometry in $M$ satisfying $e_{ij}^* e_{ij} = p_j$ and $e_{ij} e_{ij}^* = p_i$, while the symbol $\phi_{ij}$ will denote the unique norm-one functional in $M^*$ satisfying $\phi_{ij} (e_{ij})=1$. In order to simplify the notation with a simple matricial notation, we shall assume that $$p_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
p_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\
\hbox{and}\
p_3=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ however the arguments do not depend on this representation.
*Step I.* We claim that, under the hypothesis of the lemma, $$\label{eq 2 1702} \Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13}) = 0 = \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1 + \mu_2 e_{23}),$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\mu_1,\mu_2\in \mathbb{C}$. We shall only prove the first equality, the second one follows similarly. Indeed, Corollary \[c to propo additivity on orthogonal projections\] implies that $$\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} \pm \overline{\mu_1} e_{31}) = \Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 ) + \Delta ( \mu_1 e_{13} \pm \overline{\mu_1} e_{31})= \Delta ( \mu_1 e_{13} \pm \overline{\mu_1} e_{31}).$$ Having in mind that $\Delta$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation, we apply Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] to deduce that $$\Delta ( \mu_1 e_{13} \pm \overline{\mu_1} e_{31}) = \Delta ( \mu_1 e_{13}) \pm \Delta ( \mu_1 e_{13})^* =0,$$ which proves that $\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} \pm \overline{\mu_1} e_{31}) = 0,$ for every $\mu_1,\lambda_2\in \mathbb{C}$. Another application of Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] proves that $$\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13}) = \Delta (\Re\hbox{e}(\lambda_2) p_2 + \frac{\mu_1}{2} e_{13} + \frac{\overline{\mu_1}}{2} e_{31})$$ $$+ \Delta ( i \Im\hbox{m}(\lambda_2) p_2+ \frac{\mu_1}{2} e_{13} - \frac{\overline{\mu_1}}{2} e_{31}) =0.$$
*Step II.* We shall prove now that $$\label{eq 1 2402} \Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) = 0 = \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1 + \mu_1 e_{13}),$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\mu_1,\mu_2\in \mathbb{C}.$ Proposition \[p restriction\] witnesses that $$(p_2+p_3) \Delta (p_2+p_3)|_{(p_2+p_3)M (p_2+p_3)} : (p_2+p_3) M(p_2+p_3) \to (p_2+p_3)M(p_2+p_3)$$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation. Since $(p_2+p_3)M(p_2+p_3)\equiv M_2,$ Theorem \[t w-2-local derivations on M2\] implies that $(p_2+p_3) \Delta (p_2+p_3)|_{(p_2+p_3)M (p_2+p_3)}$ is a linear $^*$-derivation. Therefore, $$(p_2+p_3) \Delta(\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) (p_2+p_3) = \lambda_2 (p_2+p_3) \Delta(p_2 ) (p_2+p_3)$$ $$+ \mu_2 (p_2+p_3) \Delta( e_{23}) (p_2+p_3) =0 ,$$ by hypothesis. This shows that $$\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega_{11} & \omega_{12} & \omega_{13}\\
\omega_{21} & 0 & 0 \\
\omega_{31} & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\omega_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}.$
The identity $$\label{eq 1 0303}
\left[z, \lambda_2 p_{2}\! +\! \mu_2 e_{23}\right]\! =\! \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \lambda_2 z_{12} & \mu_2 z_{12} \\
\!\!- \lambda_2 z_{21}\! -\! \mu_2 z_{31}\!\! & -\mu_2 z_{32} & \! \mu_2 (z_{22}\!-\!z_{33})\! -\! \lambda_2 z_{23}\!\! \\
0 & \lambda_2 z_{32} & \mu_2 z_{32} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ holds for every matrix $z\in M$. Taking the functional $\phi_{11}$ (respectively $\phi_{31}$) in $M^*$, we deduce, via the weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ at $\lambda_2 p_{2} + \mu_2 e_{23}$, that $\omega_{11} = 0$ (respectively $\omega_{31} = 0$).
The weak-2-local behavior of $\Delta$ at the points $\lambda_2 p_{2} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\mu_2 e_{23}$ and the functional $\phi_{13}$, combined with , and $$\label{eq 2 0303}
\left[z, \mu_2 e_{23}\right] = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \mu_2 z_{12} \\
- \mu_2 z_{31} & -\mu_2 z_{32} & \mu_2 (z_{22} - z_{33}) \\
0 & 0 & \mu_2 z_{32} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ show that $\omega_{13}=0.$
The identity $$\left[z, - \lambda_2 p_{1} + \mu_2 e_{23}\right] = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \lambda_2 z_{12} & \mu_2 z_{12} + \lambda_2 z_{13} \\
- \lambda_2 z_{21} - \mu_2 z_{31} & -\mu_2 z_{32} & \mu_2 (z_{22} - z_{33}) \\
- \lambda_2 z_{31} & 0 & \mu_2 z_{32} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ combined with , , and the weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ at $\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}$, $- \lambda_2 p_{1} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and the functional $\phi_{12}$ (respectively $\phi_{21}$), we obtain $\omega_{12} =0$ (respectively $\omega_{21}=0$), which means that $\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) = 0.$ The statement concerning $\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1 + \mu_1 e_{13})$ follows similarly.
*Step III.* We claim that $$\label{eq 2 2402} \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) = 0 = \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13}) ,$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\mu_1,\mu_2\in \mathbb{C}.$ As before we shall only prove the first equality. Indeed, Corollary \[c to propo additivity on orthogonal projections\] assures that $$\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23} + \overline{\mu_2} e_{32}) = \lambda_1 \Delta ( p_1) + \Delta ( p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23} + \overline{\mu_2} e_{32})=0,$$ where in the last equality we apply the hypothesis, and Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\]. Another application of Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] proves that $\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}) = 0.$ The desired statement follows from the 1-homogeneity of $\Delta$.
*Step IV.* In this step we show that $$\label{eq 3 2402} \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})\! = \! (1-p_3)\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2\! + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})p_3 ,$$ for every $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \mu_1, \mu_2\in \mathbb{C}.$
Since for any $z=(z_{ij})\in M$, we have $$\left[z, \mu_1 e_{13} \right] = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
- \mu_1 z_{31} & - \mu_1 z_{32} & \mu_1(z_{11}-z_{33}) \\
0 & 0 & \mu_1 z_{21} \\
0 & 0 & \mu_1 z_{31} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ using appropriate functionals in $M^*$, we deduce, via the weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ at $w_1=\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $w_2=\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}$ ($w_1-w_2=\mu_1 e_{13}$), combined with , that $$(p_2+p_3)\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})(p_1+p_2)=0.$$
Considering the identity and repeating the above arguments at the points $\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13},$ we show that $$p_1\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})(p_1+p_2)=0$$ The statement in the claim follows from the fact that $\textrm{tr}\,\Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})=0.$
*Step V.* We claim that, $$\label{eq Delta at peirce 1 vanishes} \Delta(\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}) =0,$$ for every $\mu_1,\mu_2$ in $\mathbb{C}$. By $$\Delta (\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \delta_{13} \\
0 & 0 & \delta_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\delta_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}.$
Let $\phi = \phi_{12}+\phi_{13}.$ It is not hard to see that $$\phi[z, \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}]=\phi[z, \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 p_2].$$ Considering this identity, the equality in , and the weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ at $\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 p_2$, we prove that $\delta_{13}=0.$ Repeating the same argument with $\phi = \phi_{21}+\phi_{23},$ $\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\mu_1 p_{1} + \mu_2 e_{23},$ we obtain $\delta_{23}=0.$
*Step VI.* We claim that $$\label{eq 4 2402} \Delta (\lambda_2 p_2+ \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})=0 = \Delta (\lambda_1 p_1+ \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}),$$ for every $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \mu_1, \mu_2\in \mathbb{C}.$
As in the previous steps, we shall only prove the first equality. By $$\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2+ \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \xi_{13} \\
0 & 0 & \xi_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\xi_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}.$
Since for any matrix $z=(z_{ij})\in M$ we have $$\phi_{13}\left[z, \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23} \right]=\phi_{13}\left[z, \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23} \right],$$ the weak-2-local behavior of $\Delta$ at $\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$, combined with , shows that $\xi_{13}=0.$ Let $\phi=\phi_{21}+\phi_{23}$. It is easy to see that $$\phi\left[z, \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23} \right]=\phi\left[z, \mu_1 p_1 + \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23} \right].$$ Thus, weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ at $\lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and $\mu_1 p_1 + \lambda_2 p_2 + \mu_2 e_{23}$ and show that $\xi_{23}=0,$ and hence $\Delta (\lambda_2 p_2+ \mu_1 e_{13} + \mu_2 e_{23})=0.$
*Step VII.* We shall prove that $$\label{eq 5 2402}\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{2} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right) =0,$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\mu_1,\mu_2$ in $\mathbb{C}$. By $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{2} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \gamma_{13} \\
0 & 0 & \gamma_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\gamma_{ij}\in \mathbb{C}.$
Given $z=(z_{ij})\in M$ we have $$\phi_{13}\left[z, \sum_{j=1}^{2} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3} \right]=\phi_{13}\left[z, \lambda_{1} p_1 + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3} \right],$$ and $$\phi_{23}\left[z, \sum_{j=1}^{2} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3} \right]=\phi_{23}\left[z, \lambda_{2} p_2 + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3} \right].$$ Then the weak-2-local behavior of $\Delta$ at $\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^{2} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}$ and $ \displaystyle \lambda_{1} p_1 + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}$ (respectively, $ \displaystyle \lambda_{2} p_2 + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}$), combined with , imply that $\gamma_{13}=0$ (respectively, $\gamma_{23}=0$).
Finally, for $\lambda_3\neq 0$, we have $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{3} \lambda_{j} p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right) = \Delta \left(\lambda_3 1 + \sum_{j=1}^{2} (\lambda_{j}-\lambda_3) p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right)$$ $$= \lambda_3 \Delta \left( 1 + \lambda_3^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^{2} (\lambda_{j}-\lambda_3) p_j + \lambda_3^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right)=\hbox{(by Lemma \ref{l Delta(1-x)+Delta(x)})}$$ $$= \lambda_3 \Delta \left( \lambda_3^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^{2} (\lambda_{j}-\lambda_3) p_j + \lambda_3^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{2} \mu_k e_{k3}\right) = \hbox{(by \eqref{eq 5 2402})} = 0,$$ for every $\lambda_1,\lambda_2, \mu_1,\mu_2$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
\[p boundedness of Delta 1\] Let $\Delta: M_n\to M_n$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $2\leq n$. Suppose $p_1,\ldots, p_n$ are mutually orthogonal minimal projections in $M_n$, $q= p_1+\ldots+p_{n-1}$, $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n}$ are complex numbers, and $a$ is an element in $M_n$ satisfying $a = q a p_n $. Then $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + a\right) = \Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j \right)+ \Delta (a) = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta \left( p_j \right) + \Delta(a),$$ and the restriction of $\Delta $ to $q M_n p_{n} $ is linear. More concretely, there exists $w_0\in M_n,$ depending on $p_1,\ldots, p_n$, satisfying $w_0^*= -w_0$ and $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + a\right) = \left[w_0, \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + a\right],$$ for every $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n}$ and $a$ as above.
We shall argue by induction on $n$. The statement for $n=1$ is clear, while the case $n=2$ follows from Theorem \[t w-2-local derivations on M2\]. We can therefore assume that $n\geq 3$. Let us suppose that the desired conclusion is true for every $k<n$.
As in the previous results, to simplify the notation, we write $M= M_n$. For each $i\neq j$ in $\{1,\ldots, n\}$, we shall denote by $e_{ij}$ the unique minimal partial isometry in $M$ satisfying $e_{ij}^* e_{ij} = p_j$ and $e_{ij} e_{ij}^* = p_i$. Henceforth, the symbol $\phi_{ij}$ will denote the unique norm-one functional in $M^*$ satisfying $\phi_{ij} (e_{ij})=1$. We also note that every element $a\in M$ satisfying $a = q a p_n $ writes in the form $\displaystyle a= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn}$, for unique $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Fix $j\in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. We observe that, for each matrix $z= (z_{ij}) \in M_n$, we have $$\label{eq [zpj]} [z,p_j] = \sum_{k=1, k\neq j}^{n} z_{kj} e_{kj} - z_{jk} e_{jk}.$$ We deduce from the weak-2-local property of $\Delta$ that $$\label{eq Delta pj} \Delta (p_j) = \Delta (p_j)^* = \sum_{k=1, k\neq j}^{n} \overline{\lambda^{(j)}_{k}} e_{kj} + {\lambda^{(j)}_{k}} e_{jk},$$ for suitable $\lambda^{(j)}_{k}\in \mathbb{C}$, $k\in \{1,\ldots,n\}\backslash\{j\}$. Given $i\neq j$, Lemma \[p Delta(p) p\] and Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] imply that $$0=(p_i+p_j) \Delta (p_i+p_j) (p_i+p_j) = (p_i+p_j)(\Delta (p_i) + \Delta (p_j)) (p_i+p_j),$$ which proves that $$\lambda_{i}^{(j)} = -\overline{\lambda_j^{(i)}},\ \ \ \ \forall i\neq j.$$ These identities show that the matrix $$z_0=-z_0^*:= \sum_{i>j} - {\lambda^{(j)}_{i}} e_{ji} + \sum_{i<j} \overline{\lambda^{(i)}_{j}} e_{ji},$$ is well defined, and $\Delta (p_i) = [z_0 ,p_i]$ for every $i\in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. The mapping $\widehat{\Delta} = \Delta -[z_0,.]$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation satisfying $$\widehat{\Delta} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j \right) =0,$$ for every $\lambda_j\in \mathbb{C}$ (cf. Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\]).
Let us fix $i_0\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$. It is not hard to check that the identity $$\label{eq [z,ei0n]} \left[z, e_{i_0n} \right] =(z_{i_0 i_0}- z_{nn}) e_{i_0 n}+\sum_{j=1, j\neq i_0}^{n} z_{ji_0} e_{jn} -\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} z_{nj} e_{i_0j} ,$$ holds for every $z\in M.$ Combining this identity with for $[z,p_n],$ and $[z,p_{i_0}],$ and the fact that $\widehat{\Delta}$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation, we deduce, after an appropriate choosing of functionals $\phi\in M^*,$ that there exists $\gamma_{i_0 n}\in i \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $$\widehat{\Delta} (e_{i_0n}) = \gamma_{i_0 n} e_{i_0 n}, \ \ \forall i_0\in\{1,\ldots, n-1\}.$$
If we set $\displaystyle z_1:=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{kn} p_k,$ then $z_1= - z_1^*,$ $$\widehat{\Delta} (e_{i_{0}n})= [z_1,e_{i_0n}],$$ for every $i_0\in\{1,\ldots, n-1\},$ and further $\displaystyle \left[z_1,\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j\right]=0,$ for every $\lambda_j\in \mathbb{C}.$ Therefore, $\widetilde{\Delta} = \widehat{\Delta}-[z_1,.]$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation satisfying $$\label{eq deltatilde vanishes} \widetilde{\Delta} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j\right)= \widetilde{\Delta} (e_{i_0n})=0,$$ for every $i_0\in\{1,\ldots, n-1\}.$
The rest of the proof is devoted to establish that $$\widetilde{\Delta} \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn} \right)=0,$$ for every $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_{n-1},$ $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n$ in $\mathbb{C}$, which finishes the proof. The case $n=3$ follows from Proposition \[p additivity on M3\]. So, henceforth, we assume $n\geq 4$. We shall split the arguments in several steps.
*Step I.* We shall first show that, for each $1\leq i_0\leq n-1,$ $$\label{eq 1 2502} p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i p_i + \mu e_{i_0n}\right)=0,$$ for every $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_n,\mu$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Let us pick $k\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ with $k\ne i_0$. By the induction hypothesis $$\label{eq 2 2502} (1-p_k)\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^n \lambda_i p_i + \mu e_{i_0n}\right)(1-p_k)$$ $$= \sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^n \lambda_i (1-p_k) \widetilde{\Delta} (p_i) (1-p_k) + \mu (1-p_k) \widetilde{\Delta} (e_{i_0n} ) (1-p_k) =0.$$
Since for any $z\in M,$ the identity $$(1-p_k)\left[z, \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i p_i + \mu e_{i_0n}\right](1-p_k)=(1-p_k)\left[z, \sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^n \lambda_i p_i + \mu e_{i_0n}\right](1-p_k),$$ holds, if we take $\phi=\phi_{i_0j}$ with $j\ne k,$ we get, applying and the weak-2-local property of $\widetilde{\Delta}$, that $$p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i p_i + \mu e_{i_0n}\right)p_j=0.\quad (1\leq j\leq n,\ j\ne k)$$ Since $4\leq n,$ we can take at least two different values for $k$ to obtain .
*Step II.* In this step we prove that, for each $1\leq i_0\leq n-1,$ $$\label{eq 3 2502} p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)p_n=0,$$ for every $\lambda$ and $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
We fix $1\leq i_0\leq n-1$, and we pick $k\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ with $k\ne i_0$. By the induction hypothesis, we have $$\label{eq 4 2502} (1-p_k)\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)(1-p_k)$$ $$= \lambda (1-p_k)\widetilde{\Delta}\left( p_{i_0}\right) (1-p_k)+\sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1 } \mu_i (1-p_k)\widetilde{\Delta}\left( e_{in} \right)(1-p_k) =0,$$ for every $\lambda$ and $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Since for any $z\in M,$ the equality $$(1-p_k)\left[z, \lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right](1-p_n)=(1-p_k)\left[z, \lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{ i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right](1-p_n),$$ holds, we deduce from and the weak-2-local property of $\widetilde{\Delta}$, applied to $\phi= \phi_{i_0j}$ with $j\ne k,n$, that $$p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)p_j=0,\quad (\forall 1\leq j\leq n-1,\ j\ne k).$$ By taking two different values for $k$, we see that $$\label{pi0 Delta(lambda+sum)(1-pn)=0}
p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)(1-p_n)=0.$$
Let $\phi_0=\sum_{j=1}^n \phi_{i_0j}$. It is not hard to see that the equality $$\phi_0\left[z, \sum_{i=1, i\ne i_0}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right] = \phi_0\left[z, \sum_{i=1, i\ne i_0}^{n-1} \mu_i p_i \right],$$ holds for every $z\in M.$ Thus, $$\phi_0 \left[z, \lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right] = \phi_0 \left[z, \lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1, i\ne i_0}^{n-1} \mu_i p_i + \mu_{i_0} e_{i_0n}\right],$$ for every $z\in M.$ Therefore, the weak-2-local property of $\widetilde{\Delta}$ implies that $$\phi_0\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right) = \phi_0\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda p_{i_0}+\sum_{i=1, i\ne i_0}^{n-1} \mu_i p_i + \mu_{i_0} e_{i_0n}\right)=0,$$ where the last equality follows from . Combining this fact with , we get .
*Step III.* In this final step we shall show that $$\label{eq 5 2502} \widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)=0,$$ for every $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_{n-1},$ $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
Let $k\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}.$ By the induction hypothesis $$(1-p_k)\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)(1-p_k)=0.$$ Since for any $z\in M,$ we have $$(1-p_k)\left[z, \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right](1-p_k-p_n)$$ $$=(1-p_k)\left[z, \sum_{i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1, i\ne k}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right](1-p_k-p_n),$$ by taking $\phi=\phi_{lj},$ with $l\ne k$ and $j\ne k,n,$ we deduce, via the weak-2-local behavior of $\widetilde{\Delta}$, that $$p_l\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)p_j=0,$$ for every $l\ne k$ and $j\ne k,n.$ Taking three different values for $k,$ we show that $$\label{Delta(sum+sum)(1-pn)=0}
\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right)(1-p_n)=0.$$
Let us pick $i_0\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$. It is easy to check that the identity $$p_{i_0}\left[z, \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right]p_n = p_{i_0}\left[z, \lambda_{i_0} p_{i_0} + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in} \right]p_n,$$ holds for every $z\in M.$ So, taking $\phi=\phi_{i_0n}$, we deduce from the weak-2-local property of $\widetilde{\Delta}$ that $$p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right)p_n=p_{i_0}\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\lambda_{i_0} p_{i_0} + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right)p_n=0,$$ where the last equality is obtained from . Since above identity holds for any $i_0\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\},$ we conclude that $$\label{(1-pn)Delta(sum+sum)pn=0}
(1-p_n)\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right)p_n=0.$$ Now, Lemma \[l trace zero\] implies that $\displaystyle \textrm{tr}\,\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right)=0$, which combined with , shows that $$\label{pn Delta(sum+sum)pn=0}
p_n\widetilde{\Delta}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \lambda_i p_i + \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mu_i e_{in}\right)p_n=0.$$ Identities , and prove the statement in .
Finally, for $\lambda_n\neq 0,$ we have $$\widetilde{\Delta} \left(\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn} \right)= \widetilde{\Delta} \left(\lambda_n 1 +\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} (\lambda_j-\lambda_n) p_j + \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn} \right)$$ $$=\lambda_n \widetilde{\Delta} \left( 1 +\lambda_n^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} (\lambda_j-\lambda_n) p_j + \lambda_n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn} \right)= \hbox{(by Lemma \ref{l Delta(1-x)+Delta(x)})}$$ $$= \lambda_n \widetilde{\Delta} \left( \lambda_n^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} (\lambda_j-\lambda_n) p_j + \lambda_n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \mu_k e_{kn} \right)=\hbox{(by \eqref{eq 5 2502})} =0,$$ for every $\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_{n-1},$ $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n-1}$ in $\mathbb{C}$
Our next result is a consequence of the above Proposition \[p boundedness of Delta 1\] and Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\].
\[c boundedness of Delta 1b\] Let $\Delta: M_n\to M_n$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $2\leq n$. Suppose $p_1,\ldots, p_n$ are mutually orthogonal minimal projections in $M_n$, $q= p_1+\ldots+p_{n-1}$, and $a\in M_n$ satisfies $a^*=a$ and $a = q a p_n + p_n a q$. Then $$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + a\right) = \Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j \right)+ \Delta (a) = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta \left( p_j \right) + \Delta(a),$$ for every $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n}\in \mathbb{R}$, and the restriction of $\Delta $ to $(M_n)_{sa}\cap(q M_n p_{n} + p_n M_n q)$ is linear.
Under the above hypothesis, Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] implies that
$$\Delta \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + a\right) = \Delta \left(\frac12 \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + q a p_n \right) + \Delta \left(\frac12 \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j p_j + q a p_n \right)^*$$ $$= \hbox{(by Proposition \ref{p boundedness of Delta 1})} = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta \left( p_j \right) + \Delta \left( q a p_n \right) + \Delta \left( q a p_n \right)^*$$ $$= \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta \left( p_j \right) + \Delta(q a p_n + p_n a q )= \sum_{j=1}^{n} \lambda_j \Delta \left( p_j \right) + \Delta(a).$$
We can prove now that the measure $\mu$ on $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$ determined by a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ is always bounded.
\[p boundedness of Delta\] Let $\Delta: M_n\to M_n$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Then $\Delta $ is bounded on the set $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$ of all projections in $M_{n}$.
We shall proceed by induction on $n$. The statement for $n=1$ is clear, while the case $n=2$ is a direct consequence of Theorem \[t w-2-local derivations on M2\]. We may, therefore, assume that $n\geq 3.$ Suppose that the desired conclusion is true for every $k<n.$ To simplify notation, we write $M= M_n$. We observe that, by hypothesis, $\Delta^{\sharp} = \Delta.$
Let $p_1,\ldots, p_{n}$ be (arbitrary) mutually orthogonal minimal projections in $M.$ For each $i,j\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$, we shall denote by $e_{ij}$ the unique minimal partial isometry in $M$ satisfying $e_{ij}^* e_{ij} = p_j$ and $e_{ij} e_{ij}^* = p_i$. Henceforth, the symbol $\phi_{ij}$ will denote the unique norm-one functional in $M^*$ satisfying $\phi_{ij} (e_{ij})=1$.
Let $q_n= p_1+\ldots+p_{n-1}.$ Proposition \[p restriction\] implies that the mapping $$q_n\Delta q_n|_{q_nMq_n}: q_nMq_n \to q_nMq_n$$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $q_nM q_n\equiv M_{n-1} (\mathbb{C})$. We know, by the induction hypothesis, that $q_n\Delta q_n|_{q_nMq_n}$ is bounded on the set $\mathcal{P}(q_nMq_n)$ of all projections in $q_nMq_n$. Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\], assures that $\mu : \mathcal{P} (q_nMq_n) \to q_n M q_n$, $p \mapsto q_n\Delta (p)q_n$ is a bounded, finitely additive measure. An application of the Mackey-Gleason theorem (cf. [@BuWri92]) proves the existence of a (bounded) linear operator $G: q_nMq_n \to q_nMq_n$ satisfying $G(p) = \mu (p) =q_n\Delta(p)q_n$, for every projection $p$ in $q_nMq_n$. Another application of Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\], combined with a simple spectral resolution, shows that $q_n\Delta (a)q_n = G(a)$, for every self-adjoint element in $q_nMq_n$. Therefore, $q_n\Delta (a+b) q_n = G(a+b) = G(a) + G(b)= q_n\Delta (a) q_n + q_n\Delta (b) q_n,$ for every $a,b$ in the self-adjoint part of $q_nM q_n$.
Now, Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] implies that $q_n\Delta q_n|_{q_nMq_n}$ is a $^*$-derivation on $q_nMq_n$. Therefore there exists $z_0= -z_0^*\in q_nMq_n$ such that $$\label{eq z0 in qMq} q_n\Delta (q_naq_n) q_n = [z_0, q_naq_n],$$ for every $a\in M$.
Now, it is not hard to see that the identities:$$\label{eq [z,e1n]} q_n \left[z, e_{1n} \right] q_n = -z_{n1} p_1 - \sum_{j=2}^{n-1} z_{nj} e_{1j} =- \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} z_{nj} e_{1j},$$ and $$\label{eq [z,ekn]} q_n \left[z, e_{kn} \right] q_n = - \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} z_{nj} e_{kj}, \ q_n \left[z, e_{nk} \right] q_n = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} z_{jn} e_{jk},$$ hold for every $z\in M$, and $1\leq k\leq n-1$ (cf. ). The weak-2-local property of $\Delta$, combined with and , implies that $$\phi_{kl} \left( \Delta(e_{kn}) \right) = \phi_{1l} \left(\Delta(e_{1n}) \right),$$ for every $1\leq k\leq n-1$ and every $1\leq l\leq n-1$. Furthermore, for $2\leq i \leq n-1$, $1\leq j \leq n-1$ there exits $z\in M$, depending on $e_{1n}$ and $\phi_{ij}$, such that $\phi_{ij} \Delta(e_{1n})= \phi_{ij} [z,e_{1n}] = \phi_{ij} (q_n [z,e_{1n}] q_n)= \hbox{(by \eqref{eq [z,e1n]})} =0$. Therefore $$\label{eq Delta e1n} q_n \Delta(e_{1n}) q_n = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \lambda_{nj} e_{1j},$$ for suitable (unique) $\lambda_{nj}$’s in $\mathbb{C}$ ($1\leq j\leq n-1$), and consequently, $$\label{eq Delta en1} q_n \Delta(e_{n1}) q_n = q_n \Delta(e_{1n})^* q_n = \left(q_n \Delta(e_{1n}) q_n\right)^* = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \overline{\lambda_{nj}} e_{j1}.$$ We similarly obtain $$q_n \Delta(e_{kn}) q_n = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \lambda_{nj} e_{kj},$$ for every $1\leq k\leq n-1.$
Let us define $$z_1=-z_1^*:= \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \overline{\lambda_{nj}} e_{jn} - \lambda_{nj} e_{nj} \in p_{n}M q_n +q_n M p_{n}.$$ It is easy to check that $$q_n\Delta(e_{kn}) q_n= q_n [z_1, e_{kn}] q_n,\ q_n\Delta(e_{nk}) q_n= q_n [z_1, e_{nk}] q_n, \ \ \ \forall 1\leq k\leq n-1,$$ $$q_n[z_1,q_naq_n]q_n=0, \hbox{ and, } q_n[z_0, q_na p_{n} + p_{n} a q_n] q_n=0,$$ for every $a\in M$. Therefore $$\label{eq Deltahat vanishes 1} q_n {\Delta} (q_n a q_n)q_n = q_n [z_0+z_1, q_n a q_n ] q_n = q_n [z_0 , q_n a q_n ] q_n,$$ $$q_n {\Delta} (e_{kn}) q_n= q_n [z_0+z_1, e_{kn}] q_n = q_n [z_1, e_{kn}] q_n,$$ and $$q_n {\Delta} (e_{nk}) q_n= q_n [z_0+z_1, e_{nk}] q_n= q_n [z_1, e_{nk}] q_n,$$ for every $a\in M$, $1\leq k\leq n-1$.
We claim that the set $$\label{eq 1b 2502} \Big\{ q_n \Delta (b) q_n : b\in M, b^*=b, \|b\|\leq 1 \Big\}$$ is bounded. Indeed, let us take $b=b^*\in M$ with $\|b \|\leq 1$. The last statement in Lemma \[l almost orthogonality\] shows that $$\label{eq qDq vanishes on the orthognal} q_n {\Delta}(b) q_n = q_n {\Delta} (q_nbq_n+ q_nbp_{n} +p_{n} b q_n + p_{n} b p_{n}) q_n$$$$= q_n {\Delta} (q_nbq_n+ q_nbp_{n} +p_{n} b q_n ) q_n.$$ The element $q_n b q_n$ is self-adjoint in $q_n M q_n$, so, there exist mutually orthogonal minimal projections $r_1,\ldots, r_{n-1}$ in $q_n M q_n$ and real numbers $\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_{n-1}$ such that $\displaystyle q_n b q_n = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \lambda_j r_j$ and $r_1+\ldots+r_{n-1} =q_n$. We also observe that $p_{n} b q_n + q_{n} b p_{n}$ is self-adjoint in $q_n M p_n + p_n M q_n$, thus, Corollary \[c boundedness of Delta 1b\] implies that $$q_n {\Delta}(b) q_n = q_n {\Delta} (q_nbq_n+ q_nbp_{n} +p_{n} b q_n ) q_n$$ $$= q_n {\Delta} (q_nbq_n) q_n + q_n {\Delta} ( q_nbp_{n} +p_{n} b q_n ) q_n$$ $$=\hbox{ (by \eqref{eq Deltahat vanishes 1}) }= q_n [z_0 , q_nbq_n] q_n + q_n [ z_1, q_nbp_{n} +p_{n} b q_n ] q_n ,$$ and hence $$\| q_n {\Delta}(b) q_n \| \leq 2 \|z_0\|+ 2 \|z_1\|,$$ which proves the claim in .
Following a similar reasoning to that given in the proof of we can obtain that the sets $$\label{eq 2b 2502} \Big\{ q_1 \Delta (b) q_1 : b\in M, b^*=b, \|b\|\leq 1 \Big\}$$ and $$\label{eq 3b 2502} \Big\{ q_2 \Delta (b) q_2 : b\in M, b^*=b, \|b\|\leq 1 \Big\}$$ are bounded, where $q_2 = 1-p_2$ and $q_1= 1-p_1$.
The boundedness of $\Delta$ on the set $\mathcal{P} (M_n)$ of all projections in $M_n$ is a direct consequence of , , and .
We can establish now the main result of this paper.
\[t weak-2-local derivations on Mn are derivations\] Every [(]{}non-necessarily linear nor continuous[)]{} weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $M_n$ is linear and a derivation.
Let $\Delta : M_n \to M_n$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation. Propositions \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] and \[p boundedness of Delta\] assure that the mapping $\mu : \mathcal{P}(M_n) \to M_n$, $p\mapsto \mu (p):= \Delta (p)$ is a bounded completely additive measure on $\mathcal{P}(M_n)$. By the Mackey-Gleason theorem (cf. [@BuWri92]) there exists a bounded linear operator $G$ on $M_n$ such that $G(p)=\mu(p)=\Delta(p)$ for every $p\in \mathcal{P}(M_n)$.
We deduce from the spectral resolution of self-adjoint matrices and Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] that $\Delta (a) = G(a)$, for every $a\in (M_n)_{sa}$. Thus, given two self-adjoint elements $a,b$ in $M_n$, we have $$\Delta(a+b)=G(a+b)=G(a)+G(b)=\Delta(a)+\Delta(b).$$ This shows that $\Delta|_{(M_n)_{sa}}$ is a linear mapping. The linearity of $\Delta$ follows from Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\].
\[finite dimensional C\*-algebras\] Every weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on a finite dimensional C$^*$-algebra is a derivation.
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional C$^*$-algebra. It is known that $A$ is unital and there exists a finite sequence of mutually orthogonal central projections $q_1,\cdots, q_m$ in $A$ such that $A=\bigoplus_{i=1}^m Aq_i$ and $Aq_i\cong M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ for some $n_i\in\mathbb{N}$ ($1\leq i\leq m$) (cf. [@Takesaki Page 50]).
Let $\Delta$ be a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation on $A$. Fix $1\leq i\leq m.$ By Proposition \[p restriction\] the restriction $q_i \Delta q_i|_{Aq_i}= \Delta q_i|_{Aq_i}:q_i A q_i= A q_i\rightarrow Aq_i$ is a weak-2-local $^*$-derivation. Since $Aq_i\cong M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$, Theorem \[t weak-2-local derivations on Mn are derivations\] asserts that $\Delta q_i|_{Aq_i}$ is a derivation.
Let $a$ be a self-adjoint element in $A q_i.$ Then $a$ writes in the form $\displaystyle a=\sum_{j=1}^{k_i} \lambda_j p_j,$ where $p_1,\cdots,p_{k_i}$ are mutually orthogonal projections in $Aq_i$ and $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{k_i}$ are real numbers. Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\] implies that $$\Delta(a)=\sum_{j=1}^{k_i} \lambda_j \Delta(p_j).$$ Multiplying on the right by the central projection $1-q_i$ we get: $$\label{eq 2502 2}
\Delta(a)(1-q_i)=\sum_{j=1}^{k_i} \lambda_j \Delta(p_j)(1-q_i).$$
However, Lemma \[p Delta(p) p\] implies that $ (1-p_j)\Delta(p_j)(1-p_j)=0,$ for every $1\leq j\leq k_i$. Since $p_j\leq q_i$ for every $j,$ we have $1-q_i\leq 1-p_j,$ which implies that $0=(1-q_i)\Delta(p_j)(1-q_i)=\Delta(p_j)(1-q_i),$ for every $1\leq j\leq k_i$. We deduce from that $\Delta(a)=\Delta(a)q_i = q_i \Delta(a) q_i$ for every self-adjoint element $a\in Aq_i.$ Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] shows that the same equality holds for every $a\in Aq_i.$ That is, $\Delta (A q_i) \subseteq A q_i $ and $\Delta|_{A q_i}$ is linear for every $1\leq i\leq m$.
Let $(a_i)$ be a self-adjoint element in $A$, where $a_i\in A q_i$. Having in mind that every $a_i$ admits a finite spectral resolution in terms of minimal projections and $A q_i \perp A q_j$, for every $i\neq j$, it follows from Corollary \[c to propo additivity on orthogonal projections\] (or from Proposition \[p finite additivity and linearity on projections\]) that $\Delta ((a_i)) = (\Delta (a_i)).$ Having in mind that $\Delta|_{A q_i}$ is linear for every $1\leq i\leq m$, we deduce that $\Delta$ is additive in the self-adjoint part of $A$. Lemma \[l linearity on Msa\] shows that $\Delta$ is actually additive on the whole of $A.$
[22]{} Sh. Ayupov, K.K. Kudaybergenov, $2$-local derivations on von Neumann algebras, to appear in *Positivity*. DOI 10.1007/s11117-014-0307-3.
S. Ayupov, K. Kudaybergenov, A.M. Peralta, A survey on local and 2-local derivations on C$^*$- and von Neuman algebras, preprint 2014. arXiv:1411.2711v1.
A. Ben Ali Essaleh, A.M. Peralta, M.I. Ram[í]{}rez, Weak-local derivations and homomorphisms on C$^*$-algebras, to appear in *Linear Multilinear A.*
L.J. Bunce, J.D.M. Wright, The Mackey-Gleason problem, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **26**, 288-293 (1992).
M. Burgos, F.J. Fern[' a]{}ndez-Polo, J.J. Garc[é]{}s, A.M. Peralta, A Kowalski-S[ł]{}odkowski theorem for 2-local $^*$-homomorphisms on von Neumann algebras, to appear in *RACSAM*. DOI 10.1007/s13398-014-0200-8.
M. Burgos, F.J. Fern[' a]{}ndez-Polo, J.J. Garc[é]{}s, A.M. Peralta, 2-local triple homomorphisms on von Neumann algebras and JBW$^*$-triples, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **426**, 43-63 (2015).
S.V. Dorofeev, A problem of the boundedness of a signed measure defined on the projectors of a von Neumann algebra of type I. (Russian) *Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat.*, no. [3]{}, 67-69 (1990); translation in *Soviet Math. (Iz. VUZ)* **34**, no. 3, 77-80 (1990).
S.V. Dorofeev, On the problem of boundedness of a signed measure on projections of a von Neumann algebra, *J. Funct. Anal.* **103**, 209-216 (1992).
B.E. Johnson, Symmetric amenability and the nonexistence of Lie and Jordan derivations, *Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.* **120**, no. 3, 455-473 (1996).
B.E. Johnson, Local derivations on C$^*$-algebras are derivations, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **353**, 313-325 (2001).
R.V. Kadison, Local derivations, *J. Algebra* **130**, 494-509 (1990).
S.O. Kim, J.S. Kim, Local automorphisms and derivations on $\mathbb{M}_n$, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **132**, no. 5, 1389-1392 (2004).
*2-Local triple derivations on von Neumann algebras,* arXiv:1407.3878.
A. M. Peralta and B. Russo, Automatic continuity of triple derivations on C$^*$-algebras and JB$^*$-triples, *J. Algebra* **399**, 960-977 (2014).
S. Sakai, On a conjecture of Kaplansky, *Tohoku Math. J.*, **12**, 31-33 (1960).
S. Sakai, *C$^*$-algebras and W$^*$-algebras*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1971.
S. Sakai, *Operator algebras in dynamical systems. The theory of unbounded derivations in C\*-algebras.* Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991.
P. Šemrl, Local automorphisms and derivations on $B(H)$, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **125**, 2677-2680 (1997).
A.N. Sherstnev, *Methods of bilinear forms in noncommutative theory of measure and integral*, Moscow, Fizmatlit, 2008, 256 pp.
M. Takesaki, *Theory of operator algebras I*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1979.
J.D.M. Wright, Decoherence functionals for von Neumann quantum histories: boundedness and countable additivity, *Comm. Math. Phys.* **191**, no. 3, 493-500 (1998).
[^1]: Authors partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, D.G.I. project no. MTM2011-23843, and Junta de Andalucía grant FQM375. Second author partially supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University (Saudi Arabia) research group no. RG-1435-020. The first author acknowledges the partial financial support from the IEMath-GR program for visits of young talented researchers.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We discuss on the possibility that colliding dark matter particles in the form of neutralinos may be gravitationally boosted near the super-massive black hole at the galactic center so that they can have enough collision energy to annihilate into a stau pair. Since in some phenomenologically favored supersymmetric models the mass splitting between the neutralino and the lightest stau, one of the two scalar superpartners of the tau lepton, is a few GeVs, this channel may be allowed. In addition, staus can only decay into a tau lepton and another neutralino. We calculate the gamma-ray spectrum and flux generated by the tau pair discussing the observability of the obtained features.'
author:
- 'M. Cannoni'
- 'M. E. Gómez'
- 'M. A. Pérez-García'
- 'J. D. Vergados'
title: New gamma ray signal from gravitationally boosted neutralinos at the galactic center
---
Dark matter (DM) accounts for more than 80$\%$ of the mass of the Universe but its nature is still one of the open problems in Physics. In a widely accepted theoretical scenario, DM is formed by a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) that has been in thermal equilibrium with Standard Model (SM) matter in the early Universe, leaving, after decoupling, the DM relic density as inferred by WMAP [@WMAP]. In this light, supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the SM provide a natural WIMP candidate. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), R-parity conservation assures that if the lightest supersymmetric particle is the lightest of the four neutralino states–indicated as $\chi$ in the following–, this particle is absolutely stable. In a phenomenologically favored scenario of the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), the stau coannihilation region () [@stauco], the lightest stau, $\tilde{\tau}_1$, one of the scalar super-partners of the tau lepton, is close in mass to the neutralino. In the parameter space the cross section for non-relativistic annihilation into fermions of the SM, $\chi \chi \to f\bar{f}$, is typically small and results in a too large relic density. However, including the so-called coannihilation processes [@Griest], as for example $\chi \tilde{\tau}_1$, $\tilde{\tau}_1 \tilde{\tau}_1$ collisions, when the mass splittings of the involved particles are small, one can efficiently enhance the thermally averaged cross section $\langle \sigma v\rangle$, and, consequently, diminish the relic density to the measured value.
The standard cosmological model predict that non-relativistic cold DM particles ($v/c \sim 10^{-3}$) cluster into halos [@halo] that contain baryonic matter. Since DM in the halo follows a certain mass distribution, the two-body annihilation processes can happen at a rate that is proportional to the DM mass density squared. Therefore, the highest chances to detect an observable indirect signal of their existence are attained in a region with high DM density, in particular, in the galactic center (GC). Among the various signatures from DM annihilation, gamma-ray signals have received much attention. A continuum spectrum of secondary photons may arise from hadronization and decay of the annihilation products [@gammas] and from radiation from final state charged particles [@IB]. Direct annihilation into photons is also possible but only at loop level [@lines].
The gravitational potential in the GC is dominated by a super-massive black hole (BH) with mass $M_{\text{BH}}=4\times 10^6 M_\odot$ and Schwarzschild radius $R_{\text{S}}=2GM_{\text{BH}}/c^2=4\times 10^{-7}$ pc [@SMBH]. Recently, the idea that a BH can act as a particle accelerator has been proposed [@Banados1]. The highest center of mass frame (CMF) energies are obtained when the colliding particles approach the horizon on falling geodesics with opposite angular momentum per unit mass $L/m_{\chi}\leq
L_{\text{c}}=4GM_{\text{BH}}/c$, in the case of the Schwarzschild metric. The maximum possible value is $\sqrt{s}=2\sqrt{5}m_{\chi}$ [@Baushev; @Banados1] for a non-rotating BH, while it can be arbitrarily large for the Kerr BH [@Banados1]. In principle, due to this general relativity effect, new annihilation channels into heavier states, kinematically forbidden for non relativistic particles, could be accessible. Additionally, a realistic calculation of an indirect DM signal in this scenario would also be determined by the particle escape function at distances close to the BH. For the horizon proximity this has been calculated in [@Banados2] under the restrictive assumptions of annihilation into two massless particles with isotropic angular distribution.
In this work we show that if DM is formed by neutralinos with the characteristics of the , a new dominant annihilation channel may be opened already for sub-relativistic neutralinos [@Amin] boosted in the inner regions of the GC.
Near the BH the DM density is described by a power-law $\rho(r)\propto r^{-\gamma}$, as we will discuss later. From the Newtonian approximation given by the Jeans equation, the root mean squared velocity is $v(r) \approx (G M_{\text{BH}}/r)^{1/2}$ [@BT; @Gnedin; @MerrittLet], or in terms of the Schwarzschild radius, $v(r)/c \approx (R_{\text{S}}/2r)^{1/2}$. Since a Keplerian orbit with $L_{c}$ would cross the horizon if the pericenter distance is less than $r_{\text{min}}=4R_{\text{S}}$, hence we will consider safely $r>4R_{\text{S}}$. In this way, for example, at $r=10
R_{\text{S}}$ we have $v/c\simeq 1/\sqrt{20}\simeq 0.22$. Requiring that the neutralino has the relic density inferred by WMAP, the relative mass splitting with the , $\delta =(m_{\tilde{\tau}}-m_{\chi}) / m_{\chi}$, is typically less than $5\%$. In the CMF the energy threshold for stau pair production is $\sqrt{s}=2E_{\chi} \geq 2m_{\tilde{\tau}}$, that implies $v/c \geq [{1-{1}/(1+{\delta})^2}]^{1/2}$. With $\delta=2\%$, $v/c \geq 0.197 $: there exists thus a range of radii where the kinetic energy is high enough to reach the threshold of the process $\chi \chi \to \tilde{\tau}^{-} \tilde{\tau}^{+}$. The maximum radius is given by $r_{\text{max}}= 1/2[1-(m_{\tilde{\chi}}/m_{\tilde{\tau}})^2]R_{\text{S}}$.
If the mass splitting $\Delta m=m_{\tilde{\tau}}-m_\chi$ is larger than the tau mass, $m_\tau =1.777 $ GeV, the staus can only decay into the two body final state $\chi\tau$, see diagrams in Fig. \[fig:1\]. The neutralino is bino-like thus the vertices’s ––$Z$ and ––($h,H$) are suppressed, while the vertex ––$\tau$ is not suppressed by mixing. In fact it is proportional to $Z_{11} U_{12}$, the product of the relevant neutralino and stau mixing matrix elements that are both close to one. The dominant diagrams in Fig. \[fig:1\] are thus the ones with $t$, $u$ channel exchange of the tau. At energies near the threshold the produced staus are slow thus the propagator $1/(p^2_{\chi} -p_{\tilde{\tau}})^2 -m^2_{\tau} =1/(m^2_{\tilde{\tau}} +
m^2_{\chi} -2E_{\chi} E_{\tilde{\tau}} + 2\mathbf{p}_{\tilde{\tau}}\cdot
\mathbf{p}_{{\chi}} -m^2_{\tau} )$ is approximately $1/[(m_{\tilde{\tau}}-m_{\chi})^2-m^2_\tau]$. The cross section, proportional to the square of this quantity is, thus, enhanced for mass splittings approaching the tau mass.
![Diagrams for stau pair production and decay in neutralino annihilation.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](diagrams.eps)
We illustrate the above features in Fig. \[fig:2\], where we show the relevant cross sections as a function of $\sqrt{s}$, left panels, for four points of the that are allowed by present phenomenological constraints. The values of the universal scalar mass $m_0$, gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$, trilinear scalar coupling $A_0$ and the ratio of the two Higgs expectation values $\tan\beta$ that define the CMSSM parameter space are given in Table \[tab:1\].
$m_{0}$ (GeV) $m_{1/2}$ (GeV) $A_{0}$ (GeV) $\tan\beta$ $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ (GeV) $ m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ (GeV)
--- --------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------- -------------------------- -----------------------------
A 452 780 1110 41 327.2 333.6
B 858 1780 0 45 789.0 782.2
C 122 600 0 10 247.6 252.7
D 166 805 0 10 337.3 339.4
\[tab:1\]
The numerical computation was done using the interfaced codes $\textsf{MicrOMEGAs}$ [@Micromegas], $\textsf{CalcHEP}$ [@Calchep] and $\textsf{SOFTSUSY}$ [@Softsusy]. The point A is similar to best-fit point found in [@bestfitCMSSM], that predict a light Higgs around 119 GeV. Next we take three cases with $A_0 =0$, as usual for setting upper limits with LHC searches. In the point B the Higgs is slightly heavier. Points C and D have low $\tan\beta$ and the Higgs is around 115 GeV. In all cases, the cross section for stau pair-production clearly dominates by one or two orders of magnitude the cross sections for annihilation into fermions except when $\sqrt{s}$ corresponds to the heavy Higgs $A,H$ masses where the $s$-channel propagators are resonant.
![Annihilation cross sections in picobarn as a function of the CMF energy (left panels) and annihilation cross section times the relative velocity in cm$^3$/s as a function of the colliding neutralino velocity (right panels). The CMSSM points are specified in Table \[tab:1\] and the annihilation channels are labeled in the upper left panel.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](point4.eps)
In the right panels in Fig. \[fig:2\] we show the annihilation cross section times the particle relative velocity, as a function the CMF velocity of colliding neutralinos; this is the quantity that enters in the calculation of indirect detection signals of the processes considered. Note that $\sigma v_{\text{rel}}$ for annihilation in staus, near the threshold, is at least an order of magnitude bigger than the freeze-out value $3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s and that these values corresponds to $v/c\sim 0.1-0.2$ that are just the ones that can be obtained with the gravitational boost discussed above. At low $\tan\beta$, cases C and D, the “right” selectron and smuon ($\tilde{\ell}_{\text{R}}$) tend to become degenerate in mass with $\tilde{\tau}_1$ and the cross section for annihilation into pairs of these scalars is much larger than in the cases A and B. Although the masses of the particles in point B are much heavier than in the other cases, the mass splitting is around 3 GeV and $\sigma v$ is of the same magnitude. The same effect can be seen comparing case D with C.
A possible signal of the opening of the new channel is given by the gamma-rays produced by the tau pair. The extension of the source is set by $r_{\text{max}}$. This is too small to be resolved by present telescopes, thus we treat it as point source at the GC at a distance from us of $D=8$ kpc. To evaluate the flux we first note that applying the small width approximation to the stau propagators, and given that $BR(\tilde{\tau}^{\pm}_1 \to \tau^{\pm}\chi) =1$, we have $\sigma(\chi \chi \to \tau^{-} \tau^{+} \chi \chi)
\simeq \sigma(\chi \chi \to \tilde{\tau}_1 \overline{\tilde{\tau}}_1)
BR^2(\tilde{\tau}_1 \to \tau \chi)
\simeq
\sigma(\chi \chi \to \tilde{\tau}_1 \overline{\tilde{\tau}}_1)
\equiv \sigma_{\tilde{\tau} \tilde{\tau}}.$ We can thus evaluate the differential photon flux as $$\frac{d\Phi}{dE_\gamma}=\frac{R_{\text{S}}^3}{ D^2}
\int\limits_{r_{\text{min}}}^{r_{\text{max}}} dr r^2
\sigma_{\tilde{\tau} \tilde{\tau}}(r)
v_{\text{rel}}(r) \frac{\rho^2(r)}{m_{\chi}^2}
\frac{dN}{dE_\gamma}(r) .
\label{flux}$$ In the integral we treat the distances in units of the Schwarzschild radius, thus $r$ is dimensionless and a factor $R_{\text{S}}^3$ appears explicitly. We note some differences with the standard almost-static $\chi\chi\to\tau^+\tau^-$ annihilation: (i) there is no factorization into a particle physics and astrophysics factor because all the factors in the integrand depend on $r$ through the velocity dependence. An integration over the CMF scattering angle is implied in $\sigma_{\tilde{\tau} \tilde{\tau}}(r)$ that is evaluated taking the exact spin averaged squared matrix elements from $\textsf{CalcHEP}$; (ii) we do not divide by 2 because the final state necessarily contains two neutralinos; (iii) the taus are not monochromatic and the spectrum changes with the collision energy $\sqrt{s}$ and ultimately with the distance, while in the static case the taus have an energy equal to the neutralino mass and the radiated photon spectrum is limited by $E_\gamma^{\text{max}} =E_\tau =m_{\chi}$.
Before proceeding further we will discuss this last point. The taus energy spectrum can be easily obtained by applying a Lorentz transformation with parameters $\beta=({1-{4m^2_{\tilde{\tau}}}/{s}})^{1/2}$ and $\gamma={\sqrt{s}}/{2m_{\tilde{\tau}}}$, to the spectrum calculated in the rest frame of the stau. In this frame it has fixed energy and momentum, $E_{\tau}^* =(m^2_{\tilde{\tau}}-m^2_{\chi} +m_{\tau}^2)/{2m_{\tilde{\tau}}}$ and $p_{\tau}^* =({E_{\tau}^*}^2 -m_{\tau}^2 )^{1/2}$. The resulting energy distribution is flat and limited, ${dN(\tilde{\tau}_1 \to \chi \tau)}/{dE_{\tau}}=
{1}/{\Delta E}$, $\Delta E =E_\tau^{\text{max}} - E_\tau^{\text{min}}$, with $E_\tau^{\text{min}} =\gamma(E_{\tau}^*-\beta p_{\tau}^*)\leq
E_{\tau}\leq
E_\tau^{\text{max}}=\gamma(E_{\tau}^*+\beta p_{\tau}^*)$. The number of photons with energy $E_\gamma$ produced by a tau with energy $E_\tau$ is given by $dN_\gamma /dx=1/2 f(x)$ with $x=E_\gamma / E_{\tau}$ and $f(x)=x^{-3/2}\exp[g(x)]+q\log[p(1-x)](x^2-2x+2)/x$. This formula was obtained in Ref. [@Cembranos], to which we refer the reader for details, by fitting the photon yield from taus obtained with Monte Carlo simulations of the non relativistic process $\chi\chi\to\tau^+\tau^-$. In this case the taus have equal energy, hence we use a factor $1/2$ for the yield of one particle. The gamma spectrum at distance $r$ is then obtained by integrating over the tau energy distribution, $$\frac{dN}{dE_\gamma}(r) =\frac{1}{\Delta E(r)}
\int\limits_{E_\tau^{\text{min}}(r)}^{E_\tau^{\text{max}}(r) }
\frac{dE_\tau}{E_\tau}f\left(\frac{E_\gamma}{E_\tau}\right)
\theta(E_\tau -E_\gamma).
\label{eq:gammaspectrum}$$ We have multiplied by 2 to obtain the yield of the pair. The Heaviside function takes into account that for fixed $E_\gamma$ the integrand is zero if $E_\gamma > E_\tau$. For this reason the photon energy cut-off is $E_\tau^{\text{min}}$ for each $\sqrt{s}$. The absolute cut off when integrating over $\sqrt{s}$ will be at $\gamma(r_{\text{max}})E_{\tau}^*$. In fact as $r \to r_{\text{max}}$, $\beta \to 0$ and $E_\tau^{\text{min}}\to \gamma(r_{\text{max}})E_{\tau}^*$. Note that $\gamma(r_{\text{max}})\sim 1$ and $E_{\tau}^* \lessapprox (m_{\tilde{\tau}}-m_{\chi}) $, thus the cut off is indicative of the mass splitting between the neutralino and the stau.
The last ingredient that we need to evaluate in Eq. (\[flux\]) is the DM density profile. In [@GondoloSilk] it was shown that the adiabatic growth of the BH at the center of the halo causes a steepening, called spike, of the initial halo profile toward the GC. Successive studies [@Bertone; @MerrittReview; @Ullio; @Gnedin; @MerrittLet; @BertoneMerritt; @MerrittCrest; @Vasiliev1; @Vasiliev2] showed that considering physical effects such as scattering of DM particles off stars, capture by the BH, self-annihilation and capture within stars during the evolution of the DM distribution, results in a shallower profile, $\rho_{\text{sp}}(r)\propto r^{-3/2}$. For the SUSY models A-D, and generally for all the parameter space, the spin independent and spin dependent elastic neutralino-nucleon cross sections are in the range 10$^{-11}$-10$^{-9}$ pb and 10$^{-8}$-10$^{-7}$ pb [@CannoniES], respectively, thus the energy lost by elastic collisions with baryonic matter is not likely to be important. At a certain distance from the GC the density reaches a value such that self-annihilation itself acts to stop further rising. It has been shown [@Vasiliev1; @Vasiliev2] that this latter effect do not set the density to a constant value, usually called annihilation plateau or core, but results in a mild spike (MS) with $\rho_{\text{ms}}(r)\propto r^{-1/2}$. In addition, the adiabatic compression of the gravitational potential caused by the baryons already in the bulge of the galaxy [@Prada] should also be taken into account.
![Top panel: differential flux multiplied by $E_\gamma^2$. Bottom panel: Differential flux (dots) and fit (dashed lines) with $F(x)=F_0 + F_1 \exp(-E_\gamma /E_1) +F_2 \exp(-E_\gamma /E_2)$. $F_0$, $F_{1,2}$, $E_{1,2}$ are fit parameters.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](dflux4.eps)
We hence model the profile considering that at the radius $r_{\text{sp}}\approx 0.2 r_{\text{h}} $, with $r_{\text{h}}=1.67 $ pc the influence radius of the BH, DM density is given by a compressed Einasto profile, $\rho_\text{sp} =5\times 10^6$ GeV/cm$^3$ as in [@Bertone]. From here the profile is given by $\rho(r)=\rho_{\text{sp}}({r}/{r_{\text{sp}}})^{-\gamma_\text{sp}}$, $\gamma_\text{sp}=3/2$, up to the radius $r_{\text{a}}$ where the density reaches the value $\rho_{\text{a}}={m_{\chi}}/(\sigma v)_0 t_f$. $(\sigma v)_0$ is the annihilation cross section and $t_f=10$ Gyr [@Bertone; @MerrittReview] is the elapsed time since the formation of the spike. Finally, the inner MS is $\rho_{\text{a}}({r}/{r_{\text{a}}})^{-\gamma_\text{a}}$, $\gamma_\text{a}=1/2$, up to the limit $4R_{\text{S}}$. The radius $r_{\text{a}}$ is found by matching the two power-laws, $r_{\text{a}} =r_{\text{sp}} (\rho_{\text{a}}/\rho_{\text{sp}})^{-1/\gamma_{\text{sp}}}$. The values of $\rho_{\text{a}}$ are between $10^{11}-10^{12}$ GeV/cm$^3$ and $r_{\text{a}} $ are of the order $10^{-4}$ pc for the CMSSM points A-D. In the cases C and D, $\sigma v$ in the non relativistic limit is around $ 10^{-29}$ cm$^3$/s that would result in $\rho_{\text{a}}$ a factor $10^2$ larger than in A and B. Anyway, as was already noted in [@Amin], the cross section for annihilation into leptons is strongly velocity dependent as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:2\]: it rises rapidly reaching values around $10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s at $v/c\sim 0.1-0.2$, thus $\rho_{\text{a}}$ is of the same order as in A and B.
In the top panel of Fig. \[fig:4\] we show the differential flux multiplied by $E_\gamma^2$ to exhibit the behavior at the highest energies near the cut off. In the bottom panel, the differential photon flux is given by the dots. We find that the spectral shape of the flux is well fitted with the sum of two exponentials, as shown by the dashed lines in the bottom panel. The functional form is $F(x)=F_0 + F_1 \exp(-E_\gamma /E_1) +F_2 \exp(-E_\gamma /E_2)$ with $F_0$, $F_{1,2}$, $E_{1,2}$ fit parameters.
The peculiar characteristics of the signal are: (i) its origin is in the innermost region around the BH where the DM distribution is given by the MS density; (ii) the differential flux presents a nearly exponential shape with a hard cut-off that is determined by the mass splitting between the neutralino and the stau; (iii) the signal shows up at energies below 10 GeV. Interestingly, in this few GeV energy region there are some unexplained excesses over the known backgrounds [@fermi; @hooper]. However our predicted signal is too feeble to account for them. It is expected that after 5 years operation, the Fermi-LAT satellite reaches sensitivities of $10^{-10}-0.5\times 10^{-11}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for energies between 0.5 GeV and 10 GeV [@aldo]. The proposed signal can be one of the components observed by the collaboration. Furthermore, it might be discriminated by the new proposed experiment Gamma-Light [@aldo] that should achieve a better energy and angular resolution than Fermi-LAT in the interval (10 MeV-1 GeV).
In summary, we have shown that if DM is formed by neutralinos as described in the stau coannihilation region of the CMSSM, stau pair production may be the dominant annihilation channel in the innermost region of the GC near the BH. We have further shown that the gamma-ray spectrum produced by the $\tau\tau$ pair coming from the decay of the staus present peculiar features. This may further motivate the exploration of the GC by the Fermi-LAT satellite to achieve a better understanding of backgrounds and to look for a possible new indirect signal of the presence of a DM component.
#### *Acknowledgements –* {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
M. C. is a MultiDark fellow. Work supported by MultiDark under grant number CSD2009-00064 of the Spanish MICINN Consolider-Ingenio 2010 Programme. Further support is provided by: MICINN projects FPA2011-23781, FIS-2009-07238, MICINN-INFN(PG21)AIC-D-2011-0724, ESF-COMPSTAR and Junta de Andalucia under grant P07FQM02962. M. C. acknowledges the hospitality of the Fundamental Physics Department of University of Salamanca where part of this work was developed. The authors acknowledge J. Cembranos, G. Gomez-Vargas, A. Morselli, R. Lineros and M. A. Sanchez-Conde for useful discussions.
[100]{}
D. Larson [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**192**]{}, 16 (2011). J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Astropart. Phys. [**13**]{}, 181 (2000), \[Erratum-ibid. [**15**]{}, 413 (2001)\]; M. E. Gomez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 123512 (2000); T. Nihei, L. Roszkowski and R. Ruiz de Austri, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2002) 024; J. Edsjo, M. Schelke, P. Ullio and P. Gondolo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2003) 001. K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3191 (1991).
J. F. Navarro [*et al.*]{} Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**349**]{}, 1039 (2004); A. W. Graham, D. Merritt, B. Moore, J. Diemand and B. Terzic, Astron. J. [**132**]{}, 2685 (2006).
Y. B. Zeldovich, A. A. Klypin, M. Y. Khlopov and V. M. Chechetkin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**31**]{}, 664 (1980) \[Yad. Fiz. [**31**]{}, 1286 (1980)\]; J. Silk and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 624 (1984); F. W. Stecker and A. J. Tylka, Astrophys. J. [**343**]{}, 169 (1989); V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino and G. Mignola, Phys. Lett. B [**325**]{} (1994) 136; L. Bergstrom, P. Ullio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. [**9**]{}, 137 (1998); A. Cesarini, F. Fucito, A. Lionetto, A. Morselli and P. Ullio, Astropart. Phys. [**21**]{}, 267 (2004); N. Fornengo, L. Pieri and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 103529 J. Ellis, K. A. Olive and V. C. Spanos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2011) 024.
L. Bergstrom, Phys. Lett. B [**225**]{}, 372 (1989); R. Flores, K. A. Olive and S. Rudaz, Phys. Lett. B [**232**]{}, 377 (1989); L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson and M. Gustafsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 241301 (2005); T. Bringmann, L. Bergstrom and J. Edsjo, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2008) 049; M. Cannoni, M. E. Gomez, M. A. Sanchez-Conde, F. Prada and O. Panella, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 107303 (2010); M. A. Sanchez-Conde, M. Cannoni, F. Zandanel, M. E. Gomez and F. Prada, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2011) 011. L. Bergstrom and P. Ullio, Nucl. Phys. B [**504**]{}, 27 (1997); Z. Bern, P. Gondolo and M. Perelstein, Phys. Lett. B [**411**]{}, 86 (1997); P. Ullio and L. Bergstrom, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 1962 (1998). A. M. Ghez [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**689**]{}, 1044 (2008).
M. Banados, J. Silk and S. M. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 111102 (2009). A. Baushev, Int. J. Mod. Phys D [**18**]{}, 1195 (2009). M. Banados, B. Hassanain, J. Silk and S. M. West, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 023004 (2011); A. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 123004 (2011).
M. A. Amin and T. Wizansky, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 123510 (2008). J. Binney and S. Tremaine, [*Galactic Dynamics*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987.
O. Y. Gnedin and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 061302 (2004). D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 201304 (2004).
G. Belanger [*et al.* ]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**182**]{}, 842 (2011). A. Pukhov, hep-ph/0412191.
B. C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**143**]{}, 305 (2002). O. Buchmueller [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 1878 (2012). J. A. R. Cembranos, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, A. Dobado, R. A. Lineros and A. L. Maroto, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 083507 (2011). Although the fit is obtained for $m_{\text{DM}} =E_{\tau} \geq 25$ GeV, we verified that the it works well also down to few GeV by confronting it with spectra as given in tables of $\textsf{MicrOMEGAs}$ except for $E_\tau\simeq 2$ GeV where we fit the high energy part of spectrum with $f(x)=x^a (a_1 x+ a_2 x^2+a_3 x^3)\exp(-bx) $, similar to the functional form of Fornengo et al. in [@gammas].
P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1719 (1999). G. Bertone and D. Merritt, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**20**]{}, 1021 (2005). D. Merritt, in [*Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches*]{}, edited by G. Bertone, Cambridge University Press (2010). P. Ullio, H. Zhao and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 043504 (2001). G. Bertone and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103502 (2005). D. Merritt, S. Harfst and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 043517 (2007).
E. Vasiliev, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 103532 (2007). E. Vasiliev and M. Zelnikov, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 083506 (2008). M. Cannoni, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 095017 (2011); M. Cannoni, J. D. Vergados and M. E. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 075010 (2011). G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, R. Flores and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. [**301**]{}, 27 (1986); F. Prada, A. Klypin, J. Flix Molina, M. Martinez and E. Simonneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 241301 (2004); Y. Mambrini, C. Munoz, E. Nezri and F. Prada, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2006) 010. V. Vitale [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], arXiv:0912.3828; Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**630**]{}, 147 (2011).
D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 123005 (2011). A. Morselli, talk given at the 6th MultiDark Workshop, Canfranc Underground Laboratory, 12-15 April, 2012. http://www.ift.uam.es/iftworkshops/index.php?id=26.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Steady-state manifolds of open quantum systems, such as decoherence-free subspaces and noiseless subsystems, are of great practical importance to the end of quantum information processing. Yet, it is a difficult problem to find steady-state manifolds of open quantum systems, especially of non-Markovian systems. In this paper, we propose an approach to find the steady-state manifolds, which is generally applicable to both Markovian and non-Markovian systems. Our approach is based on an arbitrarily given steady state, and by following the standard steps of the approach, the steady-state manifold on the support subspace of the given state can be obtained. Our work reduces the problem of finding a manifold of steady states to that of finding only one steady state, which is indeed an interesting progress towards completely solving the difficult problem. Besides, in deriving our approach, we introduce the notions of the modified noise algebra and its commutant, and prove two theorems on the structure of steady-state manifolds of general open systems, which themselves are interesting findings too.'
author:
- 'Da-Jian Zhang'
- 'Xiao-Dong Yu'
- 'Hua-Lin Huang'
- 'D. M. Tong'
title: 'General approach to find steady-state manifolds in Markovian and non-Markovian systems'
---
Introduction
============
Any real quantum system inevitably interacts with its environment, and such an interaction generally spoils coherence of quantum states and further weakens the abilities of quantum states to perform quantum information processing tasks. A challenge in quantum information processing is to overcome decoherence of quantum states caused by undesired interactions. Interestingly, despite such destructive interactions, there are steady states in many open systems, which remain stable during the evolutions of the systems and are completely immune to decoherence. Due to their coherence stabilization virtues, steady states of open systems have been exploited for various aims of quantum information processing, such as quantum error correction [@Zanardi1997; @Lidar1998; @Ollerenshaw2003; @Mohseni2003; @Viola2000; @Zanardi2000; @Viola2001], quantum state preparation [@Diehl2008; @Kastoryano2011; @Krauter2011; @Torre2013; @Carr2013; @Znidari2016], quantum computation [@Wu2005; @Oreshkov2009; @Xu2012; @Feng2013; @Xu2014; @ZhangJ2014; @Verstraete2009; @Zanardi2014], quantum simulation [@Barreiro2011; @Stannigel2014], entanglement distillation [@Vollbrecht2011], and cooling [@Mari2012].
The practical importance of steady states for realizing quantum information processing leads to a surge of interest in finding steady states of open systems. Recently, authors have put forward several methods for finding steady states of open systems, such as the mean-field method [@Diehl2010; @Lee2013; @Jin2013], the variational method based on the minimization of trace norm [@Weimer2015], and the variational method based on the matrix product operator ansatz [@Cui2015]. These methods have been successfully applied to many well-known physical models, e.g., the Dicke model, the dissipative Ising model, the dissipative Bose-Hubbard model, and the strongly interacting Rydberg gases.
However, the problem is that all these previous methods are only applicable to Markovian systems but not applicable to non-Markovian systems, and there has not been a general approach to find the steady states of non-Markovian systems. Besides, the previous methods mainly focus on finding individual steady states, but cannot give the structure of steady-state manifolds (SSMs). Yet, for open systems with many or infinitely many steady states, the knowledge about the structure of SSMs, such as decoherence-free subspaces [@Zanardi1997; @Lidar1998] and noiseless subsystems [@Viola2000; @Zanardi2000], plays a key role in performing many quantum information processing tasks [@Zanardi2014; @Zanardi2015; @Zhang2016]. Therefore, it is an important issue to find SSMs of general open systems and determine the structure of them.
In the present paper, we address this issue. We first introduce the modified noise algebra and its commutant, with which we can obtain two theorems on the structure of SSMs, and based on the theorems, we further propose an approach to find the SSMs. Our approach, based on a given steady state, is applicable to both Markovian and non-Markovian systems. By following our approach, the SSM on the support subspace of the given steady state can be found. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\], we introduce the modified noise algebra and its commutant, and present a theorem on the relation between them and the SSM. In Sec. \[sec3\], we give a theorem on the structure of the SSMs with the help of the modified noise algebra. In Sec. \[sec4\], based on the the structure theorem, we put forward an approach for finding SSMs. Section \[sec5\] provides three examples to illustrate the usefulness of our approach, and Sect. \[sec6\] presents the summary and remarks.
Modified noise algebra, commutant algebra, and the relation between them and steady-state manifold {#sec2}
==================================================================================================
We first specify some notations and terminologies. $\mathcal{E}_t$ is used to denote the dynamics of an open system, i.e., a completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) map, which transforms the initial state $\rho$ to the state at time $t$, $\rho(t)=\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)$. A CPTP map can be always written as the Kraus representation, $\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)=\sum_kE_k(t)\rho E_k^\dagger(t)$, with Kraus operators $E_k(t)$ satisfying $\sum_kE_k^\dagger(t)E_k(t)=I$. $\mathcal{H}$ ($\textrm{dim}\mathcal{H}<\infty$) is used to represent the Hilbert space for the system and $L(\mathcal{H})$ the algebra of linear operators on it.
A steady state is such a state which satisfies $\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)=\rho$ for all the time $t$, and a strict SSM is a set of steady states. A generalized definition of an SSM comprises operators that satisfy $\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X$ for all the time $t$. Here, in our paper, we adopt the generalized definition of SSMs, $\{X\in L(\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}$, in which the elements $X$ are not necessarily density operators. Such a generalized definition is convenient for serving our purpose.
We introduce the notions of noise algebra and its commutant. The noise algebra, denoted as $\mathcal{A}$, is the algebra generated by all Kraus operators and their conjugate transposes, of which the elements are linear combinations of products of the operators in $\{E_k(t), E_{k}^\dagger(t), \forall k,t\}$. The commutant of a noise algebra, denoted as $\mathcal{A}^\prime$, is the set of the elements that commute with each element of the noise algebra. It is worth noting that the noise algebra as well as its commutant is only dependent on the CPTP map $\mathcal{E}_t$ but independent of the choices of Kraus operators of the map.
Our approach is based on a given steady state, i.e., it is supposed that one steady state, denoted as $\rho_0$, has been known. The support of $\rho_0$ is denoted as $P_{\rho_0}$, which is the smallest orthogonal projection operator that satisfies ${\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho_0 P_{\rho_0})=1$. $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ represents the subspace defined by the operator $P_{\rho_0}$, and there is $\mathcal{H}=P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}\oplus(I-P_{\rho_0})\mathcal{H}$. Our task is to find all the steady states (i.e., the SSM) supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, $\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}$.
With the above notations and terminologies, we start our discussion on the approach of finding SSMs.
To prepare for general open systems, we first consider an important family of open systems that are with unital CPTP maps, $\mathcal{E}_t(I)=I$. In this case, $\rho_0=cI$, where $c$ is the normalization constant, is always a steady state. For these open systems, we have the following lemma.
\[lemma1\] The steady-state manifold of the open system under a unital CPTP map is equal to the commutant of the noise algebra.
Lemma \[lemma1\] is easy to be proved. Since $\mathcal{E}_t$ is unital, i.e., $\mathcal{E}_t(I)=\sum_kE_k(t)E_k^\dagger(t)=I$, there is $\mathcal{E}_t(X)=\sum_kE_k(t)XE_k^\dagger(t)=X\sum_kE_k(t)E_k^\dagger(t)=X$ for all the operators $X\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$, which means $\textrm{SSM}\supset\mathcal{A}^\prime$. Hence, we only need to prove $\textrm{SSM}\subset\mathcal{A}^\prime$. To this end, we let $X$ belong to SSM. Then, $X^\dagger$ belongs to SSM, too, since $\mathcal{E}_t$ is completely positive and hence Hermitian-preserving, i.e., $\mathcal{E}_t(X^\dagger)=\mathcal{E}_t(X)^\dagger$. By using the Schwarz type inequality [@Lieb1974], we have $\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)\geq \mathcal{E}_t(X)\mathcal{E}_t(X^\dagger)$, which further leads to $\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)\geq XX^\dagger$, i.e., $\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)-XX^\dagger$ is positive semidefinite. Since $\mathcal{E}_t$ is a trace-preserving map, we have ${\mathrm{Tr}}[\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)-XX^\dagger]=0$. This expression is valid if and only if $\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)-XX^\dagger=0$, i.e., $XX^\dagger\in\textrm{SSM}$. Using $\mathcal{E}_t(I)=I$ and $X,X^\dagger,XX^\dagger\in\textrm{SSM}$, we have $X\mathcal{E}_t(I)X^\dagger-X\mathcal{E}_t(X^\dagger)-\mathcal{E}_t(X)X^\dagger+\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)=0$. Rewriting this equation gives $\sum_k[X,E_k(t)][X,E_k(t)]^\dagger=0$. Since $\sum_k[X,E_k(t)][X,E_k(t)]^\dagger$ is a sum of nonnegative terms, each of the terms in it must be zero, which implies $[X,E_k(t)]=0$ for all $k$ and $t$. Replacing $X$ with $X^\dagger$ in the foregoing arguments, we have $[X^\dagger,E_k(t)]=0$, and hence $[X,E_k^\dagger(t)]=0$, for all $k$ and $t$, too. It follows that $X\in\mathcal{A}^\prime$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lemma1\].
This lemma reveals the relation between the SSM and the noise algebra for open systems under unital CPTP maps. It shows that a nontrivial SSM of an open system with a unital CPTP map exists if and only if the commutant of the noise algebra is nontrivial. With the result about unital CPTP maps, we may now turn to investigate open systems under general CPTP maps. We will give a generalized relation between SSM and the noise algebra for open systems under general CPTP maps.
We now consider open systems under general CPTP maps $\mathcal{E}_t$. Our discussion is based on the assumption that a steady state $\rho_0$ has been known and we aim to find the SSM supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. Since $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is invariant under the action of $\mathcal{E}_t$ [@Note], it is enough to consider the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. From now on, we will assume that the operators appearing in the following are redefined to act on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ instead of $\mathcal{H}$. We define a modified noise algebra and its commutant, denoted as $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, respectively. $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ is generated by the modified Kraus operators $\tilde{E}_k(t):=\rho_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}E_k(t)\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\tilde{E}_k^\dagger(t)$, instead of $E_k(t)$ and $E_k^\dagger(t)$ in the noise algebra $\mathcal{A}$. That is, the elements of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ are linear combinations of products of the operators in $\{\tilde{E}_k(t), \tilde{E}_{k}^\dagger(t), \forall k,t\}$. $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ is the set of the elements that commute with each element of the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$. Then, we have the following theorem.
\[th1\] The steady-state manifold supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is equal to $\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Theorem \[th1\] can be proved with the aid of Lemma \[lemma1\]. To this end, we define an ancillary completely positive map, denoted as $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t$, by the Kraus operators $\tilde{E}_k(t)$, namely, $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t(X)=\sum_k\tilde{E}_k(t)X\tilde{E}_k^\dagger(t)$. The dual map of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t$ is denoted as $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t^*$, which is defined by the relation $\langle \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t^*(X), Y\rangle=\langle X, \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t(Y)\rangle$ for $X$, $Y$ $\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})$, where $\langle X, Y\rangle={\mathrm{Tr}}({X^\dagger Y})$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product [@Nielsen2000]. It is easy to verify that the ancillary map $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t$ has the following properties: (P1) $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t$ is unital, i.e., $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t(P_{\rho_0})=P_{\rho_0}$; (P2) $\rho_0$ is a steady state of $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t^*$, i.e., $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t^*(\rho_0)=\rho_0$; (P3) $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t(\tilde{\rho})=\tilde{\rho}$ if and only if $\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)=\rho$, where $\rho=\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\rho}\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$.
Property (P3) implies that the steady states supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ under $\mathcal{E}_t$ and those under $\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t$ are corresponding to each other, namely, $\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}= \{\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}X\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}|\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}$.
With the aid of the ancillary map $\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t$ and Lemma \[lemma1\], it is easy to prove Theorem \[th1\]. In fact, by following the same arguments as those in the proof of Lemma \[lemma1\] and using the properties (P1) and (P2), we can prove that the set $\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}$ is equal to the commutant of the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. To do this, we only need to replace $\mathcal{E}_t$, $E_k(t)$, and the equation ${\mathrm{Tr}}[\mathcal{E}_t(XX^\dagger)-XX^\dagger]=0$ in the proof of Lemma \[lemma1\] with $\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t$, $\tilde{E}_k(t)$, and the equation ${\mathrm{Tr}}\{\rho_0[\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t(XX^\dagger)-XX^\dagger]\}=0$, respectively. Then, we have from (P3) that the SSM supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is equal to $\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[th1\].
Based on a given steady state $\rho_0$, we have established the relation between the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ and the modified noise algebra. Theorem \[th1\] indicates that a nontrivial SSM exists if and only if the commutant of the modified noise algebra is nontrivial. It presents a unified picture of the relation between SSMs and noise algebras, which is applicable to unital CPTP maps as well as non-unital CPTP maps, and Markovian systems as well as non-Markovian systems. Particularly, for unital CPTP maps, $\rho_0$ can be taken as $cI$, and there are $\tilde{E}_k(t)=E_k(t)$, $\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_t=\mathcal{E}_t$, and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\mathcal{A}$. Consequently, Theorem \[th1\] reduces to Lemma \[lemma1\]. In the case of a Markovian system, the dynamics is described by the Lindblad equation, $\partial_t\rho(t)=\mathcal{L}\rho=-i[H,\rho]+\sum_k A_k\rho A_k^\dagger-\frac{1}{2}\{A_k^\dagger A_k,\rho\}$, with the time-independent Hamiltonian $H$ and time-independent Lindblad operators $A_k$ [@Lindblad1976]. The Lindblad equation is equivalent to the Kraus representation with the Kraus operators $E_0(dt):=I-\left(iH+\frac{1}{2}\sum_kA_k^\dagger A_k\right)dt$ and $E_k(dt):=A_k\sqrt{dt}$. Indeed, direct calculations show that $\rho(t+dt):=E_0(dt)\rho(t)E_0^\dagger(dt)+\sum_kE_k(dt)\rho(t)E_k^\dagger(dt)
=\rho(t)+\mathcal{L}\rho(t)dt+O({dt}^2)$, from which the equivalence between the Lindblad equation and this Kraus representation can be proved. Using the equivalent Kraus representation, we can obtain, from Theorem \[lemma1\], that the SSM supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is equal to $\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\textrm{alg}\{\tilde{H},\tilde{H}^\dagger,\tilde{A}_k,\tilde{A}_k^\dagger,\forall k\}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$, where $\tilde{H}=\rho_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}H\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $\tilde{A}_k=\rho_0^{-\frac{1}{2}}A_k\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$, and $\textrm{alg}\{\tilde{H},\tilde{H}^\dagger,\tilde{A}_k,\tilde{A}_k^\dagger,\forall k\}$ represents the algebra generated by $\tilde{H}$, $\tilde{A}_k$, and their conjugate transposes.
Structure of steady-state manifolds {#sec3}
===================================
We now work out the structure of the SSM supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. To this end, we need first to prove the following lemma.
\[lemma2\] A steady state with the same support as $\rho_0$ always exists in the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$.
Lemma \[lemma2\] means that among all the steady states that have the same support as $\rho_0$, there is one of them belonging to the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$. To prove this, we let $\overline{\rho}_0:=\int U\rho_0U^\dagger dU$, where the Haar integral runs over all the unitary operators in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. First, it is obvious that $\overline{\rho}_0$ has the same support as $\rho_0$. Second, $\overline{\rho}_0$ is a steady state. This is because $\mathcal{E}_t(U\rho U^\dagger)=U\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)U^\dagger$ for all $\rho\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})$ and $U\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ (See Appendix \[appA\]), which leads to $\mathcal{E}_t(\overline{\rho}_0)=\int \mathcal{E}_t(U\rho_0U^\dagger) dU=\int U\mathcal{E}_t(\rho_0)U^\dagger dU=\int U\rho_0U^\dagger dU=\overline{\rho}_0$. Third, we can show that $\overline{\rho}_0\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$. To do this, letting $U^\prime\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, we have $U^\prime\overline{\rho}_0=\int U^\prime U\rho_0U^\dagger dU=\int U\rho_0U^\dagger d(U^{\prime\dagger}U)U^\prime=\int U\rho_0U^\dagger dUU^\prime=\overline{\rho}_0U^\prime$, where we have used the translation-invariant property of the Haar measure, i.e., $d(U^{\prime\dagger}U)=dU$. It means that $\overline{\rho}_0$ commutes with all unitary operators in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Since every element of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ can be written as a linear combination of unitary elements of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, we have that $\overline{\rho}_0$ commutes with all elements of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Hence, $\overline{\rho}_0\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lemma2\].
With the aid of Lemma \[lemma2\], we may now derive the structure of the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. According to the standard structure theorems for C\*-algebras [@Davidson1996], the algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and its commutant $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ have the matrix representations in a proper basis, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0} \cong \bigoplus_\alpha \openone_{n_\alpha}\otimes \textrm{Mat}_{d_\alpha}(\CC), \label{sst1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime \cong \bigoplus_\alpha\textrm{Mat}_{n_\alpha}(\CC)\otimes\openone_{d_\alpha},\label{sst2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ labels the $\alpha$-th irreducible representation of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ with dimension $d_\alpha$ and multiplicity $n_\alpha$, $\openone_{n}$ ($n=n_\alpha,d_\alpha$) denotes the $n\times n$ identity matrix, and $\textrm{Mat}_{n}(\CC)$ ($n=n_\alpha,d_\alpha$) denotes the set of $n\times n$ matrices with complex entries. Equations (\[sst1\]) and (\[sst2\]) indicate that $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ has the decomposition [@Zanardi2001; @Zanardi2004], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sst3}
P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}=\bigoplus_\alpha\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2},\end{aligned}$$ and correspondingly $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ have the structures, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\bigoplus_\alpha I_{\alpha,1}\otimes L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}),\label{sst4}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime&=&\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes I_{\alpha,2},\label{sst5}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$ are the subspaces with dimensions $n_\alpha$ and $d_\alpha$, respectively, and $I_{\alpha,1}$ and $I_{\alpha,2}$ are the identity operators on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$, respectively.
Note that the steady state that can induce the same SSM $\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is not unique. All the steady states that have the same support as $\rho_0$ lead to the same SSM, i.e., $\rho_{10}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}_{\rho_{10}}^\prime\rho_{10}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\rho_{20}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{A}_{\rho_{20}}^\prime\rho_{20}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ as long as $\rho_{10}$ and $\rho_{20}$ have the same support. On the other hand, as we have proved in Lemma \[lemma2\], among the steady states with the same support, there is one steady state, $\overline{\rho}_0$, belonging to the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$. We can determine the structure of the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ by the aid of $\overline{\rho}_0$, as $\rho_0$ and $\overline{\rho}_0$ correspond to the same SSM. Since $\overline{\rho}_0$ belongs to the modified noise algebra, it follows from Eq. (\[sst4\]) that there exist density operators $\rho_{\alpha,2}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$ such that $\overline{\rho}_0=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha I_{\alpha,1}\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$ ($c_\alpha$ is the normalization constant). Using Eq. (\[sst5\]) and Theorem \[th1\], we deduce that the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is equal to $\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes \rho_{\alpha,2}$. Hence, we arrive at the following structure theorem.
\[th2\] The steady-state manifold supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ has the structure $\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes \rho_{\alpha,2}$, where $L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})$ is the set of linear operators on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}$, $\rho_{\alpha,2}$ is a fixed density operator on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$, and $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$ are defined in Eq. (\[sst3\]).
Theorem \[th2\], describing the structure of SSMs, is applicable to both Markovian and non-Markovian systems. As a special case, when it is applied to Markovian systems, it gives the same result on the structure of steady states as presented in Ref. [@Baumartner].
Approach to find steady-state manifolds {#sec4}
=======================================
Equation (\[sst4\]) implies that any Hermitian operator in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ can be generally expressed as $\sum_{\alpha j}\mu_{\alpha j}I_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$, where $\mu_{\alpha j}$ are real numbers and ${|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}$ are pure states on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$. We use $P$ to represent one of the Hermitian operators that are with nondegenerate spectra $\mu_{\alpha j}$, i.e., $P=\sum_{\alpha j}\mu_{\alpha j}I_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$ ($\mu_{\alpha j}\neq\mu_{\alpha^\prime j^\prime}$ for $\alpha,j\neq\alpha^\prime,j^\prime$), of which the spectral projections are $I_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$. Similarly, Eq. (\[sst5\]) implies that any Hermitian operator in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ can be generally expressed as $\sum_{\alpha i}\nu_{\alpha i}{|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$ with real numbers $\nu_{\alpha i}$ and pure states ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}$. We use $Q$ to represent one of the Hermitian operators that are with nondegenerate spectra $\nu_{\alpha j}$, i.e., $Q=\sum_{\alpha i}\nu_{\alpha i}{|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$ ($\nu_{\alpha i}\neq\nu_{\alpha^\prime i^\prime}$ for $\alpha,i\neq\alpha^\prime,i^\prime$), of which the spectral projections are ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$. Certainly, $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Hereafter, we refer to such Hermitian operators that are with nondegenerate spectra as spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators for convenience.
To find the SSM on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, it is essential to identify the decomposition expressed by Eq. (\[sst3\]), i.e., to determine the basis in which $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ can be decomposed as $\bigoplus_\alpha\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$. We find that the basis can be obtained by choosing a pair of operators $P\in \mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, defined as above. By resorting to the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$, i.e., $I_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$ and ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$, respectively, we can easily obtain the basis that corresponds to the decomposition (\[sst3\]). In fact, the product of $I_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$ and ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$ gives ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}{\langle i|}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}{\langle j|}$, from which the states ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}$ can be derived. ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}$ can be taken as the basis of the decomposition in Eq. (\[sst3\]). Therefore, to find a SSM based on a given steady state $\rho_0$, one may first construct the modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and its commutant $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, which can be realized by giving the generators of the algebras; then pick out two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators $P$ and $Q$ from $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, respectively; and finally identify the basis ${|i\rangle}_{\alpha,1}\otimes{|j\rangle}_{\alpha,2}$ by resorting to the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$.
With the above analysis, we may now specify the approach to find SSM of an open system based on a given steady state $\rho_0$.
The first step is to construct the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and that of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Here, a generating set of an algebra means a subset of elements from which every element of the algebra can be expressed by a linear combination of products of the generators. Obviously, the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$, denoted by $\{A_1,\dots,A_m\}$, can be simply taken as $\{\tilde{E}_k(t),~ \tilde{E}_k^\dagger(t)\}$ up to multiplicative scalars, which is just the definition of the modified noise algebra. Then, the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ can be obtained with the aid of the $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$’s generating set. By definition, an operator $B$ belongs to $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ if and only if $[A_i,B]=0$ for all $i$, where $A_i\in\{\tilde{E}_k(t),~ \tilde{E}_k^\dagger(t)\}$. Note that any $m\times n$ matrix $B$ can be converted into a column vector $\textrm{vec}(B)=[B_{11},\dots,B_{m1},B_{12},\dots,B_{m2},\dots,B_{1n},\dots,B_{mn}]^T$ with the elements of the vector being a rearrangement of the elements of the matrix. By vectorizing the equation $[A_i,B]=0$ and using the relations $\textrm{vec}(A_iBI)=(I\otimes A_i)\textrm{vec}(B)$ and $\textrm{vec}(IBA_i)=(A^T_i\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)$, we have $(I\otimes A_i-A_i^T\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)=0$. In this way, solving the equations $[A_i,B]=0$ is converted into solving the linear equations $(I\otimes A_i-A_i^T\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)=0$, for which there have been many standard methods. By solving these linear equations, we may obtain a complete set of linearly independent solutions of $\textrm{vec}(B)$, denoted as $\{\textrm{vec}(B_1),\dots,\textrm{vec}(B_n)\}$. Then, $\{B_1,\dots,B_n\}$, obtained by converting each vector $\textrm{vec}(B_i)$ back into matrix $B_i$, gives the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$.
The second step is to pick out two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. This can be realized by directly examining some pairs of Hermitian operators in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Let $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ be Hermitian operators, and $P_j$ and $Q_i$ be their spectral projections, i.e., $P=\sum_j\mu_jP_j$ and $Q=\sum_i\nu_iQ_i$, where $\mu_j$ and $\nu_i$ are the spectra corresponding to $P_j$ and $Q_i$, respectively. Whether $P$ and $Q$ are with nondegenerate spectra can be examined by resorting to the generating sets of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. In fact, Hermitian operators $P$ and $Q$ are with nondegenerate spectra if and only if all their spectral projections $P_j$ and $Q_i$ satisfy respectively $$\begin{aligned}
P_jA_1P_j\propto P_j,~~~ P_jA_2P_j\propto P_j,~\dots,~~P_jA_mP_j\propto P_j,\label{proj1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_iB_1Q_i\propto Q_i,~~~Q_iB_2Q_i\propto Q_i,~\dots,~~Q_iB_nQ_i\propto Q_i, \label{proj2}\end{aligned}$$ where $X\propto Y$ means that $X=\lambda Y$ with $\lambda$ being a complex number [@Holbrook2003]. Therefore, to find a pair of spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators, one can first choose two Hermitian operators $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, work out their spectral projections, and then check whether they match the criterion expressed by Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]). If not, one can repeat this procedure until the criterion is matched. Since the family of Hermitian operators with degenerate spectra is only a subset of measure zero and hence most of Hermitian operators in $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ are with nondegenerate spectra, it is easy to pick out two desired operators $P$ and $Q$.
The third step is to identify the basis of the decomposition (\[sst3\]) by using the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$, and to further obtain the SSM, i.e., the density operators with the structure $\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$. To this end, we subdivide the set of spectral projections $\{P_j,Q_i,~j=1,2,\cdots,\sum_\alpha d_\alpha,~i=1,2,\cdots,\sum_\alpha n_\alpha\}$ into subsets. $P_j$ and $Q_i$ belong to the same subset if and only if $Q_iP_j\neq 0$. It is easy to check whether some projections belong to a same set by straightforwardly multiplying each other. We renumber the spectral projections belonging to the $\alpha$-th subset and denote them by $P_{j}^{(\alpha)}$ and $Q_{i}^{(\alpha)}$. It is interesting to note that each subset, $\{P_{j}^{(\alpha)},Q_{i}^{(\alpha)},~j=1,\cdots,d_\alpha,~i=1,\cdots,n_\alpha\}$, just corresponds to an irreducible representation subspace in Eq. (\[sst3\]), where $d_\alpha$ and $n_\alpha$ are respectively the total numbers of $P_j$ and $Q_i$ in the $\alpha$-th subset. To obtain the basis of the $\alpha$-th subspace, we only need to calculate the eigenvectors of the products $Q_{i}^{(\alpha)}P_{j}^{(\alpha)}$ with eigenvalue $1$, denoted as ${|i,j\rangle}_\alpha$. Then, $\{{|i,j\rangle}_\alpha, ~ i=i(\alpha)=1,\cdots,n_\alpha,~j=j(\alpha)=1,\cdots,d_\alpha\}$ forms the basis of the $\alpha$-th subspace, and all the eigenvectors $\{{|i,j\rangle}_\alpha\}$ (for all $\alpha$) form the basis of the decomposition expressed by Eq. (\[sst3\]). With this basis, we can easily find the SSM. Indeed, by expressing $\rho_0$ in the basis ${|i,j\rangle}_\alpha$, we can work out $\rho_{\alpha,2}$ appearing in Theorem \[th2\], with which we can immediately write out all the steady states supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, i.e., the density operators belonging to $\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$.
Examples {#sec5}
========
So far, we have put forward an approach to find the SSM based on a given steady state $\rho_0$. When $\rho_0$ is the steady state with the maximum support, the SSM obtained by our approach will be the whole SSM of the system. When $\rho_0$ is a steady state but not the one with the maximum support, the SSM obtained by our approach is a subset of the whole SSM, i.e., the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. It is interesting to note that $\rho_0=cI$ is a steady state with the maximum support for the systems under unital CPTP maps, and the SSM obtained by our approach contains all the steady states for these systems. Our approach is applicable to both Markovian and non-Markovian systems. We now give three simple examples to illustrate the usefulness of our approach.
[*E*xample 1.]{} We first apply our approach to a Markovian system. Consider the well-known model, the open system of multiple qubits experiencing collective decoherence [@Zanardi1997]. For ease of notation, we take the 3-qubit case as an example. The dynamics of the 3-qubit system experiencing collective decoherence, in the Markovian approximation, is governed by the Lindblad equation with the following Liouvillian [@Zanardi2014], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\rho)=\sum_{k=x,y,z}\gamma_k\left(S_k\rho S_k^\dagger-\frac{1}{2}\{S_k^\dagger S_k,\rho\}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $S_k=\sum_{i=1}^3 \sigma_k^i$ are collective spin operators with $\sigma_k^i$ being the Pauli operator for the $i$-th qubit.
For this model, it is easy to check that the identity operator is a steady state, and therefore we can take $\rho_0=cI$, which is with the maximum support. By directly following our approach, we can obtain the SSM of this system.
First, we construct the generating sets of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. The modified noise algebra $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and its commutant $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$ are just equal to the noise algebra $\mathcal{A}$ and the commutant $\mathcal{A}^\prime$, respectively, due to $\rho_0=cI$. The generating set of $\mathcal{A}$ can be taken as $\{S_1, S_2, S_3\}$. By resolving linear equations $(I\otimes S_k-S_k^T\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)=0$, $k=x,y,z$, we have the generating set of $\mathcal{A}^\prime$, $\{B_1, B_2, B_3\}=\{\boldsymbol{\sigma}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_2,~\boldsymbol{\sigma}_2\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_3,
~\boldsymbol{\sigma}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_3\}$, where $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_i=(\sigma_x^i,\sigma_y^i,\sigma_z^i)$.
Second, we pick out two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. We choose $P=S_x^2+S_y^2+S_z^2+S_z$ and $Q=\boldsymbol{\sigma}_1\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_3+\boldsymbol{\sigma}_2\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}_3$. The spectral projections of $P$ read $P_1^{(1)}={|\psi_0\rangle}{\langle \psi_0|}+{|\psi_2\rangle}{\langle \psi_2|}$, $P_2^{(1)}={|\psi_1\rangle}{\langle \psi_1|}+{|\psi_3\rangle}{\langle \psi_3|}$, $P_1^{(2)}={|\psi_4\rangle}{\langle \psi_4|}$, $P_2^{(2)}={|\psi_5\rangle}{\langle \psi_5|}$, $P_3^{(2)}={|\psi_6\rangle}{\langle \psi_6|}$, $P_4^{(2)}={|\psi_7\rangle}{\langle \psi_7|}$, and the spectral projections of $Q$ read $Q_1^{(1)}={|\psi_0\rangle}{\langle \psi_0|}+{|\psi_1\rangle}{\langle \psi_1|}$, $Q_2^{(1)}={|\psi_2\rangle}{\langle \psi_2|}+{|\psi_3\rangle}{\langle \psi_3|}$, $Q_1^{(2)}={|\psi_4\rangle}{\langle \psi_4|}+{|\psi_5\rangle}{\langle \psi_5|}+{|\psi_6\rangle}{\langle \psi_6|}+{|\psi_7\rangle}{\langle \psi_7|}$, where ${|\psi_0\rangle}=({|010\rangle}-{|100\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, ${|\psi_1\rangle}=({|011\rangle}-{|101\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, ${|\psi_2\rangle}=(2{|001\rangle}-{|010\rangle}-{|100\rangle})/\sqrt{6}$, ${|\psi_3\rangle}=(-2{|110\rangle}+{|011\rangle}+{|101\rangle})/\sqrt{6}$, ${|\psi_4\rangle}={|000\rangle}$, ${|\psi_5\rangle}=({|001\rangle}+{|010\rangle}+{|100\rangle})/\sqrt{3}$, ${|\psi_6\rangle}=({|110\rangle}+{|011\rangle}+{|101\rangle})/\sqrt{3}$, and ${|\psi_7\rangle}={|111\rangle}$. By substituting these spectral projections into Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]), it is easy to verify that they satisfy the criterion in Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]), and therefore $P$ and $Q$ are two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators.
Third, we identify the basis of the decomposition expressed as Eq. (\[sst3\]) by using the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$, and further obtain the SSM. By multiplying the spectral projections by each other and checking whether their products are nonzero, the set of spectral projections are subdivided into two subsets, $\{P_1^{(1)},P_2^{(1)},Q_1^{(1)},Q_2^{(1)}\}$ and $\{P_1^{(2)},P_2^{(2)},P_3^{(2)},P_4^{(2)},Q_1^{(2)}\}$. Note that the $\alpha$-th subset corresponds to the $\alpha$-th irreducible representation, the number of $P_j^{(\alpha)}$ is equal to the dimension $d_\alpha$, and the number of $Q_i^{(\alpha)}$ is equal to the multiplicity $n_\alpha$. It follows that there are two irreducible representations in Eq. (\[sst3\]), i.e., $\alpha=1,2$, the first irreducible representation is with dimension $2$ and multiplicity 2, and the second irreducible representation is with dimension 4 and multiplicity 1. Then, by computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$, we obtain that the eigenvectors of $Q_1^{(1)}P_1^{(1)}$, $Q_1^{(1)}P_2^{(1)}$, $Q_2^{(1)}P_1^{(1)}$, $Q_2^{(1)}P_2^{(1)}$, $Q_1^{(2)}P_1^{(2)}$, $Q_1^{(2)}P_2^{(2)}$, $Q_1^{(2)}P_3^{(2)}$, and $Q_1^{(2)}P_4^{(2)}$ are ${|\psi_0\rangle}$, ${|\psi_1\rangle},{|\psi_2\rangle}$, ${|\psi_3\rangle}$, ${|\psi_4\rangle}$, ${|\psi_5\rangle}$, ${|\psi_6\rangle}$, and ${|\psi_7\rangle}$, respectively. These eigenvectors form a basis for the decomposition in Eq. (\[sst3\]). With this basis, we can deduce from Theorem \[th2\] that the SSM is with the structure $\left(\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2\right)\oplus\openone_4$, implying that the steady states are the density operators with the matrix representatives belonging to $\left(\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2\right)\oplus\openone_4$ in this basis.
[*E*xample 2.]{} We now apply our approach to a non-Markovian system. Consider a simple error model, a 2-qubit system under the dynamical map, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ex1}
\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)=\left(1-\int_0^tf(\mu)d\mu\right)\rho+\int_0^tf(\mu)d\mu~\mathcal{P}(\rho),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{P}(\rho):=\sum_{k=0}^3E_k\rho E_k^\dagger$ is a CPTP map with Kraus operators $E_0=\frac{1}{2}I\otimes I$, $E_1=\frac{1}{2}\sigma_x\otimes I$, $E_2=\frac{1}{2}\sigma_y\otimes\sigma_z$, and $E_3=\frac{1}{2}\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z$, and $f(t)$ is a real function satisfying $0\leq\int_0^tf(\mu)d\mu\leq 1$ for any $t>0$ and $f(t)<0$ for some time interval [@Chruscinski2010]. Equation (\[ex1\]) represents non-Markovian dynamics. This can be seen by converting Eq. (\[ex1\]) into a non-Markovian master equation, $\partial_t\rho=\alpha(t)\mathcal{L}(\rho)$, with $\alpha(t)=f(t)/(1-\int_0^tf(\mu)d\mu)$ and $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{P}-\mathcal{I}$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity map [@Chruscinski2010].
By taking $\rho_0=cI$ and following our approach, the SSM of the non-Markovian system can be obtained.
First, we construct the generating sets of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. For $\rho_0=cI$, there is $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime=\mathcal{A}^\prime$. The generating set of $\mathcal{A}$ can be taken as $\{E_i,i=1,2,3\}$, and by resolving linear equations $(I\otimes E_i-E_i^T\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)=0$, $i=1,2,3$, we have the generating set of $\mathcal{A}^\prime$, $\{B_1, B_2, B_3\}=\{I\otimes\sigma_z,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_y,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x\}$.
Second, we pick out two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. We choose $P=E_3$ and $Q=\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$. The spectral projections of $P$ read $P_1={|00\rangle}{\langle 00|}+{|11\rangle}{\langle 11|}$, $P_2={|01\rangle}{\langle 01|}+{|10\rangle}{\langle 10|}$, and the spectral projections of $Q$ read $Q_1={|++\rangle}{\langle ++|}+{|--\rangle}{\langle --|}$, and $Q_2={|+-\rangle}{\langle +-|}+{|-+\rangle}{\langle -+|}$, where ${|\pm\rangle}:=({|0\rangle}\pm{|1\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$. By substituting these spectral projections into Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]), it is easy to verify that they satisfy the criterion expressed by these equations, and therefore $P$ and $Q$ are two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators.
Third, we identify the basis of the decomposition expressed by Eq. (\[sst3\]) by using the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$, and obtain the SSM. By multiplying the spectral projections by each other and checking whether their products are nonzero, we find that $Q_iP_j\neq0$ for all $i,j=1,2$. It means that all the spectral projections belong to one set, $\{P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2\}$. Note that the $\alpha$-th subset corresponds to the $\alpha$-th irreducible representation, the number of $P_j^{(\alpha)}$ is equal to the dimension $d_\alpha$, and the number of $Q_i^{(\alpha)}$ is equal to the multiplicity $n_\alpha$. It follows that there is only one irreducible representation in Eq. (\[sst3\]) with dimension 2 and multiplicity 2. Then, by computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue 1, we obtain that the eigenvectors of $Q_1P_1$, $Q_1P_2$, $Q_2P_1$, and $Q_2P_2$ are $({|00\rangle}+{|11\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, $({|10\rangle}+{|10\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, $({|00\rangle}-{|11\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, and $({|10\rangle}-{|01\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, respectively. These eigenvectors form a basis for the induced decomposition in Eq. (\[sst3\]). With this basis, we can deduce from Theorem \[th2\] that the SSM is with the structure $\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2$, implying that the steady states are the density operators with the matrix representatives belonging to $\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2$ in this basis.
*Example 3.* We then apply our approach to an open system under a non-unital CPTP map. Consider the error model, a 3-qubit system under the CPTP map, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)=\sum_{k=0}^{3}E_k\rho E_k^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_0=\sqrt{1-2p}I\otimes I\otimes I$, $E_1=\sqrt{p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$, $E_2=\sqrt{p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes\sigma_z\otimes I$, and $E_3=\sqrt{2p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 1|}\otimes I\otimes I$, with $0\leq p\leq 1/2$ being a parameter dependent on time $t$.
For this model, it is easy to check that $\rho_0=\frac{1}{4}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes I$ is a steady state. By directly following our approach, we can obtain the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, where $P_{\rho_0}={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes I$.
First, we construct the generating sets of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. Direct calculations show that there are three modified Kraus operators, namely, $\tilde{E}_0=\sqrt{1-2p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes I$, $\tilde{E}_1=\sqrt{p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x$, and $\tilde{E}_2=\sqrt{p}{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes\sigma_z\otimes I$. Hence, the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ can be taken as $\{\tilde{E}_i,i=0,1,2\}$. By resolving linear equations $(I\otimes \tilde{E}_i-\tilde{E}_i^T\otimes I)\textrm{vec}(B)=0$, $i=0,1,2$, we have the generating set of $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, $\{B_1, B_2, B_3\}=\{{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes\sigma_x, {|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_y, {|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z\}$.
Second, we pick out two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators $P\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}$ and $Q\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. We choose $P=\tilde{E}_2$ and $Q={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes\sigma_x$. The spectral projections of $P$ read $P_1={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes{|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I$, $P_2={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes{|1\rangle}{\langle 1|}\otimes I$, and the spectral projections of $Q$ read $Q_1={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes{|+\rangle}{\langle +|}$, and $Q_2={|0\rangle}{\langle 0|}\otimes I\otimes{|-\rangle}{\langle -|}$. By substituting these spectral projections into Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]), it is easy to verify that they satisfy the criterion in Eqs. (\[proj1\]) and (\[proj2\]), and therefore $P$ and $Q$ are two spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators.
Third, we identify the basis of the decomposition expressed by Eq. (\[sst3\]) by using the spectral projections of $P$ and $Q$, and obtain the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$. By multiplying the spectral projections by each other and checking whether their products are nonzero, we find that $Q_iP_j\neq0$ for all $i,j=1,2$. It means that all the spectral projections belong to one set, $\{P_1,P_2,Q_1,Q_2\}$. Hence, there is only one irreducible representation in Eq. (\[sst3\]) with dimension 2 and multiplicity 2. Then, by computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue 1, we obtain that the eigenvectors of $Q_1P_1$, $Q_1P_2$, $Q_2P_1$, and $Q_2P_2$ are ${|00+\rangle}$, ${|01+\rangle}$, ${|00-\rangle}$, and ${|01-\rangle}$, respectively. These eigenvectors form a basis for the decomposition in Eq. (\[sst3\]). With this basis, we can deduce from Theorem \[th2\] that the SSM supported on $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$ is with the structure $\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2$, implying that the steady states are the density operators with the matrix representatives belonging to $\textrm{Mat}_2(\CC)\otimes\openone_2$ in this basis.
Summary and remarks {#sec6}
===================
In summary, we have proposed an approach for finding steady-state manifolds of open quantum systems. The proposed approach can be briefly summarized as the three steps: i) Construct the generating sets of the modified noise algebra and its commutant. ii) Pick out a pair of spectrum-nondegenerate Hermitian operators from the modified noise algebra and its commutant, respectively, by resorting to the generating sets. iii) Identify the basis of the decomposition in Eq. (\[sst3\]) to obtain the steady-state manifold, by using the spectral projections of the pair of operators. Compared with the previous works [@Diehl2010; @Lee2013; @Jin2013; @Weimer2015; @Cui2015], which are for Markovian systems, our approach is applicable to general open systems, both Markovian and non-Markovian systems, and can help to determine the structure of steady-state manifolds. Three examples are presented to illustrate the applications of our approach.
It is worth noting that our approach is based on an arbitrarily given steady state $\rho_0$. With the aid of one given state $\rho_0$, the steady-state manifold on the support subspace of the given state can be obtained by simply following the standard steps of the approach. In particular, when $\rho_0$ is a steady state with the maximum support, the steady-state manifold obtained by our approach will contain all the steady states of the system. Our work reduces the problem of finding a manifold of steady states to that of finding only one steady state, which is indeed an interesting progress towards completely solving the difficult problem. For finding a steady state $\rho_0$, there have been some known results. For instance, $\rho_0=cI$ is always a steady state for open systems under unital dynamical maps, and for open systems in which the external time-dependent fields are absent, $\rho_0$ may be taken as the Gibbs state. In general, one may find a steady state $\rho_0$ by using various methods, such as those in the previous papers [@Diehl2010; @Lee2013; @Jin2013; @Weimer2015; @Cui2015].
Besides, we have introduced the notions of the modified noise algebra and its commutant, and proved two theorems on the structure of steady-state manifolds of general open systems, which themselves are interesting findings too.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant No. 2016M592173. X.D.Y. acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China through Grant No. 11575101. H.L.H. acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China through Grant No. 11571199. D.M.T. acknowledges support from the National Basic Research Program of China through Grant No. 2015CB921004.
{#appA}
Here, we prove that for all $\rho\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})$ and $U\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A1}
\mathcal{E}_t(U\rho U^\dagger)=U\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)U^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ which has been used in the proof of Theorem \[th2\].
We denote by $\textrm{M}$ the SSM supported on the subspace $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, and by $F(\mathcal{E}_t)$ and $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)$ the set of fixed points of $\mathcal{E}_t$ and that of $\mathcal{E}_t^*$, respectively, $\textrm{M}:=\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X,\forall t\}$, $F(\mathcal{E}_t):=\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t(X)=X\}$, and $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*):=\{X\in L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})|\mathcal{E}_t^*(X)=X\}$. We need to prove that $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k,t\}$, where $E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}=P_{\rho_0}E_k(t)P_{\rho_0}$. This is done as follows.
First, we introduce an auxiliary map defined as $\mathcal{P}_t:=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N\mathcal{E}_t^n$. In Ref. [@Zhang2016], it has been shown that $\mathcal{P}_t$ is a projection onto $F(\mathcal{E}_t)$, i.e., $\mathcal{P}_t[L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})]=F(\mathcal{E}_t)$. Following the same arguments as in Ref. [@Zhang2016], we can further show that the dual map $\mathcal{P}_t^*$ is a projection onto $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)$, i.e., $\mathcal{P}_t^*[L(P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H})]=F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)$.
Second, with the aid of the auxiliary map, we establish the relation between $F(\mathcal{E}_t)$ and $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)$. In Ref. [@Zhang2016], it has been shown that an explicit expression of the auxiliary map reads $\mathcal{P}_t(X)=\sum_\alpha{\mathrm{Tr}}_{\alpha,1}(P_\alpha XP_{\alpha})\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$. Here, this expression corresponds to a decomposition of $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}$, $P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}=\bigoplus_\alpha\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$, in which $P_\alpha$ denotes the orthogonal projector onto the subspace $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$, and $\rho_{\alpha,2}$ is a fixed density operator on $\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,2}$. From the expression of $\mathcal{P}_t$, we have that the explicit expression of $\mathcal{P}_t^*$ reads $\mathcal{P}_t^*(X)=\sum_\alpha{\mathrm{Tr}}_{\alpha,1}(\rho_{\alpha,2} X)\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$. It follows that $F(\mathcal{E}_t)=\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$ and $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)=\bigoplus_\alpha L(\mathcal{H}_{\alpha,1})\otimes I_{\alpha,2}$. Besides, $\rho_0\in F(\mathcal{E}_t)$ and hence $\rho_0=\sum_\alpha X_{\alpha,1}\otimes\rho_{\alpha,2}$ for some positive operators $X_{\alpha,1}$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relation}
F(\mathcal{E}_t)=\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Third, we establish the relation between $F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)$ and the Kraus operators and further show that $\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k,t\}$. Note that $\mathcal{E}_t^*$ is a unital CP map and its dual map $\mathcal{E}_t$ has a full-rank fixed point $\rho_0$. Following the same arguments as those in the proof of Lemma \[lemma1\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A-F}
F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)=\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k\}^\prime.\end{aligned}$$ With the aid of Eqs. (\[relation\]) and (\[A-F\]) and noting that $\textrm{M}=\bigcap_tF(\mathcal{E}_t)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A-SF}
\textrm{M}&=&\bigcap_t F(\mathcal{E}_t)=\bigcap_t\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}F(\mathcal{E}_t^*)\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\bigcap_t\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k\}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\bigcap_t\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k\}^\prime\right)\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=&\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k,t\}^\prime\rho_0^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing Eq. (\[A-SF\]) with the expression of the SSM in Theorem \[th1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S-alg}
\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}=\textrm{alg}\{E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}},E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger,\forall k,t\}.\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[S-alg\]) indicates that $[U,E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}]=0$ for $U\in\mathcal{A}_{\rho_0}^\prime$. We then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{end}
\mathcal{E}_t(U\rho U^\dagger)&=&\sum_k E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}U\rho U^\dagger E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_k UE_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}\rho E_k(t)|_{P_{\rho_0}\mathcal{H}}^\dagger U^\dagger\nonumber\\
&=&U\mathcal{E}_t(\rho)U^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Eq. (\[A1\]).
[99]{} P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 3306 (1997). D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 2594 (1998). J. E. Ollerenshaw, D. A. Lidar, and L. E. Kay, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 217904 (2003). M. Mohseni, J. S. Lundeen, K. J. Resch, and A. M. Steinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 187903 (2003). E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and L. Viola, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2525 (2000). P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 012301 (2000). L. Viola, E. M. Fortunato, M. A. Pravia, E. Knill1, R. Laflamme, and D. G. Cory, Science **293**, 2059 (2001). S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. **4**, 878 (2008). M. J. Kastoryano, F. Reiter, and A. S. S[ø]{}rensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 090502 (2011). H. Krauter, C. A. Muschik, K. Jensen, W. Wasilewski, J. M. Petersen, J. I. Cirac, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 080503 (2011). E. G. Dalla Torre, J. Otterbach, E. Demler, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 120402 (2013). A. W. Carr and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 033607 (2013). M. Žnidarič, Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 030403 (2016). L.-A. Wu, P. Zanardi, and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 130501 (2005). O. Oreshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 090502 (2009). G. F. Xu, J. Zhang, D. M. Tong, E. Sjöqvist, and L. C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 170501 (2012). G. Feng, G. F. Xu, and G. Long, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 190501 (2013). G. F. Xu and G. Long, Sci. Rep. **4**, 6814 (2014). J. Zhang, L. C. Kwek, E. Sjöqvist, D. M. Tong, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A **89**, 042302 (2014). F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Nat. Phys. **5**, 633 (2009). P. Zanardi and L. Campos Venuti, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 240406 (2014). J. T. Barreiro, M. Müller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M, Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature (London) **470**, 486 (2011). K. Stannigel, P. Hauke, D. Marcos, M. Hafezi, S. Diehl, M. Dalmonte, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 120406 (2014). K. G. H. Vollbrecht, C. A. Muschik, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 120502 (2011). A. Mari and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 120602 (2012). S. Diehl, A. Tomadin, A. Micheli, R. Fazio, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 015702 (2010). T. E. Lee, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 257204 (2013). J. Jin, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, M. Leib, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 163605 (2013). H. Weimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 040402 (2015). J. Cui, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 220601 (2015). P. Zanardi and L. C. Campos Venuti, Phys. Rev. A **91**, 052324 (2015). D.-J. Zhang, H.-L. Huang, and D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. A **93**, 012117 (2016). E. H. Lieb and M. B. Ruskai, Adv. Math. **12**, 269 (1974). M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000). G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. **48**, 119 (1976); V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) **17**, 821 (1976). K. Davidson, *C\*-algebras by example, fields institute monographs* (Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, 1996). P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 077901 (2001). P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 060402 (2004). B. Baumgartner, H. Narnhofer, and W. Thirring, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **41**, 065201 (2008); B. Baumgartner and H. Narnhofer, *ibid.* **41**, 395303 (2008). J. A. Holbrook, D. W. Kribs, and R. Laflamme, Quantum. Inf. Proc. **2**, 381 (2003). D. Chruściński and A. Kossakowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 070406 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We compute the properties of dark matter halos with mass $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$ at redshift $z=6-11$ in the standard cold dark matter cosmological model, utilizing a very high resolution N-body simulation. We find that dark matter halos in these mass and redshift ranges are significantly biased over matter with a bias factor in the range $2-6$. The dark matter halo mass function displays a slope of $2.05\pm 0.15$ at the small mass end. We do not find a universal dark matter density profile. Instead, we find a significant dependence of the central density profile of dark matter halos on halo mass and epoch with $\alpha_0=0.4-1.0$; the high-mass ($M\ge 10^8\msun$) low-redshift ($z\sim 6$) halos occupy the high end of the range and low-mass ($M\sim 10^{7}\msun$) high-redshift ($z\sim 11$) halos occupy the low end. Additionally, for fixed mass and epoch there is a significant dispersion in $\alpha_0$ due to the stochastic assembly of halos. Our results fit a relationship of the form $\alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}$ with a dispersion about this fit of $\pm 0.5$ and no systematic dependence of variance correlated with environment. The median spin parameter of dark matter halos is $0.03-0.04$ but with a large lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$. Various quantities are tabulated or fitted with empirical formulae.'
author:
- 'Renyue Cen, Feng Dong, Paul Bode, and Jeremiah P. Ostriker'
title: Properties of Cold Dark Matter Halos at $z>6$
---
Introduction
============
The reionization epoch is now within the direct observational reach thanks to rapid recent observational advances in two fronts — optical quasar absorption from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) (Fan [et al. ]{}2001; Becker [et al. ]{}2001) and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) experiment (Kogut [et al. ]{}2003). The picture painted by the combined observations, perhaps not too surprisingly, strongly suggests a complex cosmological reionization process, consistent with the double reionization scenario (Cen 2003). It may be that this is the beginning of a paradigm shift in our focus on the high redshift universe: the star formation history of the early universe can now be observationally constrained.
It thus becomes urgent to theoretically explore galaxy and star formation process at high redshift in the dark age ($z\ge 6$). In the context of the standard cold dark matter model it is expected that stars within halos of mass $10^7-10^9\msun$ at high redshift play an important, if not dominant, role in determining how and when the universe was reionized. Furthermore, these fossil halos may be seen in the local universe as satellites of giant galaxies. This linkage may potentially provide a great leverage to nail down the properties of the high redshift galaxies.
In this paper, as a step towards understanding galaxy formation at high redshift, we investigate the properties of dark matter halos at $z\ge 6$, using very high resolution TPM N-body (Bode [et al. ]{}2001; Bode & Ostriker 2003) simulations. While there is an extensive literature on properties of halos at low redshift, there is virtually no systematic study of dark halos at $z\ge 6$. The LCDM simulation has a comoving box size of $4h^{-1}$Mpc with $512^3=10^{8.2}$ particles, a particle mass of $m_p=3.6\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}\msun$, and comoving gravitational softening length of $0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc. These resolutions allow us to accurately characterize the properties of halos down to a mass $10^{6.5} \ h^{-1}\msun$ (having about $100$ particles within the virial radius). The outline of this paper is as follows. The simulation details are given in §2. In §3 we quantify properties of dark matter halos in the mass range $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$, including the mass function, bias and clustering properties, density profile distribution, angular momentum spin parameter distribution, internal angular momentum distribution and peculiar velocity distribution. We conclude in §4.
The Simulation {#sec:thesim}
==============
A standard spatially flat LCDM cosmology was chosen, with $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$; the Hubble constant was taken to be 70 km/s/Mpc. The initial conditions were created using the GRAFIC2 package by Bertschinger (2001). The matter transfer function was calculated with the included Boltzmann integrator (Ma & Bertschinger 1995), using $\Omega_b h^2=0.211$ for the baryon fraction and $\sigma_8=0.73$ for the normalization of the matter power spectrum.
The simulation contained $N=512^3$ particles in a comoving periodic box 4$h^{-1}$Mpc on a side, making the particle mass $m_p=3.57\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}M_\odot$. The starting redshift was $z=53$, and the system was evolved down to $z=6$. The evolution was carried out with the parallel Tree–Particle–Mesh code TPM (Xu 1995; Bode, Ostriker, & Xu 2000; Bode & Ostriker 2003), using a $1024^3$ mesh. The evolution took 1150 PM steps, with particles in dense regions taking up to 19,500 steps. The run was carried out using up to 256 processors on the Terascale Computing System at Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.
The spline softening length in the tree portion of the code was set to $\epsilon=0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc. With this softening length, relaxation by $z=6$ inside the core of a collapsed halo (assuming an NFW density distribution with $c=12$) will not be significant over the course of the simulation for those objects containing more than 100 particles. The opening angle in the Barnes-Hut criterion used by TPM was $\theta=0.577$, and the time step parameter $\eta=0.3$; also, the initial values for locating trees were $A=2.0$ and $B=12.5$— see Bode & Ostriker (2003) for details. In the TPM code, not all regions are treated at full resolution. The limiting density (above which all cells are put into trees for increased resolution) rises with time. By the end of this run, all cells containing more than 18 particles are still being followed at full resolution. Thus this factor is not important if the analysis is limited to halos with over 100 particles.
Dark matter halos are identified using DENMAX scheme (Bertschinger & Gelb 1991), smoothing the density field with a Gaussian length of $300h^{-1}$kpc. In computing all quantities we include all particles located inside the virial radius of a halo.
Results
=======
**M $> 10^6 \ h^{-1} \msun$**
0.01in ![The distributions of all dark matter halos with masses greater than $(10^6,10^{6.5},10^7,10^{7.5},10^8)\msun$, respectively, at $z=6$. \[f2a\]](f2anew.ps "fig:"){width="1.0\hsize"}
**M $> 10^{6.5} \ h^{-1} \msun$**
0.01in {width="1.0\hsize"}
**M $> 10^6 \ h^{-1} \msun$**
0.01in {width="1.0\hsize"}
**M $> 10^{7.5} \ h^{-1} \msun$**
0.01in {width="1.0\hsize"}
**M $> 10^8 \ h^{-1} \msun$**
0.01in {width="1.0\hsize"}
Pictures
--------
First, we present visually a distribution of the dark matter mass and dark matter halos of varying masses. Figure 1 shows the distribution of dark matter particles projected onto the x-y plane. Figures (2a,b,c,d,e) show the distributions of dark matter halos with masses greater than $(10^6,10^{6.5},10^7,10^{7.5},10^8)\msun$, respectively, at $z=6$. The progressively stronger clustering of more massive halos is clearly visible in the display but we will return to the clustering properties more quantitatively in §3.3. It is also noted that voids are progressively more visible in the higher mass halos than in low mass halos.
Dark Matter Halo Mass Function
------------------------------
[rrrrrrrr]{} $n_0$ ($h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & 0.85 & 1.20 & 1.75 & 2.40 \
$\alpha$ & 1.9 & 2.0 & 2.1 & 2.2 \
$M_*$ ($h^{-1}$ Mpc) & $8\times10^8$ & $6\times10^8$ & $4\times10^8$ & $2\times10^8$\
Figure 3 shows the halo mass functions at four redshifts. Table 1 summarizes the fitting parameters for a Schechter function of the form $$n(M)dM = n_0 ({M\over M_*})^{-\alpha} \exp{(-M/M_*)} {dM\over M_*}.$$ We see that the Schechter function provides a good fit to the computed halo mass function. The faint end slope is $\alpha=2.05\pm 0.15$, consistent with the expectation from Press-Schechter theory (Press & Schechter 1974). While there appears to be a slight steepening of the slope at the low mass end from $-1.9$ to $-2.2$ from $z=6$ to $z=11.1$, it is unclear, however, how significant this trend is, given the adopted, somewhat degenerate fitting formula. The turnover at $M_h\sim 10^{6.5}\msun$ indicates the loss of validity of our simulation at the low mass end.
Bias of Dark Matter Halos
-------------------------
{width="3.2in"} {width="3.2in"} 0.05in {width="3.2in"} {width="3.2in"}
[rrrrrrrr]{} $>$10$^{6.0}$ & 1.16$\pm$0.12 & 1.36$\pm$0.18 & 1.70$\pm$0.20 & 2.46$\pm$0.23\
$>$10$^{6.5}$ & 1.21$\pm$0.13 & 1.45$\pm$0.17 & 2.09$\pm$0.30 & 3.05$\pm$0.33\
$>$10$^{7.0}$ & 1.37$\pm$0.19 & 1.60$\pm$0.23 & 2.77$\pm$0.40 & 3.92$\pm$0.90\
$>$10$^{7.5}$ & 1.72$\pm$0.32 & 2.12$\pm$0.47 & 3.46$\pm$0.87 & 6.17$\pm$3.17\
$>$10$^{8.0}$ & 2.08$\pm$0.55 & 2.58$\pm$0.90 & 4.43$\pm$1.47 & 9.90$\pm$4.58\
[rrrrrrrr]{} $>$10$^{6.0}$ & 3.00$\pm$0.55 & 3.80$\pm$0.79 & 4.14$\pm$0.80 & 4.90$\pm$1.49\
$>$10$^{6.5}$ & 3.27$\pm$0.71 & 4.20$\pm$1.04 & 4.41$\pm$1.31 & 5.52$\pm$2.43\
$>$10$^{7.0}$ & 3.43$\pm$0.70 & 4.37$\pm$1.07 & 4.97$\pm$2.59 & 7.33$\pm$6.29\
$>$10$^{7.5}$ & 3.93$\pm$1.70 & 4.98$\pm$2.96 & 5.09$\pm$3.31 & 7.41$\pm$9.09\
$>$10$^{8.0}$ & 4.18$\pm$2.28 & 5.61$\pm$4.68 & 6.32$\pm$6.12 & 6.77$\pm$8.90\
We characterize the relative distribution of halos over the total dark matter distribution by the following relation:
$${n_{h}\over <n_h>} = b(M,z)({\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>})^{c(M,z)},$$
where $n_{h}$ and $<n_h>$ are the halo density and mean halo density; $\rho_{m}$ and $<\rho_m>$ are the mass density and mean mass density; $c(M,z)$ is fixed to be unity at ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>}>1$. This empirical fitting formula is motivated by the found result that there appears to be a break in ${n_{h}\over <n_h>}$ at ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>} \sim 1$. Tables 2 and 3 list the parameters $b(M,z)$ and $c(M,z)$. The smoothing length used here is 0.3 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. Figure 4 shows four typical cases to indicate the goodness of the fitting formula. At ${\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>}<1$ our results (Table 2) indicate ${n_{h}\over <n_h>} \propto ({\rho_{m}\over <\rho_m>})^{3-7}$, a rather rapid drop. As expected, the drop-off is more dramatic for larger halos, as visible in Figure 2. This implies that at $z>6$ halos are unlikely to be found in underdense regions (on a scale of $\sim 0.3Mpc/h$). The increase of $c(M,z)$ with redshift implies that voids are emptier at higher redshifts.
Another way to characterize the relative distribution of dark matter halos over mass is to compute the ratio of the correlation functions, which are shown in Figure 5. The correlation function $\xi(r)$ is calculated by counting the number of pairs of either particles or halos at separation $r$ (using logarithmically spaced bins) and comparing that number to a Poisson distribution. It can be seen that the bias falls in the range $2-6$, with the trend that the more massive halos are more biased and at a fixed mass halos at higher redshifts are more biased, as expected. Figure 6 recollects the information in Figure 5 and shows the bias as a function of halo mass at four different redshifts at the scale chosen to be $1h^{-1}$Mpc. The agreement between our computed results and that using analytic method of Mo & White (1996) is good, indicating that the latter is valid for objects at scales and redshifts of concern here.
Dark Matter Halo Density Profile
--------------------------------
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
We use a variant fitting formula based on the NFW (Navarro, Frenk, & White 1997) profile:
$$\rho_{r} = {\rho_s\over ({r\over r_{-2}})^{\alpha} (1+{r\over r_{-2}})^{4-2\alpha}}.$$
Note that for NFW profile, $\alpha=1$. An important difference, however, is the scaling radius used. We use the radius where the logarithmic slope of the density profile is $-2$, $r_{-2}$, instead of the more conventional “core" radius. This is a two parameter fitting formula, $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$, while $\rho_s$ is a function of $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$ at a fixed redshift, since the overdensity interior to the virial radius $r_v$ is assumed to be known. This fitting formula is intended for the range in radius $r\le r_v$ only.
We fit the density profile of each halo using the least squares method. Four randomly selected examples of such profiles along with the fitted curve using Equation (3) are shown in Figure 7, indicating reasonable fits in all cases. Both fitting parameters, $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$, however, display broad distributions. We found that there is only weak correlation between $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$. Figure 8 shows histograms for the distributions of $\alpha$, for four typical cases. We fit $\alpha$ distributions using a Gaussian distribution function: $$P(\alpha) = {1\over \sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_\alpha}\exp{(-{(\alpha-\alpha_0)^2\over 2{\sigma_\alpha}^2})}.$$ The Gaussian fits are shown as smooth curves in Figure 8, demonstrating that the proposed Gaussian fits are good. Tables 4,5 list fitting parameters $\alpha_0$ and $\sigma_{\alpha_0}$, respectively. We recollect the data in Table 4 and shows in Figure 9 the median inner density slope as a function of dark matter halo different mass at four different redshifts (symbols). The curves in Figure 9 are empirical fits using the following formula $$\alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}.$$ It is seen that this fitting formula provides a reasonable fit for the simulated halos.
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.81$\pm$0.01 & 0.63$\pm$0.01 & 0.50$\pm$0.01 & 0.42$\pm$0.01\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.90$\pm$0.01 & 0.75$\pm$0.02 & 0.62$\pm$0.02 & 0.50$\pm$0.04\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 1.09$\pm$0.02 & 0.91$\pm$0.02 & 0.77$\pm$0.03 & 0.65$\pm$0.06\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.58$\pm$0.01 & 0.54$\pm$0.01 & 0.52$\pm$0.01 & 0.51$\pm$0.01\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.43$\pm$0.01 & 0.45$\pm$0.01 & 0.46$\pm$0.02 & 0.56$\pm$0.03\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.41$\pm$0.01 & 0.41$\pm$0.02 & 0.41$\pm$0.03 & 0.38$\pm$0.06\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.35$\pm$0.01 & 0.40$\pm$0.01 & 0.43$\pm$0.01 & 0.44$\pm$0.01\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.35$\pm$0.01 & 0.38$\pm$0.01 & 0.39$\pm$0.01 & 0.37$\pm$0.01\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.34$\pm$0.01 & 0.35$\pm$0.01 & 0.34$\pm$0.01 & 0.34$\pm$0.02\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.34$\pm$0.01 & 0.32$\pm$0.01 & 0.29$\pm$0.01 & 0.27$\pm$0.01\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.31$\pm$0.01 & 0.31$\pm$0.01 & 0.27$\pm$0.01 & 0.27$\pm$0.01\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.33$\pm$0.01 & 0.25$\pm$0.01 & 0.26$\pm$0.02 & 0.27$\pm$0.05\
Figure 10 shows histograms for the distributions of $r_{-2}$ for four typical cases. We fit $r_{-2}$ distributions using a lognormal function: $$P(r_{-2}) = {1\over r_{-2}\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{r_{-2}}}\exp{(-{(\ln r_{-2} -\ln r_{-2}^0)^2\over 2\sigma_{r_{-2}}})},$$ which are seen to provide reasonable fits to the data in Figure 10. Tables 6,7 list fitting parameters $r_{-2}^0$ and $\sigma_{r_{-2}}$, respectively. We find no visible correlation between $\alpha$ and $r_{-2}$, as shown in Figure 11.
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
An important point to note is that the average slope of the density profiles of small halos ranges from $1.0$ to $0.4$ from $z=6$ to $z=11$ (Table 4 and Figure 8), which is somewhat shallower than the universal density profile found by Navarro [et al. ]{}(1997). Our results at $z=9-11$ are in good agreement with Ricotti (2003), who simulated a $1h^{-1}$Mpc box for small halos at $z=10$. If the theoretical argument for the dependence of halo density profile on the slope of the initial density fluctuation power spectrum (Syer & White 1988; Subramanian, Cen, & Ostriker 2000) is correct, as adopted by Ricotti (2003) to explain the dependence of inner density slope on halo mass, it then follows that the neglect of density fluctuations on scales larger than his box size of $1h^{-1}$Mpc in Ricotti (2003) would make the density profiles of the halos in his simulation somewhat shallower than they should be in the CDM model. Thus, the difference in the box size ($1h^{-1}$Mpc in Ricotti 2003 versus $4h^{-1}$Mpc for our simulation box) would have expected to result in a slightly steeper inner slope in our simulation, which is indeed the case.
Another point to note, which is not new but not widely known, is that there is a large dispersion in the inner slope of order $0.5$ due to the intrinsically stochastic nature of halo assembly. This was found earlier by Subramanian [et al. ]{}(2000). Therefore, while a “universal" profile is informative in characterizing the mode, a dispersion would be needed to give a full account. This is particularly important for applications where the dependence on the inner slope is very strong, e.g., strong gravitational lensing. More relevant for our case of small halos is that, for example, the fraction of small halos with inner slope close to zero (i.e., flat core) is non-negligible at $z=6$. A proper statistical comparison with observations of local dwarf galaxies, however, is not possible with the current simulation without evolving small galaxies to $z=0$.
![ A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile, $\alpha$, versus $r_{-2}$ for all the halos with $M>10^{6.5} \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. \[f10\]](com_param2new.ps){width="1.0\hsize"}
![ A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile, $\alpha$, versus the halo central density, defined as the density at $r<0.2r_{v}$. for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. \[f10a\]](f10anew.ps){width="1.0\hsize"}
![ A scatter plot of the inner slope of the density profile, $\alpha$, versus the environmental density, defined as the dark matter density smoothed by a gaussian window of radius $0.3h^{-1}$Mpc, for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. \[f10b\]](f10bnew.ps){width="1.0\hsize"}
Also worthwhile is to understand whether or not there is some dependence of the inner slope of the density profile on the central density of a halo or the environmental density where a halo sits. In Figures 12 and 13 we show the correlation between the inner slope of the density profile, $\alpha$, and the central density of the halo, and between $\alpha$ and the environmental density, respectively. We find no visible correlations between either pair of quantities. But a relationship between halo shape and environment might have been missed due to stochastic variations. Thus, we have checked to see if deviation $\Delta\alpha$, between computed and predicted (based on mass and epoch using equation 5) slope exists. Figure 14 shows this and no correlation is seen. We note that the abundances of halos in the mass range of interest here are on the rise in the redshift range considered (Lacey & Cole 1993), as evident in Figure 3. During this period halos considered the inner density profiles of halos steepen with time, consistent with the increase of logarithmic slope of the power spectrum with time, that corresponds to the evolving nonlinear mass scale. However, at some lower redshift not probed here, low mass halos will cease to form. Subsequently, the evolution of halo density profile may show distinct features and some conceivable correlations, not seen in Figures 12 and 13, may show up. We will study this issue separately.
Since the central density of a halo may be considered a good proxy for the formation redshift of the central region, the non-correlation between $\alpha$ and the central density indicates that, for halos of question here, the subsequent process of accretion of mass onto halos is largely a random process, independent of the density of the initial central “seed". The fact that halos of different masses show a comparable range of central density (not shown in figures) suggest that halos of varying masses form nearly simultaneously, dictated by the nature of the cold dark matter power spectrum at the high-k end; i.e., density fluctuations on those scales involved here depend weakly (logarithmically) on the mass. The non-correlation between the inner slope of the halo density profile and the environmental density may be interpreted in the following way. One may regard regions of different overdensities as local mini-universes of varying density parameters. The independence of the inner slope on local density is thus consistent with published results that the halo density profiles in universes of different $\Omega_M$ do not significantly vary.
Spin Parameter For Dark Matter Halos
------------------------------------
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
![ A scatter plot of the spin parameter, $\lambda$, versus the halo central density, defined as the density at $r<0.2r_{v}$. for all the halos with $M>10^6 \ h^{-1} M_\odot$ at $z=6$. \[f10b\]](f10cnew.ps){width="1.0\hsize"}
![Comparison of the halo density profile slope parameter $\alpha$ versus spin parameter $\lambda$. No correlation between the two is observed. \[f11\]](f11new.ps){width="1.0\hsize"}
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.00}$ - 10$^{7.25}$ & 0.043$\pm$0.001 & 0.043$\pm$0.001 & 0.042$\pm$0.001 & 0.040$\pm$0.001\
10$^{7.25}$ - 10$^{7.50}$ & 0.042$\pm$0.001 & 0.041$\pm$0.001 & 0.037$\pm$0.001 & 0.037$\pm$0.001\
10$^{7.50}$ - 10$^{8.00}$ & 0.041$\pm$0.001 & 0.039$\pm$0.001 & 0.035$\pm$0.001 & 0.035$\pm$0.002\
$>$ 10$^{8.00}$ & 0.035$\pm$0.001 & 0.033$\pm$0.001 & 0.031$\pm$0.002 & 0.031$\pm$0.007\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.00}$ - 10$^{7.25}$ & 0.43$\pm$0.01 & 0.44$\pm$0.01 & 0.44$\pm$0.01 & 0.41$\pm$0.01\
10$^{7.25}$ - 10$^{7.50}$ & 0.43$\pm$0.01 & 0.42$\pm$0.01 & 0.38$\pm$0.01 & 0.41$\pm$0.02\
10$^{7.50}$ - 10$^{8.00}$ & 0.42$\pm$0.01 & 0.41$\pm$0.01 & 0.41$\pm$0.01 & 0.32$\pm$0.03\
$>$ 10$^{8.00}$ & 0.40$\pm$0.01 & 0.39$\pm$0.02 & 0.31$\pm$0.04 & 0.43$\pm$0.15\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.51$\pm$0.03 & 0.49$\pm$0.04 & 0.44$\pm$0.06 & 0.44$\pm$0.08\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.55$\pm$0.06 & 0.52$\pm$0.12 & 0.48$\pm$0.14 & 0.50$\pm$0.16\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.56$\pm$0.09 & 0.51$\pm$0.21 & 0.49$\pm$0.24 & 0.45$\pm$0.32\
[rrrrrrrr]{} 10$^{7.0}$ - 10$^{7.5}$ & 0.27$\pm$0.03 & 0.28$\pm$0.04 & 0.27$\pm$0.06 & 0.25$\pm$0.07\
10$^{7.5}$ - 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.26$\pm$0.05 & 0.29$\pm$0.10 & 0.29$\pm$0.11 & 0.26$\pm$0.12\
$>$ 10$^{8.0}$ & 0.27$\pm$0.08 & 0.35$\pm$0.18 & 0.29$\pm$0.16 & 0.36$\pm$0.23\
We compute the spin parameter defined as $$\lambda \equiv {J|E|^{1/2}\over G M^{5/2}}$$ (Peebles 1969), where $G$ is the gravitational constant; $M$ is the total mass of the dark matter halo; $J$ is the total angular momentum of the dark matter halo; $E$ is the total energy of the dark matter halo; all quantities are computed within the virial radius. We fit the $\lambda$ distributions using a modified lognormal function: $$P(\lambda) = {1\over (\lambda+\epsilon_0)\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{\lambda}}\exp{(-{[\ln (\lambda+\epsilon_0) -\ln \lambda_0]^2\over 2\sigma_{\lambda}})},$$ where $\epsilon_0$ is fixed to be $0.0125$, which is determined through experimentation. The modified lognormal fits for $\lambda$ are shown as smooth curves in Figure 15; the goodness of the fits is typical. Tables 8,9 lists fitting parameters $\lambda_0$ and $\sigma_\lambda$, respectively. Note that the median value of $\lambda$ is $\lambda_{med}=\lambda_0-\epsilon_0$.
We see that the typical spin parameter has a value $0.03-0.04$. However, the distribution of the spin parameter among halos is very broad, with a lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$. This implies that consequences that depend on the spin of a halo are likely to be widely distributed even at a fixed dark matter halo mass. Such consequences may include the size of a galactic disk and correlations between dark matter halo spin (conceivable misalignment between spin of gas and spin of dark matter would complicate the situation) and other quantities.
In Figures 16 and 17 we show the correlation between $\lambda$ and the central density of the halo, and between $\lambda$ and the environmental density, respectively. We find that there may possibly exist a weak correlations between $\lambda$ and the central density of the halo, in the sense that halos with higher central densities (or equivalently earlier formation times) have lower $\lambda$, with a very large scatter, whereas no correlation is discernible between $\lambda$ and the environmental density. Finally, Figure 18 show the relation between $\lambda$ and $\alpha$, where no correlation is visible.
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
{width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"} 0.01in {width="2.8in"} {width="2.8in"}
Angular Momentum Profile For Dark Matter Halos
----------------------------------------------
Next, we compute the angular momentum profiles for individual dark matter halos. We then fit the each angular momentum profile by the following function in the small $|j|$ regime: $${M(<j)\over M_v} = A{j\over j_0} + {M(<0)\over M_v},$$ where $A$ and $M(<0)$ are two fitting parameters; $M_v$ is the virial mass and $j_0\equiv J/M_v=\lambda GM^{3/2}/|E|^{1/2}$.
In order to compute the angular momentum profile an appropriate smoothing window needs to be applied to dark matter particles. We find that $M(<0)/M_v$ varies for different smoothing scales, with typical values around 0.2, while $A$ remains roughly constant for each individual halo. However, $A$ is broadly distributed for all dark matter halos. Figure 19 show histograms for the distributions of $A_0$, for four randomly selected cases. We fit the $A$ distribution using a modified lognormal function: $$P(A) = {1\over (A+\epsilon_A)\sqrt{2\pi} \sigma_{A}}\exp{(-{[\ln (A+\epsilon_A) -\ln A_0]^2\over 2\sigma_{A}})},$$ where $\epsilon_A=0.4$ is fixed through experimentation. Tables 10,11 list fitting parameters $A_0$ and $\sigma_A$, respectively.
In general we find our fitting formula (Equation 10) provides a good fit for each individual halo. The distribution of matter at small $j$ is most relevant for the formation of central objects, such as black holes (e.g., Colgate [et al. ]{}2003) or bulges (e.g., D’Onghia & Burkert 2004). Our calculation indicates that the fraction of mass in a halo having specific angular momentum less than a certain value is roughly $0.5$ times the ratio of that value over the average specific angular momentum of the halo.
Bulk Velocity of Dark Matter Halos
----------------------------------
Finally, we compute the peculiar velocity of dark matter halos. We find that the distribution once again can be fitted by lognormal distributions as equation (9). In order to provide a good fit for the results at $z=6$ shown in Figure 20, it is found that $\epsilon=40$km/s in equation (8) with median velocity $v_m\sim 38\pm 2$km/s and lognormal dispersion $\sigma_v=0.22\pm 0.01$. We caution, however, the absolute value of the peculiar velocity of each halo, unlike the quantities examined in previous subsections, may be significantly affected by large waves not present in our simulation box. Adding missing large waves should increase the zero point $\epsilon$ to a larger value. Therefore, the peculiar velocity shown should be treated as a lower limit. In other words, expected peculiar velocity of dark matter halos at these redshifts are likely in excess of $30-40$km/s.
Conclusions
===========
Using a high resolution TPM N-body simulation of the standard cold dark matter cosmological model with a particle mass of $m_p=3.57\times 10^4 \ h^{-1}M_\odot$ and a softening length of $\epsilon=0.14 \ h^{-1}$kpc in a $4h^{-1}$Mpc box, we compute various properties of dark matter halos with mass $10^{6.5}-10^9\msun$ at redshift $z=6-11$. We find the following results.
\(1) Dark matter halos at such small mass at high redshifts are already significantly biased over matter with a bias factor in the range $2-6$.
\(2) The dark matter halo mass function displays a slope at the small end $2.05\pm 0.15$.
\(3) The central density profile of dark matter halos are found to be in the range $(0.4-1.0)$ well fitted by $\alpha_0=0.75((1+z)/7.0)^{-1.25}(M/10^7\msun)^{0.11(1+z)/7.0}$ with a dispersion of $\pm 0.5$, in rough agreement with the theoretical arguments given in Ricotti (2003) and Subramanian [et al. ]{}(2000).
\(4) The median spin parameter of the dark matter halos is $0.03-0.04$ but with a lognormal dispersion of $\sim 0.4$. The angular momentum profile at the small end is approximately linear with the fraction of mass in a halo having specific angular momentum less than a certain value is roughly $0.5$ times the ratio of that value over the average specific angular momentum of the halo.
\(5) The dark matter halos move at a typical velocity in excess of $30-40$km/s.
This research was supported in part by AST-0206299 and NAG5-13381. The computations were performed on the National Science Foundation Terascale Computing System at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.
Becker, R.H., [et al. ]{}2001, AJ, 122, 2850 Bertschinger, E.,& Gelb, J.M. 1991, Computers in Physics, 5, 164 Bertschinger, E. 2001, , 137, 1 Bode, P., & Ostriker, J.P. 2003, ApJS, 145, 1 Bode, P., Ostriker, J.P., & Xu, G. 2000, , 128, 561 Cen, R. 2003, ApJ, 591, 12 Colgate, S.A., Cen, R., Li, H., Currier, N., & Warren, M.S. 2003, ApJL in press, astro-ph/0310776 D’Onghia, E., & Burkert, A. 2004, astro-ph/0402504 Fan, X., [et al. ]{}2001, AJ, 122, 2833 Lacey, C., & Cole, S. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627. Ma, C.-P., & Bertschinger, E. 1995, , 455, 7 Mo, H.J., & White, S.D.M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347 Navarro, J., Frenk, C.S., & White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Peebles, P.J.E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393 Press, W.H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton: Princeton University Press) Ricotti, M. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1237 Syer, D., & White, S.D.M. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 337 Subramanian, K., Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P. 2000, ApJ, 538, 528 Xu, G. 1995, , 98, 355
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We propose a detection method for ultracold atoms which allows reconstruction of the full one-particle and two-particle correlation functions from the measurements. The method is based on Fourier sampling of the time-of-flight images through two consecutive impulsive Raman pulses. For applications of this method, we discuss a few examples, including detection of phase separation between superfluid and Mott insulators, various types of spin or superfluid orders, entanglement, exotic or fluctuating orders.'
address: 'FOCUS center and MCTP, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 '
author:
- 'L.-M. Duan'
title: 'Detecting correlation functions of ultracold atoms through Fourier sampling of time-of-flight images'
---
Ultracold atomic gas provides an ideal system for controlled study of various kinds of strongly correlated many-body physics [@1; @2; @3]. To reveal different many-body phenomena, the correlation function plays a critical role. In condensed matter systems, information about the correlation function is typically collected through linear response or scattering experiments [@4]. For ultracold atomic gas, the most powerful detection technique is arguably the time-of-flight imaging [@5]. For ballistic expansion of the atomic gas, the time-of-flight images actually give information of the atom number distribution in the momentum space, which corresponds to the diagonal terms of the one-particle correlation function. As we have only diagonal correlation function in the momentum space, it is in general inadequate to use it to reconstruct the correlation function in the real space.
In this paper, we propose a detection method which extends the time-of-flight imaging technique by gaining much more information of the correlation function. The method detects all the non-diagonal correlation terms as well as the diagonal ones in the momentum space through application of two consecutive impulsive Raman pulses at the beginning of the expansion which introduces a tunable momentum difference to the correlation terms. With this kind of Fourier sampling in the momentum space, one can reconstruct the full one-particle correlation function in the real space. If one repeats the time-of-flight imaging measurements many times, as has been shown in recent works [@6; @7], it is also possible to detect the noise spectroscopy by looking at the statistical correlation between different images. With a combination of the Fourier sampling and the noise spectroscopy, one can also reconstruct the full two-particle correlation function. The reconstruction of the full one-particle and two-particle correlation functions represents an unprecedented detection ability, which gives very detailed information of the underlying many-body system. As illustration of applications, we discuss a few examples, including detection of phase separation between the superfluid and the Mott insulator states for bosonic atoms in a trap, various types of spin or superfluid orders in multi-component Bose or fermi gas, entanglement in an optical lattice, patterns of the valence bonds associated with some exotic quantum phases [@10], and the fluctuating orders which exist only in short distance [@11].
In the time-of-flight imaging experiment, what one measures from light absorption is the column integrated density of the expanding atomic cloud. The signal is proportional to the column average of the atom density operator, which, for the spin component $\alpha $, is denoted as $%
\left\langle n_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) \right\rangle
=\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) \Psi
_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) \right\rangle $, where $\Psi _{\alpha
}\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) $ represents the field operator for bosonic or fermionic atoms at the position $\mathbf{r}$ and the expansion time $t$. We assume ballistic expansions with the atomic collision effect negligible during the time of flight [@note1]. In such a case, if the expansion time $t$ is long enough so that the size of the final expanded cloud is much larger than the size of the initial one, the density $\left\langle n_{\alpha
}\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) \right\rangle $ is connected with the initial momentum distribution of the atoms by a simple relation $\left\langle
n_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r,}t\right) \right\rangle \propto \left\langle
n_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle =\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k%
}\right) \right\rangle $ with the corresponding wave vector $\mathbf{k=}m%
\mathbf{r/}\left( \hbar t\right) $ [@5; @6]. So the conventional time-of-flight imaging measures the diagonal terms of the one-particle correlation function in the momentum space.
To reconstruct the full one-particle correlation function, it is required to measure also the non-diagonal correlation terms $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k}%
^{\prime }\right) \right\rangle $ in the momentum space. For that purpose, we propose a detection method as illustrated in Fig. 1, which combines the time-of-flight imaging with two consecutive impulsive Raman pulses. We assume there is an additional atomic hyperfine spin level $\beta $ which is initially empty (such a level is always available for typical alkali atoms). Right after turnoff of the trapping potential but before any significant expansion of the atomic cloud, we apply two impulsive Raman pulses to all the atoms. The duration $\delta t$ of the Raman pulses is short so that one can neglect the cloud expansion and the atomic collision within $\delta t$. We assume that the two travelling-wave beams for the first Raman operation are propagating along different directions with the corresponding wave vectors $\mathbf{k}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{k}_{2}$, so the effective Raman Rabi frequency has a spatially varying phase with the form $\Omega \left( \mathbf{%
r}\right) =\Omega _{0}e^{i\left( \delta \mathbf{k\cdot r+\varphi }%
_{1}\right) }$, where $\delta \mathbf{k\equiv k}_{2}-\mathbf{k}_{1}$ and $%
\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}$ is a constant phase. The Hamiltonian within the interval $\delta t$ can then be written as $H=\int d^{3}\mathbf{r}\Omega
\left( \mathbf{r}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}\right)
\Psi _{\beta }\left( \mathbf{r}\right) +H.c.$ Transferring this Hamiltonian into the momentum space, we have $$H=\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\Omega _{0}e^{i\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}}\Psi _{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\beta }\left( \mathbf{k+}\delta
\mathbf{k}\right) +H.c.$$ We choose the intensity of the Raman beams so that $\Omega _{0}\delta t=\pi
/4$. After this Raman operation, the final field operators in the momentum space, denoted as $\Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) $ and $%
\Psi _{\beta }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) $, are connected with the initial ones $\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) ,\Psi _{\beta }\left(
\mathbf{k}\right) $ through the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) &=&\left[ \Psi _{\alpha
}\left( \mathbf{k}\right) +e^{i\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}}\Psi _{\beta }\left(
\mathbf{k+}\delta \mathbf{k}\right) \right] /\sqrt{2}, \nonumber \\
\Psi _{\beta }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) &=&\left[ \Psi _{\beta
}\left( \mathbf{k}\right) -e^{-i\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}}\Psi _{\alpha }\left(
\mathbf{k-}\delta \mathbf{k}\right) \right] /\sqrt{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we immediately apply the second Raman operation which is from two co-propagating laser beams connecting the levels $\alpha ,\beta $ with a spatially constant effective Rabi frequency $\Omega _{0}e^{i\mathbf{\varphi }%
_{2}}$. With the same pulse area $\Omega _{0}\delta t=\pi /4$, the second Raman operation induces the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) &=&\left[ \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) +e^{i\mathbf{\varphi }_{2}}\Psi
_{\beta }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right] /\sqrt{2}, \nonumber \\
\Psi _{\beta }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) &=&\left[ \Psi
_{\beta }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) -e^{-i\mathbf{\varphi }_{2}}\Psi
_{\alpha }^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right] /\sqrt{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) ,\Psi
_{\beta }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) $ denote the final field operators after the second Raman operation. We then perform the conventional time-of-flight imaging, with the atoms in different spin components $\alpha
,\beta $ separated during the flight through a magnetic field gradient [@5]. This imaging measures the momentum distribution $\left\langle n_{\alpha
}^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle =\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\prime \prime \dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha
}^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle $ and $\left\langle
n_{\beta }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle
=\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime \prime \dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}%
\right) \Psi _{\alpha }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right)
\right\rangle $. With a combination of Eqs. (2) and (3), we find that the difference between the two images $\left\langle n_{\alpha \beta }^{\prime
\prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle \equiv \left\langle n_{\alpha
}^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle -\left\langle
n_{\beta }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle $ gives the non-diagonal correlation terms $$\left\langle n_{\alpha \beta }^{\prime \prime }\left( \mathbf{k}\right)
\right\rangle =-\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k-}\delta
\mathbf{k}\right) e^{i\delta \mathbf{\varphi }}\right\rangle ,$$ where $\delta \mathbf{\varphi =\varphi }_{2}-\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}$ and we have used the fact that $\Psi _{\beta }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) $ is initially in the vacuum state.
![ (1A) Raman pulses with different propagating directions introduce a momentum kick. (1B) The momentum ladder connected by two consecutive impulsive Raman pulses. The first $\protect\pi/2$ Raman pulse (pulse $1$) introduces a tunable momentum kick $\protect\delta k$, while the second one (pulse $2$) has no kick. The atoms are initially in the spin-$\alpha$ state.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](dp1.eps){height="3cm" width="8cm"}
With the above method, we have shown how to measure the real and imaginary parts of the non-diagonal correlation function $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k-}\delta
\mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle $ by choosing the relative phase $\delta
\mathbf{\varphi =0}$ or $\pi /2$, respectively. The momentum difference $%
\delta \mathbf{k}$ is controlled by the relative angle of the two laser pulses for the first Raman operation. By varying this angle, $\delta \mathbf{%
k}$ can be varied from $0$ to $2\mathbf{k}_{0}$, where $\left| \mathbf{k}%
_{0}\right| =2\pi /\lambda $ is the optical wave vector. With a Fourier transform of $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}%
\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k-}\delta \mathbf{k}\right)
\right\rangle $, one can reconstruct the real-space correlation function $%
\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r+}\delta \mathbf{r/2}%
\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r-}\delta \mathbf{r/2}\right)
\right\rangle =\int \left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k+}%
\delta \mathbf{k/2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k-}\delta \mathbf{%
k/2}\right) \right\rangle e^{i\left( \mathbf{k\cdot }\delta \mathbf{r+\delta
k\cdot r}\right) }d\delta \mathbf{k}d\mathbf{k}/2\pi $, with a spatial resolution in $\mathbf{r}$ down to $2\pi /\left| \delta \mathbf{k}\right|
_{\max }=\lambda /2$. This kind of Fourier sampling in the momentum space through the laser phase gradient allows us to directly probe very small spatial structure in the ultracold atomic gas, although the probe beams are always shined on all the atoms without separate addressing of any particular region. For instance, for the case of atoms in an optical lattice, with such a resolution, we can reconstruct the correlation $\left\langle a_{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( i\right) a_{\alpha }\left( j\right) \right\rangle $ of the mode operators $a_{\alpha }$ at two arbitrary sites $i$ and $j$ (the lattice spacing is $\lambda /2$).
Before showing how to measure the full two-particle correlation function, we add a few remarks here. First, note that in the above method, it is essential to apply two consecutive Raman operations. If we introduce momentum difference $\delta \mathbf{k}$ by applying only one Raman operation on the same spin component $\alpha $ with the Hamiltonian $H^{\prime }=\sum_{%
\mathbf{k}}\Omega _{0}e^{i\mathbf{\varphi }_{1}}\Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger
}\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k+}\delta \mathbf{k}%
\right) +H.c.$, the $H^{\prime }$ will couple the whole momentum ladder $%
\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) $, $\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{%
k\pm }\delta \mathbf{k}\right) $, $\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k\pm 2}%
\delta \mathbf{k}\right) $, $\cdots $, and we thus cannot get a simple form of transformation such as those given by Eqs. (2) and (3). So the method with two consecutive Raman operations seems to be the easiest one for measuring the non-diagonal momentum correlations. Second, in the above method, we have assumed to tune the momentum difference by changing the relative angle of two laser pulses. This tuning can also be achieved by applying a sequence of laser pulses incident along two fixed directions with a small angle $\delta \theta $, with each pair of pulses introducing a fixed momentum kick $\mathbf{k}_{\delta }=2\left| \mathbf{k}_{0}\right| \sin
\left( \delta \theta /2\right) \simeq \left| \mathbf{k}_{0}\right| \delta
\theta $ (see illustration in Fig. 2 and its caption). With a maximum of $N$ such pulse pairs, the momentum difference $\delta \mathbf{k}$ in the correlation function (4) can be tuned among different values $\mathbf{k}%
_{\delta }$, $2\mathbf{k}_{\delta },$ $\cdots $, $N\mathbf{k}_{\delta }$, which corresponds to a discrete Fourier sampling of the atomic correlation function with the momentum-space and real-space resolutions given respectively by $\left| \mathbf{k}_{0}\right| \delta \theta $ and $\lambda
/\left( N\delta \theta \right) $. Finally, the above method can be generalized straightforwardly to measure also the spin-spatial correlations. If we have multiple Zeeman spin components $\alpha ,\alpha ^{\prime },\cdots
$ for the state of the atomic cloud, one can reconstruct the full spin-spatial correlation $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left(
\mathbf{k}_{\mathbf{1}}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{k}%
_{2}\right) \right\rangle $ (or $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger
}\left( \mathbf{r}_{\mathbf{1}}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left(
\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \right\rangle $) through a combination of the above Fourier sampling with a pair of Raman pulses which mixes the spin components $\alpha ,\alpha ^{\prime }$.
![ Tunable momentum kicks with pulses propagating in fixed directions. Steps (A) and (D) represent $\protect\pi/2$ pulses with no momentum kicks. Steps (B) and (C) represent $\protect\pi$ pulses which a small fixed momentum kick $k_{\protect\delta}$ (pulses for B, C are propagating in reverse directions). The intermediate pulses B, C can be applied with a controlled number of times, which correspond a discrete Fourier sampling of the correlation function with a momentum-space resolution of $k_{\protect\delta}$.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](dp2.eps){height="3cm" width="8cm"}
The above method, combined with the noise spectroscopy, can also be used to reconstruct the full two-particle correlation function $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger
}\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right)
\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{4}\right) \right\rangle $. For the noise spectroscopy [@6; @7], one just needs to note that for different runs of experiment, the time-of-flight images can have quantum fluctuation even if one starts with the same state of the atomic cloud. One image corresponds to a single-run measurement of the column integrated atomic density operator, and by looking at correlation of different images, one can find out quantum correlation of the density operator. To detect such quantum correlation, all the technical noise for the images needs to be reduced below the level of quantum noise. It is remarkable that the recent experiments have shown that such quantum correlation of images is indeed visible after suppression of the technical noise [@7]. Each time-of-flight imaging corresponds to a measurement of the one-particle momentum correlation $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k%
}-\delta \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle .$ To reconstruct the full two-particle correlation function, one just needs to repeat each of such imaging measurements $M$ times ($M$ needs to be sufficiently large so that $%
1/\sqrt{M}$, which characterize the statistical error for the quantum correlation measurement, is sufficiently small). Then, by looking at the correlation of arbitrary two images corresponding to $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k%
}-\delta \mathbf{k}\right) \right\rangle $ and $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha
}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}^{\prime }\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{%
k}^{\prime }-\delta \mathbf{k}^{\prime }\right) \right\rangle $ respectively, one gets the two-particle correlation $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k%
}-\delta \mathbf{k}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{k}%
^{\prime }\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{k}^{\prime }-\delta \mathbf{k%
}^{\prime }\right) \right\rangle $. As the two images can be arbitrarily chosen (with different $\mathbf{k,k}^{\prime },\delta \mathbf{k,}\delta
\mathbf{k}^{\prime }$), this gives us the full two-particle correlation in the momentum space, and the real-pace correlation $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right)
\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{4}\right) \right\rangle $ is simply its Fourier transform. The spatial resolution in this case is still given by $%
\lambda /2$ similar to the one-particle correlation measurement.
The measurement of the full one-particle and two-particle correlation functions gives very detailed information of the many-body properties of the underlying system. Here, we give a few examples for illustration of its applications. We start with one-particle correlation function. As the first example, note that for the superfluid to Mott insulator transition in a global harmonic trap (as it is the case for experiments), theory has predicted phase separation with layers of superfluid states intervened in by layers of Mott insulator states with decreasing integer filling numbers [@9]. Such a picture have not been confirmed yet by experiments as with the conventional time-of-flight imaging, it is hard to see this layer-by-layer structure. Through the Fourier sampling, however, one can reconstruct the one-particle correlation $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right)
\right\rangle $. From this correlation, it would be evident to see the phase separation: the Mott insulator state is characterized by a vanishing non-diagonal correlation and a constant (integer) diagonal correlation, while the superfluid state is characterized by both non-zero diagonal and non-diagonal correlations which vary continuously in space.
With ultracold atoms in an optical lattice, one can realize different magnetic Hamiltonians [@13]. Depending on the lattice geometry and interaction configurations, such Hamiltonians may support various types of magnetic orders [@13; @14]. The magnetic orders typically can be written in the form $\left\langle \mathbf{S}_{i}\right\rangle =\mathbf{v}_{1}\cos
\left( \mathbf{K\cdot r}_{i}\right) +\mathbf{v}_{2}\sin \left( \mathbf{%
K\cdot r}_{i}\right) $ [@10], where $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ is the spin operator on the site $i$ with the coordinate $\mathbf{r}_{i}$, $\mathbf{v}%
_{1}$ and $\mathbf{v}_{2}$ are two vectors specifying certain directions, and $\mathbf{K}$ characterizes spatial variation of the order parameter. The spin $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ is defined as $\mathbf{S}_{i}=\sum_{\alpha \alpha
^{\prime }}a_{i\alpha }^{\dagger }\mathbf{\sigma }_{\alpha \alpha ^{\prime
}}a_{i\alpha ^{\prime }}/2$, where $\mathbf{\sigma }$ is the Pauli matrix and $a_{i\alpha }$ is the mode operator which is connected with the field operator $\Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}\right) $ through $a_{i\alpha
}=\int w_{i}^{\ast }\left( \mathbf{r}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}%
\right) d^{3}\mathbf{r}$ ($w_{i}^{\ast }\left( \mathbf{r}\right) $ is the Wannier function for the site $i$). Through Fourier sampling of the time-of-flight images with a resolution $\lambda /2$, one can reconstruct correlation of the mode operators $\left\langle a_{i\alpha }^{\dagger
}a_{j\alpha ^{\prime }}\right\rangle $ on any sites ($i=j$ for the special case). So one can directly detect any type of spatial variation of the order parameter $\left\langle \mathbf{S}_{i}\right\rangle $ (note that the conventional time-of-flight imaging cannot detect spatially varying order parameters).
Another interesting application of this Fourier sampling technique is to detect local fluctuating orders. Local fluctuating orders, such as stripes (unidirectional density waves), have received wide attention in strongly correlated physics (in particular for high-Tc superconductors) [@11]. The local fluctuating order typically takes place near a critical point with competing orders or at the proximity of an ordered phase. With ultracold fermions in an optical lattice, the fundamental Hamiltonian is very similar to those models for high-Tc superconductors [@15; @16]. One expects that competing fluctuating orders may arise as well in the phase diagram of this system. The local fluctuating orders such as stripes correspond to real-space patterns of some micro-phase separation [@11], and the conventional time-of-flight imaging cannot see it because it will be averaged out. However, through the Fourier sampling technique with a spatial resolution down to the lattice constant, it should be evident to detect these local fluctuating orders whenever they show up. A measurement of the one-particle correlation $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right)
\right\rangle $ is typically enough to probe the fluctuating orders such as the local density waves (stripes).
The above discussion shows some applications of the one-particle correlation. With the two-particle correlation measured, one can gain further information. For example, one can use the two-particle correlation to unambiguously detect the entanglement pattern for ultracold atoms in an optical lattice. Through controlled atomic collisions, one can generate entanglement for atoms on different lattice sites [@17], and some initial experimental evidence of entanglement has been reported for such a system [@18]. It is hard however to directly detect atomic entanglement between different sites or regions inside an optical lattice as the conventional detection technique donot have such a spatial resolution. This entanglement can be unambiguously confirmed with a measurement of spin correlations for atoms on different sites (similar to the Bell inequality measurement). As each spin operator involves only two atomic mode operators, the spin correlation is included in the two-particle correlation function. So, a measurement of the two-particle correlation can gives information of spin entanglement pattern in the lattice.
For fermionic systems with pairing instability (such as the fermionic superfluid state [@3]), it is also desirable to have a method to directly measure the Cooper pair function $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha
}\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{r}%
_{2}\right) \right\rangle .$ The two-particle correlation also gives information of such pair function as with Cooper pairing, the two-particle correlation can be typically approximated with the following decomposition $%
\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi
_{\alpha ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha
^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}%
_{4}\right) \right\rangle \approx \left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger
}\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \right\rangle \left\langle \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime
}}\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{4}\right)
\right\rangle +\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}%
_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{4}\right) \right\rangle
\newline
\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}%
_{2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right)
\right\rangle -\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }^{\dagger }\left( \mathbf{r}%
_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left( \mathbf{r}_{3}\right)
\right\rangle \left\langle \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}^{\dagger
}\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \Psi _{\alpha }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{4}\right) \right\rangle $ by applying the Wick theorem. As the one-particle correlation is known already with the Fourier sampling, so a measurement of the two-particle correlation gives the pair function $\left\langle \Psi _{\alpha }\left(
\mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime }}\left(
\mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \right\rangle $ (the two-particle correlation actually contains more information, for instance, it can be used to check self-consistently whether the above decomposition is valid). The pair function $\left\langle \Psi
_{\alpha }\left( \mathbf{r}_{1}\right) \Psi _{\alpha ^{\prime
}}\left( \mathbf{r}_{2}\right) \right\rangle $ can tell us the symmetry (s-wave or d-wave for instance) and the size of the Cooper pairs as well as how the pair structure changes in space.
Finally, a potentially more interesting application of the two-particle correlation might be that it gives us a way to directly detect the patterns of valence bonds in an optical lattice. A valence bond on the sites $i,j$ (not necessarily neighbors) is simply the ground state of the bond operator $%
Q_{ij}=\mathbf{S}_{i}\cdot \mathbf{S}_{j}$ ($\mathbf{S}_{i}$ are spin operators) [@10]. The resonating valence bond (RVB) states [@19; @10], which include many possible patterns of the valence bond distribution in the lattice, have been conjectured as one of the most likely ground state of the $t$-$J$ or Hubbard models in the strongly correlated limit. As the number of possible configurations of the RVB states increses exponentially with the size of the lattice, it is hard to figure out the distribution pattern of the valence bonds in an lattice. However, with an atomic realization of the $%
t$-$J$ model [@16], one can directly measure the bond operators $Q_{ij}$ in an optical lattice to find out the most likely distribution pattern of the valence bonds. Each bond operator $Q_{ij}$ corresponds to a special component of the two-particle correlation function, so a measurement of the two-particle correlation with Fourier sampling gives complete information about the bond distribution.
In summary, we have proposed a detection method which combines the commonly-used time-of-flight imaging technique with the Fourier sampling based on application of two consecutive impulsive Raman pulses. This detection method allows us to reconstruct the full one-particle and two-particle correlation functions. We have discussed a few examples for illustration of the wide applications of the correlation functions for probing many-body properties of the underlying system.
This work was supported by the NSF award (0431476), the ARDA under ARO contracts, and the A. P. Sloan Fellowship.
[99]{} For a review, see D. Jaksch, P. Zoller, cond-mat/0410614.
M. Greiner, et al., Nature 415, 39 (2002); C. Orzel, et al., Science 291, 2386 (2001).
C.A. Regal, M. Greiner and D.S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 040403 (2004); M.W. Zwierlein *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 120403 (2004); C. Chin *et al.*, Science **305**, 1128 (2004); J. Kinast *et al.*, Science **307**, 1296 (2005); M.W. Zwierlein *et al.*, Nature 435, 1047 (2005); M. Holland *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 120406 (2001).
W. Jones, and N. H. March, *Theoretical solid state physics*, Dove, New York (1985).
For a review, see W. Ketterle, D.S. Durfee, D.M. Stamper-Kurn, cond-mat/9904034.
E. Altman, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 70, 013603 (2004).
S. Folling et al., Nature 434, 481 (2005); M. Greiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 110401 (2005); C.-S. Chuu et al., quant-ph/0508143.
D. Jaksch, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 3108 (1998); B. DeMarco et al., cond-mat/0501718.
S. Sachdev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 913 (2003).
S.A.Kivelson et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1201 (2003).
For optical lattice experiments with small filling factors, the ballistic expansion is typically a good approximation. With the Feshbach resonance technique, one can also always tune the collision interaction to a negligible magnitude at the beginning of the expansion to satisfy the condition of the ballistic expansion.
L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003).
L. Santos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 030601 (2004).
W. Hofstetter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 220407 (2002).
L.-M. Duan, cond-mat/0508745.
D. Jaksch, et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 82, 1975 (1999).
O. Mandel et al., Nature 425, 937 (2003).
P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We describe an advanced image reconstruction algorithm for pseudothermal ghost imaging, reducing the number of measurements required for image recovery by an order of magnitude. The algorithm is based on *compressed sensing*, a technique that enables the reconstruction of an $N$-pixel image from much less than $N$ measurements. We demonstrate the algorithm using experimental data from a pseudothermal ghost-imaging setup. The algorithm can be applied to data taken from past pseudothermal ghost-imaging experiments, improving the reconstruction’s quality.'
author:
- Ori Katz
- Yaron Bromberg
- Yaron Silberberg
title: Compressive ghost imaging
---
Ghost imaging (GI) has emerged a decade ago as an imaging technique which exploits the quantum nature of light, and has been in the focus of many studies since [@GattiReview and references therin]. In GI an object is imaged even though the light which illuminates it is collected by a single-pixel detector which has no spatial resolution (a bucket detector). This is done by correlating the intensities measured by the bucket detector with an image of the field which impinges upon the object. GI was originally performed using entangled photon pairs [@PitmanPRA95], and later on was realized with classical light sources [@Boyd02; @XrayPRL; @GattiPRL05; @ShihPRL05]. The demonstrations of GI with classical light sources, and especially pseudothermal sources, triggered an ongoing effort to implement GI for various sensing applications [@XrayPRL; @ShihSoldierPRA08]. However, one of the main drawbacks of pseudothermal GI is the long acquisition times required for reconstructing images with a good signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) [@GattiReview; @ShapiroSNR].
In this work we propose an advanced reconstruction algorithm for pseudothermal GI, which reduces significantly the required acquisition times. The algorithm is based on *compressed sensing* (or *compressive sampling*, CS) [@CSintro; @Imaging; @via; @CS], an advanced sampling and reconstruction technique which has been recently implemented in several fields of imaging. Examples for such are magnetic resonance imaging [@MRI; @CS], astronomy [@CS; @in; @Astronomy], THz imaging [@THz; @CS], and single-pixel cameras [@single; @pixel; @camera]. The main idea behind CS is to exploit the redundancy in the structure of most natural signals/objects to reduce the number of measurements required for faithful reconstruction. Here we show that applying a CS-based reconstruction algorithm to data taken from conventional pseudothermal GI measurements dramatically improves the SNR of the reconstructed images and thus allows for shorter acquisition times.
![\[fig:setup\] (Color online) (a) Standard pseudothermal GI two-detectors setup. A copy of the speckle field which impinges on the object is imaged with a CCD camera, and correlated with the intensity measured by a bucket detector. (b) The computational GI single-detector setup used in this work. A pseudothermal light beam is generated by applying controllable phase masks $\varphi_{r}(x,y)$ with a spatial light modulator (SLM). The object image is obtained by correlating the intensity measured by the bucket detector, with the *calculated* field at the object plane. ](fig1.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In conventional pseudothermal GI, an object is illuminated by a speckle field generated by passing a laser beam through a rotating diffuser \[Fig. 1(a)\]. For each phase realization $r$ of the diffuser, the speckle field $I_{r}(x,y)$ which impinges on the object is imaged. This is done by splitting the beam before the object to an ’object arm’ and a ’reference arm’, and placing a CCD camera at the reference arm. At the object arm, a bucket detector measures the total intensity $B_{r}$ which is transmitted through the object, described by a transmission function $T(x,y)$:$$B_{r}=\int
dxdyI_{r}(x,y)T(x,y).\label{eq:Br}$$. To reconstruct the object’s transmission function, the bucket detector measurements are cross-correlated with the intensities measured at the reference arm:$$\begin{aligned}
T_{GI}(x,y) & = &
\frac{1}{M}\sum_{r=1}^{M}(B_{r}-\langle
B\rangle)I_{r}(x,y),\label{eq:T_GI}\end{aligned}$$
where $\langle\cdot\rangle\equiv\frac{1}{M}\sum_{r}\cdot$ denotes an ensemble average over $M$ realizations (measurements). From Eq. (\[eq:T\_GI\]) one can see that the image is obtained by a linear superposition of the intensity patterns $I_{r}(x,y)$ with the appropriate weights $B_{r}-\langle B\rangle$. Each bucket measurement $B_{r}$ is the overlap between the object and the illumination pattern \[Eq. (\[eq:Br\])\]. Thus, the GI measurement process is in essence a vector projection of the object transmission function $T(x,y)$ over $M$ different random vectors $I_{r}(x,y)$.
The GI linear reconstruction process has no assumptions on the to-be-resolved object. Thus if the number of resolution cells (speckles) which cover the object is $N$, one needs at least $M=N$ different intensity patterns in order to reconstruct the object (the measurement’s Nyquist limit). In fact, since the different intensity patterns $I_{r}(x,y)$ overlap, $M\gg N$ measurements are needed to meet $SNR\gg1$ [@ShapiroSNR; @GattiReview]. However, any prior information on the structure of the object could significantly reduce the number of measurements required for a faithful reconstruction. Remarkably, for most imaging tasks such information exists: natural images are sparse, that is, they contain many coefficients close to or equal to zero when represented in an appropriate basis (e.g. the discrete cosine transform (DCT)). This fact is at the core of modern lossy image compression algorithms, such as JPEG [@Imaging; @via; @CS]. The main idea behind CS is to exploit this sparsity/compressibility to reduce the number of measurements needed for faithful image recovery.
CS reconstruction algorithms search for the most sparse image in the compressible basis which fulfills the $M<N$ random projections measured. It requires solving a convex optimization program, seeking for the image $T_{CS}(x,y)$ which minimizes the $L_{1}$-norm in the sparse basis (i.e. the sum of the absolute values of the transform coefficients) [@CSintro; @Imaging; @via; @CS]:$$\begin{aligned}
T_{CS} & = & T'\text{ which minimizes: }||\Psi\left\{ T'(x,y)\right\} ||_{L_{1}}\nonumber \\
\text{subject} & \text{to} & \int dxdyI_{r}(x,y)T'(x,y)=B_{r}, \;
\forall _{r=1..M}\label{eq:T_CS}\end{aligned}$$
where $B_r$ are the $M$ gathered projections measurements, and $\Psi$ is the transform operator to the sparse basis (e.g. 2D-DCT). Finding the image with the minimal $L_{1}$-norm can be realized as a linear program, for which efficient solution methods exist. According to CS theory, one can reconstruct compressible images characterized by $K$ transform coefficients with high fidelity, using just $M \geq O\left(K log(N/K)\right)$ random measurements, where $N$ is the total number of resolution cells in the image. Reconstruction of natural images using CS was demonstrated using $M\lesssim N/2$ measurements [@Imaging; @via; @CS; @MRI; @CS; @single; @pixel; @camera]. This sub-Nyquist acquisition results from exploiting the image natural sparsity. We note that since the vectors $I_{r}(x,y)$ are random, they are most likely linearly independent, and therefore $M\geq N$ projection-measurements span the image dimensionality. Thus, the image can be reconstructed (without exploiting the image sparsity) by solving a set of $M$ linear equations using conventional linear least-squares methods. Such a linear algebra based reconstruction outperforms the standard GI reconstruction when $M\geq N$, and gives a perfect result in the absence of measurement noise.
To experimentally demonstrate CS reconstruction in GI, we have used the computational GI setup presented in [@BrombergCGI] \[Fig. 1(b)\]. Computational GI is a variant of the standard two-detectors pseudothermal GI, where the rotating diffuser is replaced by a computer controlled spatial light modulator (SLM) [@shapiroCGI]. Knowing the applied SLM phase mask for each realization $\varphi_{r}(x,y)$, the intensity of the field at the reference arm $I_{r}(x,y)$ is computed using the Fresnel-Huygens propagator, instead of it being measured as in conventional GI. It is important to note that CS reconstruction can be applied to any form of pseudothermal GI. It makes no difference if the reference intensity patterns are computed or measured.
![\[fig: Doubleslit\] Experimental reconstruction of a double-slit transmission plate. Top panel: conventional GI reconstruction with 256 realizations (a), and 512 realizations (b); Bottom panel (c,d): CS reconstruction using the same experimental data as in (a) and (b). The increase in SNR using CS reconstruction is by a factor of $\sim\times4$ in both cases.](fig2.png){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The reconstruction results for a double slit transmission plate (width $220\mu m$, separation $500\mu m$), using $M=256$ and $M=512$ realizations are summarized in Fig. 2. The results of conventional GI reconstruction are plotted in Fig. 2(a-b), and the CS reconstructions *using the same set of measured data* are plotted in Fig. 2(c-d). To quantify the improvement gained by utilizing CS reconstruction, we have calculated the mean SNR of the reconstructed images. The signal was taken as the difference between the mean intensity of the bright slit and the dark background, and the noise was taken as the standard deviation of the dark background pixels. The calculated SNR for the CS reconstruction using 256 realizations is $\times4.4$ times higher than for the standard GI reconstruction, and is $\times4$ times higher in the 512 realizations case. Since the SNR in conventional GI scales as the square-root of the number of realizations [@ShapiroSNR; @GattiReview], our results imply that CS allows for an order of magnitude faster image acquisition, making it attractive for practical imaging tasks. The reconstructions fidelity was estimated by calculating the mean-square error (MSE) of the reconstructions compared to a reference image $T_{ref}$, measured directly by a transmission microscope. The MSE given by $\frac{1}{N_{pix}}\sum_{i,j}
(T_{CS/GI}(x_i,y_j)-T_{ref}(x_i,y_j))^2$ is $0.12$ for GI and $0.04$ for CS using $512$ realizations, and $0.14$ for GI and $0.05$ for CS using $256$ realizations. The summation is done over all the image pixels $N_{pix}$.
The pixel-resolution of the calculated speckle-field image $I_{r}(x,y)$ used for the reconstructions was $64\times64$ pixels ($N_{pix}=4096$). At this resolution the speckles full-width at half-max (FWHM) was $1.53$ pixels, yielding $N=1750$ resolution cells covering the object (the measurement’s Nyquist limit). Therefore in Fig. 2(a,c) the number of measurements used for the reconstructions is $15\%$ of the Nyquist limit, and is $30\%$ of the Nyquist limit in Fig. 2(b,d). The pixel-resolution was chosen such that the individual speckles are resolved (pixel size < speckle size), yet the required computational resources are minimized. For the CS reconstruction we have utilized the gradient projection for sparse reconstruction (GPSR) algorithm [@GPSR; @algorithm], minimizing the $L_{1}$-norm in the 2D-DCT domain. This algorithm follows Eq. (\[eq:T\_CS\]), but considers the presence of noise in each measurement $B_{r}$, by relaxing the equality constraint.
To verify the applicability of CS reconstruction for more general images, we have imaged a transmission plate of the Hebrew letter Aleph ($\aleph$). The results for both GI and CS reconstructions using the same set of 1024 measurements are presented in Fig. 3(a,c). The reference data size used in this case was $70\times76$ pixels, and the speckles size was 2.01 pixels FWHM ($N=1330$). The calculated SNR for the CS reconstruction was $\times3.5$ times higher than the GI SNR, and the calculated MSE was $0.05$ and $0.1$, respectively. Finally, we demonstrate sub-Nyquist CS-GI reconstruction of a natural grayscale image, by reconstructing a $76\times70$ pixel image, containing $N=1330$ resolution cells from $800$ simulated measurements, obtained by multiplying the speckle patterns used in the Aleph reconstruction experiment by the grayscale image values. The obtained MSE is $0.09$ for the GI reconstruction and $0.005$ for the CS reconstruction \[Fig. 3(b,d)\].
![\[fig: Aleph\] (a) Experimental GI reconstruction of a transmission plate of the Hebrew letter Aleph ($\aleph$) from 1024 measurements. (c) same as (a) but utilizing CS reconstruction, yielding $\times3.5$ times higher SNR. (inset: the object’s transmission image). (b,d) Simulated GI and CS reconstructions of a $70\times76$ pixels grayscale portrait of H.Nyquist, using $800$ measurements (60% the Nyquist limit).](fig3.png){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
In conclusion, we have shown that by employing notions from CS theory in a GI reconstruction algorithm, one can boost the recovered image quality. CS unleashes the full potential of the random projections measurement process of pseudothermal GI. It enables image reconstruction with far less measurements than is possible with conventional GI, and in some scenarios, with a scanning beam imaging setup. CS therefore holds potential for future implementations of GI in practical applications such as LIDAR. The presented algorithm can be applied to any pseudothermal GI data taken in the past, yielding superior reconstruction. Moreover, since computational GI allows for scanning-less three-dimensional (3D) image reconstruction [@BrombergCGI], one may consider applying CS-GI to reconstruct 3D objects utilizing sparsity in the 3D-DCT domain or any other 3D-sparse transform basis.
We thank Igor Carron, Justin Romberg, Amnon Amir and Dror Baron for helpful discussions, and KFC and Wim for the arXiv blog thread.
[18]{} A.Gatti, M. Bache, D. Magatti, E. Brambilla, F. Ferri, and L. A. Lugiato J. Mod. Opt., **53**, 739 (2006). T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A **52**, R3429 (1995).
R.S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley and R.W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 113601 (2002).
J. Cheng and S. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 093903 (2004).
F. Ferri, D. Magatti, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 183602 (2005).
A. Valencia, G. Scarcelli, M. D’Angelo, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 063601 (2005).
R. Meyers, K. S. Deacon, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 041801(R) (2008).
B. I. Erkmen, J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A **79,** 023833 (2008).
E. J. Candes, and M. B. Wakin, IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. March, 21 (2008).
J. Romberg, IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. March, 14 (2008).
M. Lustig, D. Donoho, and J. M. Pauly, Magn. Reson. Med. 58(6), 1182-95 (2007).
J. Bobin, J. L. Starck, R. Ottensamer, IEEE J. Sel. Top. in Sig. Proc. 2(5),718-726 (2008).
W. L. Chan, K. Charan, D. Takhar, K. F. Kelly, R. G. Baraniuk, and D. M. Mittleman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 121105 2008.
M. F. Duarte, M. A. Davenport, D. Takhar, J. N. Laske, T. Sun, K. F. Kelly, and R. G. Baraniuk, IEEE Sig. Proc. Mag. March, 83 (2008).
Y. Bromberg, O. Katz, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. A 79, 053840 (2009).
J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A, **78** 061802(R) (2008).
M. A. T. Figueiredo, R. D. Nowak, and S. J. Wright, IEEE J. Sel. Top. in Sig. Proc. 1(4), 586-597 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract:
- 'The electronic property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is investigated through nonequilibrium Green’s functions (NEGF) in combination with density functional theory (DFT). The electronic transport properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire are studied in terms of density of states, transmission spectrum and $I$–$V$ characteristics. The density of states gets modified with the applied bias voltage across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device, the density of charge is observed both in the valence band and in the conduction band on increasing the bias voltage. The transmission spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device gives the insights on the transition of electrons at different energy intervals. The findings of the present work suggest that NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device can be used as negative differential resistance (NDR) device and its NDR property can be tuned with the bias voltage, which may be used in microwave device, memory devices and in fast switching devices. nickel ferrite, nanowire, negative differential resistance, density of states, electron density 31.10.+z, 31.25.-v, 61.46.+w, 61.66.Fn, 73.63.Rt, 85.30.-z'
- 'Електронні властивості NiFe$_2$O$_4$ нанодротового пристрою досліджується з використанням методу нерівноважних функцій Гріна в комбінації з теорією функціоналу густини. Властивості електронного переносу NiFe$_2$O$_4$ нанодроту вивчаються в термінах густини станів, спектру трансмісії та $I$–$V$ характеристик. Густина станів змінюється при прикладанні зміщувальної напруги через NiFe$_2$O$_4$ нанодротовий пристрій, густина заряду спостерігається як у валентній зоні, так і в зоні провідності при збільшенні напруги зміщення. Спектр трансмісії NiFe$_2$O$_4$ нанодротового пристрою дає уявлення про перехід електронів на різних енергетичних інтервалах. Результати даної роботи наводять на думку, що NiFe$_2$O$_4$ нанодротовий пристрій може бути використаний як негативний диференційний опір, і ця його властивість може бути регульована за допомогою напруги зміщення, що може мати потенційне використання у мікрохвильових пристроях, пристроях пам’яті і в перемикальних пристроях. нікель ферит, нанодріт, негативний диференційний опір, густина станів, електронна густина'
address:
- ' School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Shanmugha Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA) University, Tirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur, Tamil nadu — 613 401, India'
- 'Школа електротехніки та електроніки, Академія мистецтв, наукових і технологічних досліджень Шанмуга (університет SASTRA), Танджавур, Таміл-Наду — 613 401, Індія'
author:
- 'V. Nagarajan, R. Chandiramouli[^1]'
- 'В. Нагараджан, Р. Чандірамулі'
date: 'Received September 23, 2016, in final form December 13, 2016'
title: 'Дослідження з перших принципів нікель-феритового нанодротового пристрою з негативним диференційним опором'
---
Introduction
============
The spinel ferrite is one type of soft magnetic materials with the general formula of MFe$_2$O$_4$, where “M” represents the divalent metal ions such as Mg, Zn, Mn, Cu, Co, Ni, etc., which are the most attractive magnetic material owing to their significant magnetic, magnetoresistive and magneto-optical properties. The other fascinating characteristics of MFe$_2$O$_4$ are its low melting point, large expansion coefficient, low magnetic transition temperature and low saturation magnetic moment [@1]. In spite of these properties, the spinel ferrites have been utilized in many technical applications, such as in catalysis [@2], photoelectric devices [@3], nano-device [@4], sensors [@5], magnetic pigments [@6] and microwave devices [@7]. The remarkable magnetic and electronic property of ferrites mainly depends upon the cations, their charges and the distribution of cations along tetrahedral (A) and octahedral (B) sites [@8]. Nickel ferrite (NiFe$_2$O$_4$) is one of the most versatile materials due to its soft magnetic property, low eddy current loss, low conductivity, catalytic behaviour, high electrochemical stability, abundance in nature, etc., [@7]. NiFe$_2$O$_4$ is a kind of ferromagnetic oxide with inverse spinel structure in which Fe$^{3+}$ ions are equally distributed between both octahedral B-sites and tetrahedral A-sites, whereas Ni$^{2+}$ ions occupy only octahedral B-sites [@9]. The inverse spinel ferrites are represented by the general formula of (Fe$^{3+}$)$_\text A$(Ni$^{2+}$Fe$^{3+}$)$_\text B$O$_4^{2-}$ [@10]. NiFe$_2$O$_4$ powders have been used as catalysts [@11], ferrofluids [@12], biomedicine [@13] and gas sensors [@14; @15]. Various methods have been employed for the synthesis of nanoscale NiFe$_2$O$_4$, which includes solid-state reaction [@16], sol-gel [@17], rheological phase reaction method [@18], mechanochemical [@19], pulsed wire discharge [@20], electrospinning [@21], hydrothermal [@22] and sonochemical methods [@23].
The nanoscale devices have attracted researchers and these devices may have high packing density and are more efficient than microelectronic devices. Moreover, the junction properties of nanoscale devices play a vital role in the charge transport across the semiconductor/metal interfaces [@24]. Furthermore, the semiconductor/metal interface may also form Schottky or ohmic contact. If Schottky type of contact is present, rectifying action takes place. The transport characteristics of nanoscale contacts must be investigated before the amalgamation of these structures in nanoscale electronic devices [@25]. Transport properties of these nanoscale device contacts are also influenced by the charge carriers and the geometry of the semiconductor/metal interface. Negative differential resistance (NDR) behaviour is a most significant electronic transport property for various electronic components [@26]. The NDR effect can be observed from low dimensional nanostructures like nanowire when connected between two electrodes [@27]. In a negative differential resistance device, the occupied states on one side may get aligned with the gap on the other side, when the voltage across the device is increased. Moreover, the current reduction may also occur due to the position of the resonant states of the molecule, which move within the gap of one of the contacts. In the case of carbon nanotube junctions, the reduction in the current for an increased bias voltage is due to the mismatch in the symmetry of incoming and outgoing wave functions of the same energy. Besides, the NDR effect observed between gold electrodes and scattering region is due to the lack of orbital matching between the contacts. The potential barriers in 2D graphene sheets are due to the linear dispersion of electrons, which shows a gap in their transmission across the barrier [@28]. Thus, negative resistance provides a physical significance in nonlinear electronic components. NDR has attracted scientific community due to its vast applications in electronics, such as in oscillators, memory devices and fast switching devices [@29]. Nowadays, NDR has been demonstrated in various semiconductor systems, including molecular nanowire junctions [@30], organic semiconductor [@31] and single electron devices [@32]. The NDR effect is associated with a variety of phenomena, including Coulomb blockade [@33], tunnelling and charge storage [@34]. Ling [@35] reported the negative resistance property in triangular graphene p–n junctions induced by vertex B–N mixture doping. Liu and An [@36] investigated the negative resistance property in metal/polythiophene/metal structure. Chen [@37] investigated NDR in oxide-based resistance-switching devices. Gupta and Jaiswal [@38] reported NDR in nitrogen terminated doped zigzag graphene nano-ribbon field effect transistor. Zhao et al. [@39] studied NDR property and electronic transport properties of a gated C60 dimer molecule sandwiched between two gold electrodes. The inspiration behind the present work is to study the transport property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire and to investigate its NDR property. In the present work, the transport characteristics of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device and its NDR properties are explored at an atomistic level and the results are reported.
Computational methods
=====================
The first-principles calculation on inverse spinel NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device is investigated through nonequilibrium Green’s functions (NEGF) in combination with density functional theory (DFT) method utilizing TranSIESTA module in SIESTA package [@40]. NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire is optimized by reducing the atomic forces on the atoms in nickel ferrites to be less than 0.05 eV/[Å]{}. The Brillouin zones of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ are sampled with $1\times1\times5$ $k$-points. The generalized approximation (GGA) along with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) exchange correlation functional is used to study the electron-electron interaction [@41; @42]. The negative differential resistance property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ is also studied through SIESTA package, in which the core electrons are suitably replaced by Troullier-Martins pseudopotentials for nickel, iron and oxygen atoms. Moreover, the electronic wave functions of nickel, iron and oxygen atoms are demonstrated in terms of a basis set, which are mainly related to the numerical orbitals. The optimization of band structure and electronic properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire are implemented using the double zeta polarization (DZP) basis set for the right-hand, left-hand electrodes and the scattering region in the present study [@43]. In order to investigate the electronic properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ and to exclude the interaction of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire with its periodic images, 10 [Å]{} vacuum padding is modelled along $x$ and $y$ axes. This makes the computation process easy while examining the density matrix Hamiltonian. The atoms in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire freely move along their respective positions until the convergence force smaller than 0.05 eV/[Å]{} is achieved.
Sen et al. [@44] studied the transport properties of trimer unit of cis-polyacetylene and fused furan trimer using DFT in combination with NEGF *ab initio* method. They observed the NDR over a bias voltage of ($+$2.1 to $+$2.45 V). Yu et al. [@45] investigated the transport properties of a few nm long single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) p–n junctions using the *ab initio* quantum method. The finding reveals that nm long SWCNT shows negative differential resistance. Song et al. [@46] reported NDR behaviour in (8,0) carbon/boron nitride nanotube heterojunction. They report that under positive and negative bias, the variation in the localization of corresponding molecular orbital under the applied bias voltage leads to NDR behaviour. Mahmoud and Lugli [@47] studied molecular devices with negative differential resistance. The molecular device is composed of diphenyl-dimethyl connected to the carbon chain linked to gold electrodes. They observed NDR behaviour only for an odd number of carbon atoms in the chain between the gold electrodes. In the present work, NDR behaviour is observed along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. The adopted method in the present work resembles the method used in the above mentioned literature, which confirms the reliability of first-principles study on NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire molecular device. The novel aspect of the present work is NDR properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device which is discussed in terms of density of states spectrum, transmission and $I$–$V$ characteristics.
Results and discussion
======================
Structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire
-----------------------------------
![(Color online) NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device.[]{data-label="fig-s1"}](fig1){width="85.00000%"}
The NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is built using International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) Card number: 03-0875, which exhibits the inverse spinel structure. The designed NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire molecular device is divided into three regions, namely left-hand electrode, scattering region and right-hand electrode regions. The scattering region of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is placed in between two electrodes. The corresponding width of the scattering region, left-hand electrode and right-hand electrode are 25.02 [Å]{}, 8.34 [Å]{} and 8.34 [Å]{}. The NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire is repeated five times along $c$-axis. Initially, in order to optimize the dimension of the molecular device, the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device is built with different dimensions. Moreover, when the dimension of the scattering region is small, it gives rise to the tunnelling of electrons across the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ device. However, if the dimension is too long, the magnitude of the current flowing across the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ device decreases. When NiFe$_2$O$_4$ device is of the order of the above mentioned dimensions, a significant current flows across the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ device. Along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ scattering region, a bias voltage is maintained between the left-hand electrode and right-hand electrode for the flow of current. The scattering region of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire consists of twenty four nickel atoms, forty eight iron atoms and ninety six oxygen atoms. The region on the left-hand and right-hand electrodes includes eight nickel atoms, sixteen iron atoms and thirty two oxygen atoms each. The potential difference of $-V/2$ and $+V/2$ is maintained across the right-hand and left-hand electrode in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device. Besides, the variation in the bias voltage leads to the change in the density of states and transmission along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device. Figure \[fig-s1\] represents the schematic diagram of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device.
Band structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire
----------------------------------------
The band structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire provides the insights on the materials properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. The band structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire can be described in terms of conducting channels across the Fermi energy level ($E_{\text F}$) between the conduction band and the valence band [@48]. Figure \[fig-s2\] represents the band structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. From the observation, it is known that NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire has the band gap of 2.65 eV for the whole nanostructure, which exactly matches with the reported theoretical work [@49]. The experimental direct band gap value of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ is 2.5 eV, which is almost equal to the obtained theoretical value as shown in figure \[fig-s2\]. Thus, it can be suggested that SIESTA may be used as a significant computational tool for studying electronic properties of nanostructured materials with suitable basis sets. Moreover, the band gap of 2.65 eV for NiFe$_2$O$_4$ is one of the favorable conditions for the application in electronic devices.
![(Color online) Band structure of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire.[]{data-label="fig-s2"}](fig2){width="65.00000%"}
Density of states and electron density across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The density of states (DOS) spectrum provides a clear picture regarding the density of charge in energy intervals along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire [@50; @51; @52]. Besides, the variation in bias voltage along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire leads to the change of the density of charge in the energy interval. In the present work, the variation in DOS is observed only beyond a threshold voltage of 2.5 V; which yields a significant change in the density of charge. On behalf of this reason, the bias voltage from 2.5 V to 7.5 V is carried out in the present study. In addition, the Fermi level ($E_{\text F}$) is kept at zero, since the bias window between right-hand and left-hand electrode is set as $-V/2$, $V/2$ in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device. Figure \[fig-s3\] illustrates the projected density of states (PDOS) of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ base material. The base material refers to the basic element for building the molecular device. In the present work, NiFe$_2$O$_4$ is the base material that is used as electrodes and scattering region in the molecular device. Moreover, the major contribution in PDOS spectrum arises from $d$ orbitals of Ni and Fe, whereas for O, it is due to $p$ orbitals as observed in total DOS. The peak maxima at different energy levels are governed by the orbital overlapping of $d$ and $p$ orbital projected in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ base material. Furthermore, the peak maxima are observed near the Fermi level, which upon applying the bias voltage results in the transition of electrons from the valence band to the conduction band.
![(Color online) PDOS spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$.[]{data-label="fig-s3"}](fig3){width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig-s4\] refers the device density of states spectrum for 0.0 V, 2.5 V, 3.0 V, 3.5 V, 4.0 V, 4.5 V, 5.0 V, 5.5 V, 6.0 V, 6.5 V, 7.0 V and 7.5 V bias. For 0 V bias, the DOS spectrum across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire is observed to be more in the conduction band than in the valence band. The peak maximum is recorded to be around 0.85 eV in the conduction band. Interestingly, at zero bias voltage condition, the peaks arise due to the mismatch of electronic chemical potential between the electrodes, thus localization of charges is observed in the conduction band.
![(Color online) Device DOS of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. []{data-label="fig-s4"}](revised_fig4){width="65.00000%"}
![(Color online) Electron density of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. []{data-label="fig-s5"}](fig5){width="105.00000%"}
There is no significant peak maximum observed in the valence band of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device at 0 V. Furthermore, on applying the bias voltage of 2.5 V across the electrodes, the localization of charges is recorded near the Fermi level as shown in figure \[fig-s3\]. In addition, increasing the bias voltage to 3.0 V across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device, results in peak maximum at $-$2.5 eV in the valence band. When the bias voltage is set to 3.5 V, localization of charges is observed on both the valence band and the conduction band within the energy interval of $-$2.4 and 1.75 eV, respectively. This infers that the bias voltage drives the charges from the valence band to the conduction band along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ scattering region. The same trend is observed at the bias voltage of 4.0 V. The only difference is that the localization of charges is shifted towards the conduction band on increasing the bias voltage. When the bias voltage is switched to 4.5 V, the localization of charges is noticed in the valence band at $-$2.1 eV. However, the charge transition takes place for the bias voltage of 5.0 V and the peak is observed at 1.4 eV. In the case of bias voltage for 5.5 and 6.0 V, the peak maxima are observed on both the conduction band and the valence band. By contrast, the localization of charges is observed only on the conduction band at different energy intervals in the case of 6.5 and 7.0 V bias voltages. Thus, it is inferred that the density of charge along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device can be finely tuned with the bias voltage. The electron density across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire is shown in figure \[fig-s5\]. The density of electrons is observed to be more in oxygen sites than in iron and nickel sites along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanostructure. Since the atomic number of the oxygen atom is eight and it is belongs to the group VIA element, due to the electronegative property of oxygen, it results in the accumulation of more electrons across oxygen sites in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. One of the most significant chemical properties of the oxygen atom is the electronegativity property, which is accredited as the tendency of oxygen to attract electrons towards it. Moreover, the electron density is larger along the oxygen sites owing to the electronic configuration of the oxygen atom when bonding with nickel and iron atoms in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. Besides, the electronegativity of the oxygen atom is also influenced by the distance between nucleus and valence electrons in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. The electron density provides the insight on the chemical and electronic properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire.
Transport properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device
-----------------------------------------------------
The electronic transport of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device can be ascribed in terms of transmission spectrum [@53; @54; @55]. The transport characteristics of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire devices are investigated using TranSIESTA module in SIESTA package. The transmission function $T(E,V)$ of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device can be expressed as the sum of the probabilities of transmission for all the channels at energy $E$ beneath external bias voltage $V$ as shown in equation (\[1\]) $$T (E,V) = \operatorname{Tr}\big[ \Gamma_{\text L} (V) G^{\text R} (E,V) \Gamma_{\text R}(V)G^{\text A}(E,V)\big],
\label{1}$$ where $\Gamma_{\text{R,L}}$ is the coupling function of the right-hand and left-hand self-energies, respectively. $G^{\text A}$ and $G^{\text R}$ are the advanced and retarded Green’s function. Furthermore, the molecular orbitals nearer to the Fermi energy level ($E_{\text F}$) facilitate the electronic transport across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire even for the low bias voltage. The general relation between the conductance and transmission probability under zero bias condition is given as $$G = G_0T(E,V=0),$$ where $G_0$ is the quantum unit of conductance and it is equal to $2e^2/h$, $h$ is Planck’s constant and $e$ is the electronic charge. The potential of $-V/2$ and $+V/2$ is maintained between the right-hand and left-hand electrode across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device, respectively.
The current through the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device can be calculated from the Landauer-Büttiker formula [@56] $$I(V)= \frac{2e^2}{h} \int_{\mu_{\text L}}^{\mu_{\text R}} T \left(E, V_{\text b}\right)\rd E,$$ where $e$ is the elementary charge, $2e^2/h$ is the quantum conductance, $\mu_{\text{L,R}}$ is the electrochemical potential of left-hand and right-hand electrode, respectively.
When zero bias is set across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device, the Fermi level of left-hand electrode and right-hand electrode gets aligned and the electronic transmission between right-hand and left-hand electrode is equal in both directions, hence Fermi level is considered as zero. Figure \[fig-s6\] depicts the transmission spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire for different bias voltages. (The transmission spectrum is drawn in a three dimensional multi-curve fashion; the magnitude is taken into consideration along $y$ axis.) Besides, the transmission peaks recorded for the zero bias voltage are owing to the mismatch in the electronic chemical potential across right-hand electrode and left-hand electrode in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device. By contrast, low peak amplitude is recorded in the conduction band. On applying the bias voltage above zero, the molecular orbitals in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire get delocalized. In that case, the mobility is recorded to be more in these energy intervals in the transmission spectrum [@57]. This gives rise to a certain peak maximum in the transmission spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device [@58]. However, on increasing the bias voltage across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ scattering region, the transmission pathways increase along the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire; this gives rise to a shift in the peak maximum [@59]. Besides, when the bias voltage of 2.5 V is applied between the electrodes, the peak maximum is observed around 2.6 eV.
![(Color online) Transmission spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. []{data-label="fig-s6"}](fig6){width="65.00000%"}
The increase of the bias voltage leads to the flow of electrons along the scattering region and the peak maximum moves towards the conduction band for the potential difference of 2.5 V. In the case of 3.0 V, the peak maximum is observed at $-$2.5 eV on the valence band and the peak gets shifted to the conduction band on applying the bias voltage of 3.5 V as shown in figure \[fig-s5\]. Furthermore, due to the transition of electrons across the scattering region along NiFe$_2$O$_4$, the peak maximum shifts to a different energy interval on varying the bias voltage. The applied bias voltage drives the electrons across the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device, in which the peak maximum gets shifted. For the applied bias of 4.0 V, the peak maximum is observed on both the valence band and the conduction band at $-$1.65 and 2.75 eV, respectively. Further increasing the bias voltage from 4.5 to 7.5 V, the peak maximum gets shifted along the valence band and the conduction band. The transmission spectrum has a peak maximum along different energy levels. The change in the current for different voltages should not be correlated directly with transmission spectrum with that of $I$–$V$ characteristics curve. The transmission spectrum indicates that the transmission of charges is larger for a particular energy interval to the applied bias voltage. However, the net current flowing through the molecular device depends on overall transmission for a different energy interval. This clearly suggests that the bias voltage is adequate enough for the transition of electrons along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device and the transmission is governed by the applied bias voltage. Thus, it can be concluded that the transport property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device can be finely tuned by applying the proper bias voltage and can be used as a chemical sensor in microwave devices.
$I$–$V$ characteristics of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device
--------------------------------------------------------
Negative differential resistance behaviour is the most significant electronic transport property for various electronic components [@26]. In the present study, the NDR behaviour is observed in the $I$–$V$ characteristics of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire as shown in figure \[fig-s7\]. The behaviour of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device is similar to that of an n-type semiconductor. At the beginning, the current flowing through NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device shows almost a linear increase across NiFe$_2$O$_4$ scattering region on increasing the bias voltage. Up to the threshold limit of 5 V bias, the current increases linearly for the applied bias. The NDR is observed for the bias voltage of 5.0 V to 6.0 V. Moreover, when NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is operated in this bias voltage, it exhibits NDR. Further increasing the bias voltage beyond 6.0 V along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device, the NDR behaviour vanishes and the device obeys the ohm’s law.
![(Color online) $I$–$V$ Characteristics of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. []{data-label="fig-s7"}](fig7_){width="65.00000%"}
![(Color online) Schematic diagram of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ as NDR device. []{data-label="fig-s8"}](fig8){width="95.00000%"}
In the present work, N-shaped NDR is observed for NiFe$_2$O$_4$ molecular device. The NDR behaviour in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device originates from the inhibition of the conduction channels at a certain bias condition [@60]. Besides, the frontier orbitals localized in any part of the scattering region will not contribute to the transmission spectra and the current conduction may be suppressed. By contrast, a completely delocalized molecular orbital may contribute more to the transmission probabilities than that of the localized one in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device. Figure \[fig-s8\] illustrates the schematic diagram of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device, which can be used as NDR device. Li et al. [@61] observed the N-shaped NDR in GaAs-based modulation-doped FET along with InAs quantum dots. Xu et al. [@62] reported a similar N-shaped negative differential resistance in GaAs-based modulation-doped FET with InAs quantum dots. The NDR effect observed in the device is not only related to a single physical mechanism. Many phenomena give rise to the NDR property, namely tunneling, Coulomb blockade, Gunn effect [@63], metal and semiconductor contact, charge storage and geometry of the nanodevice. Furthermore, the cylindrical geometry and high surface-to-volume ratio of nanowire results in deep penetration of the surface charge, which largely affect the conduction property of nanowire. From the Landauer-Büttiker relation, it is well known that the current through the device depends on $T(E,V)$. The current in the NiFe$_2$O$_4$ device is the integral of the transmission coefficient in the bias window of \[$-V/2$, $V/2$\]. In the present work, the NDR effect is observed in the bias voltage of around 5 V to 6 V. Moreover, the device DOS (figure \[fig-s4\]) indicates a peak in the conduction band for 5 V at the energy level of 1.4 eV, whereas for 5.5 V and 6 V bias, the peaks are observed both in the conduction band and in the valence band. Thus, for the applied bias voltage of 5 V, the current increases drastically, and the further increase in the bias voltage gives rise to a decrease in the current due to the Coulomb blockade that arise due to the geometry of the device. Furthermore, for the bias of 5 V to 6 V, the bias window makes transition of electrons between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) decrease. The decrease in the transmission (figure \[fig-s6\]) takes place because a larger wave function overlaps between the scattering region and electrodes, the degree of coupling between the molecular orbitals and electrodes becomes weaker with an increase in the bias voltage beyond 5 V. Moreover, such a decrease may not be compensated by the increase in the bias voltage, thus the integral area gets smaller. However, on further increasing the bias voltage beyond 6 V, the degree of coupling between the electrodes and scattering region is overcome by the bias voltage and the current increases further more for the applied bias voltage.
The negative differential resistance properties are observed on various materials with different morphology such as ZnO nanorod, porous silicon devices and graphene nanoribbon FET [@38; @64; @65]. The NDR property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is similar to the reported works, which further strengthens the present work. Thus, the negative differential resistance property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire can be finely tuned by applying a proper bias voltage.
Conclusions
===========
In the present study, NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire based molecular device is studied using DFT method. Under various bias voltages, the electronic transport properties of inverse spinel NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device is investigated. The density of charges among different energy intervals of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire is clearly studied with the help of projected density of states spectrum. Moreover, the peak maximum is observed on both the valence band and the conduction band, which is influenced by the applied bias voltage. The electron density is observed to be more on oxygen sites along NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire. The transmission spectrum of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device shows a larger peak maximum in the valence band at the zero bias condition. However, on increasing the bias voltage, a larger peak maximum in the conduction band is observed, which clearly suggests that the bias voltage drives the charges towards the conduction band. The NDR properties of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire are investigated using $I$–$V$ characteristics. The NDR property of NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device depends on the applied bias voltage. Thus, the NDR property can be finely tuned with the bias voltage. The findings of the present work in NiFe$_2$O$_4$ nanowire device can be used as NDR device, which may find its potential application in microwave devices, memory devices and in fast switching devices.
[99]{} Xu Q., Wei Y., Liu Y., Ji X., Yang L., Gu M., Solid State Sci., 2009, **11**, 472,\
. Słoczyński J., Janas J., Machej T., Rynkowski J., Stoch J., Appl. Catal. B, 2000, **24**, No. 1, 45,\
. Hu J., Li L.-S., Yang W., Manna L., Wang L.-W., Alivisatos A.P., Science, 2001, **292**, No. 5524, 2060,\
. Ajayan P.M., Redlich P., Rühle M., J. Microsc., 1997, **185**, No. 2, 275, . Peña M.A., Fierro J.L.G., Chem. Rev., 200, **101**, 1981, . Wang X., Yang G., Zhang Z., Yan L., Meng J., Dyes Pigm., 2007, **74**, 269, . Gunjakar J.L., More A.M., Gurav K.V., Lokhande C.D., Appl. Surf. Sci., 2008, **254**, 5844,\
. Baykal A., Kasapoğlu N., Köseoğlu Y., Toprak M.S., Bayrakdar H., J. Alloys Compd., 2008, **464**, 514,\
. Goldman A., Modern Ferrite Technology, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1993. Alarifi A., Deraz N.M., Shaban S., J. Alloys Compd., 2009, **486**, 501, . Sreekumar K., Sugunan S., J. Mol. Catal. A: Chem., 2002, **185**, 259, . Sousa M.H., Tourinho F.A., Depeyrot J., da Silva G.J., Lara M.C.F.L., J. Phys. Chem. B, 2001, **105**, 1168,\
. Fan H.M., Yi J.B., Yang Y., Kho K.W., Tan H.R., Shen Z.X., Ding J., Sun X.-W., Olivo M.C., Feng Y.-P., ACS Nano, 2009, **3**, No. 9, 2798, . Luo L., Li Q., Xu Y., Ding Y., Wang X., Deng D., Xu Y., Sens. Actuators B, 2010, **145**, 293,\
. Liu Y.L., Wang H., Yang Y., Liu Z.M., Yang H.F., Shen G.L., Yu R.Q., Sens. Actuators B, 2004, **102**, 148,\
. Bharathi K.K., Markandeyulu G., Ramana C.V., J. Phys. Chem. C, 2011, **115**, 554, . Ahmed M.A., El-Dek S.I., El-Kashef I.M., Helmy N., Solid State Sci., 2011, **13**, 1176,\
. Jiang J., Yang Y.M., Mater. Lett., 2007, **61**, 4276, . Yang H., Zhang X., Ao W., Qiu G., Mater. Res. Bull., 2004, **39**, 833, . Kinemuchi Y., Ishizaka K., Suematsu H., Jiang W., Yatsui K., Thin Solid Films, 2002, **407**, 109,\
. Wang Z., Liu X., Lv M., Chai P., Liu Y., Meng J., J. Phys. Chem. B, 2008, **112**, 11292, . Chen L., Dai H., Shen Y., Bai J., J. Alloys Compd., 2010, **491**, 33, . Shafi K.V.P.M., Koltypin Y., Gedanken A., Prozorov R., Balogh J., Lendvai J., Felner I., J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, **101**, 6409, . Lavieville R., Zhang Y., Casu A., Genovese A., Manna L., Di Fabrizio E., Krahne R., ACS Nano, 2012, **6**, 2940,\
. Chen S., Griffin P.B., Plummer J.D., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, 2009, **56**, 634,\
. Guo W., Yang Y., Qi J., Zhang Y., Appl. Phys. Lett., 2010, **97**, 263118, . Zhang Y., Lee C.-T., Nanoscale Res. Lett., 2010, **5**, 1492, . Cheraghchi H., Esfarjani K., Phys. Rev. B, 2008, **78**, 085123, . Nam Do V., Dollfus P., J. Appl. Phys., 2010, **107**, 063705, . Kratochvilova I., Kocirik M., Zambova A., Mbindyo J., Mallouk T.E., Mayer T.S., J. Mater. Chem., 2002, **12**, 2927, . Lin J., Ma D., J. Appl. Phys., 2008, **103**, 124505, . Heij C.P., Dixon D.C., Hadley P., Mooij J.E., Appl. Phys. Lett., 1999, **74**, 1042, . Yu L.W., Chen K.J., Song J., Wang J.M., Xu J., Li W., Huang X.F., Thin Solid Films, 2007, **515**, 5466,\
. Du Y., Pan H., Wang S., Wu T., Feng Y.P., Pan J., Wee A.T.S., ACS Nano, 2012, **6**, 2517, . Ling Y.-C., Ning F., Zhou Y., Chen K.-Q., Org. Electron., 2015, **19**, 92, . Liu X.J., An Z., Org. Electron., 2011, **12**, 1352, . Chen F.T., Solid State Electron., 2015, **103**, 59, . Gupta S.K., Jaiswal G.N., Superlattices Microstruct., 2015, **86**, 355, . Zhao P., Liu D.-S., Liu H.-Y., Li S.-J., Chen G., Org. Electron., 2013, **14**, 1109, . Soler J.M., Artacho E., Gale J.D., García A., Junquera J., Ordejón P., Sánchez-Portal D., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 2002, **14**, 2745, . Perdew J.P., Chevary J.A., Vosko S.H., Jackson K.A., Pederson M.R., Singh D.J., Fiolhais C., Phys. Rev. B, 1993, **48**, 4978, . Perdew J.A., Burke K., Wang Y., Phys. Rev. B, 1996, **54**, 16533, . Chandiramouli R., Sriram S., Superlattices Microstruct., 2014, **65**, 22, . Sen S., Chakrabarti S., J. Phys. Chem. C, 2008, **112**, 1685, . Yu L., Yan X., Li H., Qin R., Luo G., Xu C., Zheng J., Liu Q., Lu J., Gao Z., Wang X., Theor. Chem. Acc., 2011, **130**, 353, . Song J., Yintang Y., Hongxia L., Lixin G., J. Semicond., 2011, **32**, 042003, . Mahmoud A., Lugli P., Appl. Phys. Lett., 2013, **103**, 033506, . Holinsworth B.S., Mazumdar D., Sims H., Sun Q.-C., Yurtisigi M.K., Sarker S.K., Gupta A., Butler W.H., Musfeldt J.L., Appl. Phys. Lett., 2013, **103**, 082406, . Meinert M., Reiss G., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 2014, **26**, 115503, . Chandiramouli R., Sriram S., Nano, 2014, **9**, 1450020, . Deekshitha M., Srivastava A., Chandiramouli R., Microelectron. Eng., 2016, **151**, 1,\
. Srivastava A., Tyagi N., Mater. Chem. Phys., 2012, **137**, 103, . Chandiramouli R., Sriram S., Mol. Phys., 2014, **112**, 1954, . Zhang Y., Wang F.C., Zhao Y.P., Comput. Mater. Sci., 2012, **62**, 87, . Chandiramouli R., Ceram. Int., 2014, **40**, 9211, . Datta S., Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995. Xia C.J., Liu D.S., Fang C.F., Zhao P., Physica E, 2010, **42**, 1763, . Fueno H., Kobayashi Y., Tanaka K., Sci. China Chem., 2012, **55**, 796, . Deekshitha M., Nagarajan V., Chandiramouli R., Chem. Phys. Lett., 2015, **641**, 129,\
. Zhang Y., Wang F.C., Zhao Y.P., Comput. Mater. Sci., 2012, **62**, 87, . Li Y., Wang X., Xu X., Liu W., Chen Y., Yang F., Tan P., Zeng Y., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 2010, **49**, 104002,\
. Xu X.-N., Wang X.-D., Li Y.-Q., Chen Y.-L., Ji A., Zeng Y.-P., Yang F.-H., Chin. Phys. Lett., 2012, **29**, 087303,\
. Biryulin P.I., Gorbatsevich A.A., Kapaev V.V., Kopaev Y.V., Trofimov V.T., Semiconductors, 2001, **35**, 1300,\
. Marin O., Toranzos V., Urteaga R., Comedi D., Koropecki R.R., Superlattices Microstruct., 2015, **79**, 45,\
. Kathalingam A., Kim H.-S., Kim S.-D., Park H.-M., Park H.-C., Physica E, 2015, **74**, 241,\
.
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Traditionally, network operators have used simple flat-rate broadband data plans for both wired and wireless network access. But today, with the popularity of mobile devices and exponential growth of apps, videos, and clouds, service providers are gradually moving towards more sophisticated pricing schemes. This decade will therefore likely witness a major change in the ways in which network resources are managed, and the role of economics in allocating these resources. This survey reviews some of the well-known past broadband pricing proposals (both static and dynamic), including their current realizations in various consumer data plans around the world, and discusses several research problems and open questions. By exploring the benefits and challenges of pricing data, this paper attempts to facilitate both the industrial and the academic communities’ efforts in understanding the existing literature, recognizing new trends, and shaping an appropriate and timely research agenda.'
author:
- 'SOUMYA SEN CARLEE JOE-WONG SANGTAE HA MUNG CHIANG'
bibliography:
- 'PricingBiblio.bib'
title: |
A Survey of Smart Data Pricing:\
Past Proposals, Current Plans, and Future Trends
---
\[Internet, Pricing\] \[Congestion Management\] \[Economics\]
This work is in part supported by the National Science Foundation, under grant NSF CNS-1117126, and C. J.-W.’s NDSEG fellowship.
Authors’ addresses: S. Sen [and]{} S. Ha [and]{} M. Chiang, Electrical Engineering Department, Princeton University; C. Joe-Wong, Program in Applied & Computational Mathematics, Princeton University.
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we draw attention to the growing problem of network congestion and highlight some of the recent steps taken by ISPs to mitigate its effects. The projected growth in demand for data, especially from mobile data and video traffic, is far more than what can be supported even by the latest technological advances, e.g., 4G/LTE and WiFi offloading, due to expensive backhauling and increasing wired network congestion. Consequently, ISPs have been aggressively using pricing as a congestion control tool.
The basic idea of congestion pricing has been known in the networking community for several decades, but only now have conditions demanded that it be put into practice. In this survey, we first outline the various threats to the sustainability and economic viability of the Internet ecosystem from the perspectives of ISPs, consumers, and content providers. We then highlight the role that pricing can play in alleviating network congestion and in balancing the functionality goals of data networks, followed by a detailed discussion of the technological, socioeconomic, and regulatory challenges to pricing innovation and related open problems. We review many known data network pricing proposals, both static and dynamic, and discuss the extent to which some of these have been adopted by ISPs, drawing parallels to existing pricing practices in electricity markets and road networks. We also discuss the predominant trends in access pricing and the need for new architecture, field trials, and interdisciplinary research for realizing more innovative dynamic pricing solutions such as day-ahead time- and usage-dependent pricing, app-based pricing, etc.
The material presented in this paper seeks to inform networking researchers about the existing works on access pricing, the ongoing developments in pricing plans, and the research challenges that need to be accounted for in shaping a new research agenda on smart data pricing.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has benefited immensely from our discussions with several colleagues and collaborators. We would like to specially thank (in no particular order) Victor Glass, Prashanth Hande, Krishan Sabnani, Raj Savoor, Steve Sposato, Rob Calderbank, Danny Tsang, Sundeep Rangan, Yuan Wu, Junshan Zhang, T. Russell Hsing, Keith Cambron, Andrew Odlyzko, Roch Guérin, Augustin Chaintreau and Jennifer Rexford for their valuable comments, viewpoints, and information that have helped to shape this paper. Additionally, we acknowledge the support of our industrial collaborators, in particular, Reliance Communications of India, MTA of Alaska, SES, AT&T, Qualcomm, Comcast, and NECA (the National Exchange Carrier Association). We also acknowledge the generous feedback received from the participants of the first Workshop on Smart Data Pricing [@SDP], held in Princeton, NJ on July 30-31, 2012.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We address the issue of a consistent power counting scheme in manifestly Lorentz-invariant baryon chiral perturbation theory. We discuss the inclusion of vector mesons in the calculation of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors. We comment on the chiral expansion of the nucleon mass to order ${\cal O}(q^6)$.'
address: |
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, J. J. Becher-Weg 45\
D-55099 Mainz, Germany\
[email protected]
author:
- STEFAN SCHERER
title: 'EFFECTIVE FIELD THEORY OF THE SINGLE-NUCLEON SECTOR'
---
Introduction
============
Effective field theory (EFT) is a powerful tool for describing the strong interactions at low energies [@Weinberg:1978kz]. Starting point is the chiral $\mbox{SU}(N)_L\times\mbox{SU}(N)_R$ symmetry of QCD in the limit of $N$ massless quarks and its spontaneous breakdown to $\mbox{SU}(N)_V$ in the ground state. Instead of solving QCD in terms of quarks and gluons, its low-energy physics (of the mesonic sector) is described using the most general Lagrangian containing the Goldstone bosons as effective degrees of freedom . Physical quantities are calculated in terms of an expansion in $p/\Lambda$, where $p$ stands for momenta or masses that are smaller than a certain momentum scale $\Lambda$ (see, e.g., Refs. [@Scherer:2002tk; @Scherer:2005ri] for an introduction). In the following we will outline some recent developments in devising a renormalization scheme leading to a simple and consistent power counting for the renormalized diagrams of a manifestly Lorentz-invariant approach to baryon chiral perturbation theory [@Gasser:1987rb].
Renormalization and Power Counting
==================================
The standard effective Lagrangian relevant to the single-nucleon sector consists of the sum of the purely mesonic and $\pi N$ Lagrangians, respectively, $${\cal L}_{\rm eff}={\cal L}_{\pi}+{\cal L}_{\pi N}={\cal L}_2+ {\cal
L}_4 +\cdots +{\cal L}_{\pi N}^{(1)}+{\cal L}_{\pi N}^{(2)}+\cdots$$ which are organized in a derivative and quark-mass expansion. The aim is to devise a renormalization procedure generating, after renormalization, the following power counting: a loop integration in $n$ dimensions counts as $q^n$, pion and fermion propagators count as $q^{-2}$ and $q^{-1}$, respectively, vertices derived from ${\cal L}_{2k}$ and ${\cal
L}_{\pi N}^{(k)}$ count as $q^{2k}$ and $q^k$, respectively. Here, $q$ generically denotes a small expansion parameter such as, e.g., the pion mass.
Several methods have been suggested to obtain a consistent power counting in a manifestly Lorentz-invariant approach. As an illustration consider the integral $$H(p^2,m^2;n)= \int \frac{d^n k}{(2\pi)^n}
\frac{i}{[(k-p)^2-m^2+i0^+][k^2+i0^+]},$$ where $\Delta=(p^2-m^2)/m^2={\cal O}(q)$ is a small quantity. In the infrared (IR) regularization of Becher and Leutwyler [@Becher:1999he] one makes use of the Feynman parametrization $${1\over ab}=\int_0^1 {dz\over [az+b(1-z)]^2}$$ with $a=(k-p)^2-m^2+i0^+$ and $b=k^2+i0^+$. The resulting integral over the Feynman parameter $z$ is then rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dz \cdots &=& \int_0^\infty dz \cdots
- \int_1^\infty dz \cdots,\\\end{aligned}$$ where the first, so-called infrared (singular) integral satisfies the power counting, while the remainder violates power counting but turns out to be regular and can thus be absorbed in counterterms. The central idea of the extended on-mass-shell (EOMS) scheme[@Gegelia:1999gf; @Fuchs:2003qc] consists of performing additional subtractions beyond the $\widetilde{\rm MS}$ scheme. In Ref. [@Schindler:2003xv] the IR regularization of Becher and Leutwyler was reformulated in a form analogous to the EOMS renormalization scheme. Within this (new) formulation the subtraction terms are found by expanding the integrands of loop integrals in powers of small parameters (small masses and Lorentz-invariant combinations of external momenta and large masses) and subsequently exchanging the order of integration and summation. The new formulation of IR regularization can be applied to diagrams with an arbitrary number of propagators with various masses (e.g., resonances) and/or diagrams with several fermion lines as well as to multi-loop diagrams.
Applications
============
Nucleon Form Factors
--------------------
It has been known for some time that ChPT results at ${\cal O}(q^4)$ only provide a decent description of the electromagnetic Sachs form factors $G_E$ and $G_M$ up to $Q^2=0.1\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ and do not generate sufficient curvature for larger values of $Q^2$ [@Kubis:2000zd; @Fuchs:2003ir]. To improve these results higher-order contributions have to be included. This can be achieved by performing a full calculation at ${\cal O}(q^5)$ which would also include the analysis of two-loop diagrams. Another possibility is to include additional degrees of freedom, through which some of the higher-order contributions are re-summed. Both the reformulated IR regularization and the EOMS scheme allow for a consistent inclusion of vector mesons which already a long time ago were established to play an important role in the description of the nucleon form factors. Figure \[G\_neu\] shows the results for the electric and magnetic Sachs form factors in the EOMS scheme (solid lines) and the infrared renormalization (dashed lines) [@Schindler:2005ke]. A [*consistent*]{} inclusion of vector mesons clearly improves the quality of the description. Similarly, the inclusion of the axial-vector meson $a_1(1260)$ results in an improved description of the experimental data for the axial form factor [@Schindler:2006it].
Chiral Expansion of the Nucleon Mass to Order ${\cal O}(q^6)$
-------------------------------------------------------------
Using the reformulated infrared regularization [@Schindler:2003xv] we have calculated the nucleon mass up to and including order ${\cal O}(q^6)$ in the chiral expansion [@Schindler:2006ha; @Schindler:2007dr]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H1:emff:MassExp}
m_N &=& m +k_1 M^2 +k_2 \,M^3 +k_3 M^4 \ln\frac{M}{\mu}
+ k_4 M^4 + k_5 M^5\ln\frac{M}{\mu} + k_6 M^5 \nonumber\\&& + k_7
M^6 \ln^2\frac{M}{\mu}+ k_8 M^6 \ln\frac{M}{\mu} + k_9 M^6.\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[H1:emff:MassExp\]), $m$ denotes the nucleon mass in the chiral limit, $M^2$ is the leading term in the chiral expansion of the square of the pion mass, $\mu$ is the renormalization scale; all the coefficients $k_i$ have been determined in terms of infrared renormalized parameters. Our results for the renormalization-scheme-independent terms agree with the heavy-baryon ChPT results of Ref. [@McGovern:1998tm].
The numerical contributions from higher-order terms cannot be calculated so far since, starting with $k_4$, most expressions in Eq. (\[H1:emff:MassExp\]) contain unknown low-energy coupling constants (LECs) from the Lagrangians of order ${\cal O}(q^4)$ and higher. The coefficient $k_5$ is free of higher-order LECs. Figure \[fig:nucleonmass\] shows the pion mass dependence of the term $k_5 M^5 \ln(M/m_N)$ (solid line) in comparison with the term $k_2
M^3$ (dashed line) for $M<400$ MeV. For $M\approx 360\,\mbox{MeV}$ the $k_5$ term is as large as the $k_2$ term.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was made possible by the financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443 and SCHE 459/2-1) and the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics Project (contract number RII3-CT-2004-506078).
[00]{}
S. Weinberg, [*Physica A*]{} [**96**]{}, 327 (1979). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, [*Annals Phys.*]{} [**158**]{}, 142 (1984). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**250**]{}, 465 (1985). H. W. Fearing and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**53**]{}, 315 (1996). J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, and G. Ecker, [*J. High Energy Phys.*]{} [**9902**]{}, 020 (1999). T. Ebertshäuser, H. W. Fearing, and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**65**]{}, 054033 (2002). J. Bijnens, L. Girlanda, and P. Talavera, [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**23**]{}, 539 (2002). S. Scherer, [*Adv. Nucl. Phys. *]{} [**27**]{}, 277 (2003). S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, arXiv:hep-ph/0505265. J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Švarc, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**307**]{}, 779 (1988). T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} C [**9**]{}, 643 (1999). J. Gegelia and G. Japaridze, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**60**]{}, 114038 (1999). T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, G. Japaridze, and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{}, 056005 (2003). M. R. Schindler, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**586**]{}, 258 (2004). B. Kubis and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, [*Nucl. Phys. A*]{} [**679**]{}, 698 (2001). T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, [*J. Phys. G*]{} [**30**]{}, 1407 (2004). M. R. Schindler, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, [*Eur. Phys. J. A*]{} [**26**]{}, 1 (2005). M. R. Schindler, T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Rev. C*]{} [**75**]{}, 025202 (2007). M. R. Schindler, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**649**]{}, 390 (2007). M. R. Schindler, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, arXiv:0707.4296 \[hep-ph\]. J. A. McGovern and M. C. Birse, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**446**]{}, 300 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We examine functorial and homotopy properties of the exotic characteristic homomorphism in the category of Lie algebroids which was lastly obtained by the authors in [@B-K]. This homomorphism depends on a triple $\left(
A,B,\nabla\right) $ where $B\subset A$ are regular Lie algebroids, both over the same regular foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, and $\nabla$ is a flat $L$-connection in $A$, where $L$ is an arbitrary Lie algebroid over $M$. The Rigidity Theorem (i.e. the independence from the choice of homotopic Lie subalgebroids of $B$) is obtained. The exotic characteristic homomorphism is factorized by one (called universal) obtained for a pair of regular Lie algebroids. We raise the issue of injectivity of the universal homomorphism and establish injectivity for special cases. Here the Koszul homomorphism for pairs of isotropy Lie algebras plays a major role.
date: |
by\
\
Bogdan Balcerzak and Jan Kubarski
title: |
Properties of $\ $the Exotic Characteristic Homomorphism for a Pair of Lie Algebroids, Relationship with the Koszul Homomorphism for\
a Pair of Lie algebras
---
Introduction
============
In [@B-K] we constructed some secondary (exotic) characteristic homomorphism $$\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}},B\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( L\right)$$ for a triple $\left( A,B,\nabla\right) $, in which $A$ is a regular Lie algebroid over a foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, $B$ its regular subalgebroid on the same foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, ${{\pmb{g}}}$ the kernel of the anchor of $A$, and $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ a flat $L$-connection in $A$ for an arbitrary Lie algebroid $L$ over $M$. The domain of this homomorphism is the Lie algebroid analog to the relative cohomology algebra for a pair of Lie algebras defined in [@Chev-Eil]. $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ generalizes some known secondary characteristic classes: for flat principal fibre bundles with a reduction (Kamber, Tondeur [@K-T3]) and two approaches to flat characteristic classes for Lie algebroids, the one for regular Lie algebroids due to Kubarski [@K5] and the one for representations of not necessarily regular Lie algebroids on vector bundles developed by Crainic ([@Cr], [@Cr-F]).
For $L=A$ and $\nabla=\operatorname*{id}_{A}$ we obtain a new universal characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$, which factorizes the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right)
\#}$ for each flat $L$-connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$, i.e.$$\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}=\nabla^{\#}\circ\Delta_{\left(
A,B\right) \#}.$$ Clearly, no class from the kernel of $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ is an obstruction to the fact that the given flat connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ is induced by a connection in $B$. By this reason, we put the following (new) question for secondary characteristic classes: **Is the exotic universal characteristic homomorphism** $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ **a monomorphism?** In Section \[universal\], we give the positive answer under some assumptions.
We remark that the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right)
\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}},B\right) \longrightarrow
\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( A\right) $ really depends only on the inclusion $i:B\hookrightarrow A$, [@B-K]. For this inclusion — as for any homomorphism of Lie algebroids — I. Vaisman in [@Vaisman] defined secondary characteristic classes $\mu_{2h-1}\left( i\right) $ lying in $\mathsf{H}^{4h-3}\left( B\right) $, i.e. in a different group of cohomology than universal characteristic classes (which belong to $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet
}\left( A\right) $). The detailed relationships between these frameworks for secondary characteristic classes will be the subject of the next paper. We point out only (see [@Fernandes], [@Cr], [@Cr-F], [@B-K]) that the modular class $\operatorname{mod}(\widetilde{A})$ of a Lie algebroid $\widetilde{A}$ (for a definition see [@Weinstein], [@Evens-Lu-Weinstein]) — which is equal to the first secondary characteristic class of the anchor of $\widetilde{A}$ — in case where the basic connection $\nabla=(\hat{\nabla},\check{\nabla})$ given in [@Fernandes] is flat, can express in the term of secondary characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ for the triple $\left(
A,B,\nabla\right) $ where $A=\mathcal{A}(\widetilde{A}\oplus T^{\ast}M)$ is a Lie algebroid of the vector bundle $\widetilde{A}\oplus T^{\ast}M$, $B=\mathcal{A}(\widetilde{A}\oplus T^{\ast}M,\left\{ h\right\} )$ is its Lie subalgebroid being the Lie algebroid of the Riemannian reduction $(\widetilde{A}\oplus T^{\ast}M,\left\{ h\right\} )$ and $\nabla
=(\hat{\nabla},\check{\nabla})$; namely $\operatorname{mod}(\widetilde{A})$ and $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}\left( y_{1}\right) $ are equal up to a constant. The first secondary characteristic class $\mu_{1}\left(
i\right) $ of the considered inclusion $i:B\hookrightarrow A$ equals $\operatorname{mod}\left( B\right) -i^{\#}\left( \operatorname{mod}A\right) $. So, it can be expressed then in terms of characteristic classes from the images of suitable characteristic homomorphisms of the form $\Delta_{\left( A^{\prime},B^{\prime},\nabla^{\prime}\right) \#}$ constructed in [@B-K].
The meaning of the classical exotic characteristic homomorphism for a principal bundle with a given reduction consist in that it measures the incompatibility of two geometric structures on a given principal bundle: its reduction and a flat connection. Namely, if a flat connection is a connection in a given reduction, this exotic characteristic homomorphism is trivial (i.e. it is the zero homomorphism in all positive degrees). The exotic characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ for Lie algebroids has the similar meaning.
The classical exotic homomorphism for given principal bundle $P$ and its reduction $P^{\prime}$ has stronger property: it is trivial if a given flat connection has values in any reduction homotopic to $P^{\prime}$ (in some cases every two $H$-reduction are homotopic [@K-T3]).
Chapter \[functorial\] concerns investigation of homotopic properties of the generalized exotic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ for Lie algebroids. We examine here the notion of homotopic Lie subalgebroids, which was introduced in [@K5] as a natural generalization of the notion of homotopic two $H$-reductions of a principal bundle. We show also functorial properties of the considered homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right)
\#}$ with respect to homomorphisms of Lie algebroids (not necessary over identity on the base manifold).
Chapter \[universal\] concerns exotic universal characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ in two cases. First, for the trivial case of Lie algebroids over a point, i.e. for Lie algebras. This universal homomorphism is, in fact, equivalent (up to the sign) to the well known Koszul homomorphism $\Delta_{\left(
\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
{\mathfrak{g}}/{\mathfrak{h}}\right) \rightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
\mathfrak{g}\right) $ for a pair of Lie algebras $\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $, $\mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{g}$ [@K], [@GHV]. In [@GHV] the injectivity of $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}$ is considered and used to investigate of the cohomology algebra of the homogeneous manifolds $G/H$. Next, applying the Lie functor for principal fibre bundles it gives a new universal homomorphism for the reduction of a principal fibre bundle. It factorizes the standard secondary characteristic homomorphisms $\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime},\omega\right) \#}$ for any flat connections $\omega$ in $P$. In Section \[ostatni\], using functorial properties of the inclusion $\iota_{x}:\left(
{{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) \rightarrow\left( A,B\right) $ over the map $\left\{ x\right\} \hookrightarrow M$, where ${{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}$ are isotropy algebras of Lie algebroids $A$ and $B$ at $x\in M$, we show connection of the exotic universal characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ with the Koszul homomorphism for isotropy Lie algebras $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $. We find some conditions under which the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$, for a pair $B\subset A$, is a monomorphism. The presented considerations show that the Koszul homomorphism plays an essential role for the study of exotic characteristic classes.
In the paper we suppose that the reader is familiar with Lie algebroids and for more about Lie algebroids and its connections we refer to [@M1], [@Higgins-Mackenzie], [@K6], [@B-K-W], [@Fernandes].
Construction of Exotic Characteristic Homomorphism\[Unifying\_homomorphism\]
============================================================================
We shall briefly explain the construction of the exotic characteristic homomorphism and the universal exotic characteristic homomorphism on Lie algebroids from [@B-K].
Let $\left( {A},[\![\cdot,\cdot]\!],\#_{A}\right) $ be a regular Lie algebroid over a foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, $B$ its regular **subalgebroid** on the same foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, $L$ a Lie algebroid over $M$ and $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ a **flat** $L$-connection in $A$. We call the triple$$\left( A,B,\nabla\right)$$ an FS-*Lie algebroid*. Let $\lambda:F\rightarrow B$ be an arbitrary connection in $B$. Then $j\circ\lambda:F\rightarrow A$ is a connection in $A$. Let $\breve{\lambda}:A\rightarrow{{\pmb{g}}}$ be its connection form. Summarizing, we have a flat $L$-connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ in $A$ and the following commutative diagram$$\xext=2100\yext=700\begin{picture}(\xext,\yext)(\xoff,\yoff) \putmorphism(0,620)(1,0)[0`\pmb{g}`]{500}1a \putmorphism(550,620)(1,0)[`A`]{450}1a \putmorphism(1050,620)(1,0)[``\#_{A}]{400}1a \putmorphism(1050,70)(-1,0)[``\lambda]{400}{-1}b \putmorphism(1500,620)(1,0)[F`0`]{500}1a \putmorphism(0,100)(1,0)[0`\pmb{h}`]{500}1a \put(492,170){{$\cup$}}\putmorphism(550,100)(1,0)[`B`]{450}1a \putmorphism(1050,100)(1,0)[`F`\#_{B}]{450}1a \putmorphism(1550,100)(1,0)[`0.`]{450}1b \put(550,624){{$\subset$}} \putmorphism(500,600)(0,1)[``]{460}{-1}r \put(992,170){{$\cup$}}\putmorphism(1000,600)(0,1)[``]{460}{-1}r \put(935,590){\vector(-1,0){370}}\put(750,540){\makebox(0,0){$\breve{\lambda} $}} \put(750,680){\makebox(0,0){$\iota$}} \put(1050,380){\makebox(0,0){$j$}} \put(1490,170){\line(0,1){370}} \put(1515,170){\line(0,1){370}} \end{picture}$$ The homomorphism $\omega_{B,\nabla}:L\longrightarrow{{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}$, $\omega_{B,\nabla}\left( w\right) =[-(\breve{\lambda}\circ\nabla)\left(
w\right) ]$ does not depend on the choice of an auxiliary connection $\lambda:F\rightarrow A$ and $\omega_{B,\nabla}=0$ if $\nabla$ takes values in $B$. Let us define a homomorphism of algebras $$\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) }:\Gamma{\LARGE (}\bigwedge\nolimits^{k}\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}{\LARGE )}\longrightarrow
\Omega\left( L\right) ,$$$${\large (}\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) }\Psi{\large )}_{x}\left(
w_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge w_{k}\right) =\left\langle \Psi_{x},\omega_{B,\nabla
}\left( w_{1}\right) \wedge\ldots\wedge\omega_{B,\nabla}\left(
w_{k}\right) \right\rangle ,\ \ w_{i}\in L_{|x}.$$ In the algebra $\Gamma\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right)
^{\ast}\right) $ we distinguish the subalgebra \[sec3.1 (A) copy(1)\]$\left( \Gamma\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast
}\right) \right) ^{\Gamma\left( B\right) }$ of invariant cross-sections with respect to the representation of the Lie algebroid $B$ in the vector bundle $\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}$, associated to the adjoint one $\operatorname*{ad}\nolimits_{B,{{\pmb{h}}}}:B\rightarrow
\operatorname*{A}\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) $, $\operatorname*{ad}\nolimits_{B,{{\pmb{h}}}}\left( \xi\right) \left( \left[ \nu\right]
\right) =\left[ [\![\xi,\nu]\!]\right] $, $\xi\in\Gamma\left( B\right) $, $\nu\in\Gamma\left( {{\pmb{g}}}\right) $. Recall, that $\Psi\in\left(
\Gamma\left( \bigwedge^{k}\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}\right)
\right) ^{\Gamma\left( B\right) }$ if and only if$$\left( \#_{B}\circ\xi\right) \hspace{-0.1cm}\left\langle \Psi,\left[
\nu_{1}\right] \wedge\hspace{-0.05cm}\ldots\hspace{-0.05cm}\wedge\left[
\nu_{k}\right] \right\rangle \hspace{-0.05cm}=\hspace{-0.05cm}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left( -1\right) ^{j-1}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left\langle \Psi,\left[
[\![j\circ\xi,\nu_{j}]\!]\right] \wedge\left[ \nu_{1}\right] \wedge
\hspace{-0.05cm}\ldots\hat{\jmath}\ldots\hspace{-0.05cm}\wedge\left[ \nu
_{k}\right] \right\rangle$$ for all $\xi\in\Gamma\left( B\right) $ and $\nu_{j}\in\Gamma\left(
{{\pmb{g}}}\right) $ (see [@K1]). In the space $\left( \Gamma\left(
\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}\right) \right)
^{\Gamma\left( B\right) }$ of invariant cross-sections there exists a differential operator $\bar{\delta}$ defined by$$\hspace{-0.1cm}\left\langle \bar{\delta}\Psi,\left[ \nu_{1}\right]
\wedge\ldots\wedge\left[ \nu_{k}\right] \right\rangle ={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i<j}}
\left( -1\right) ^{i+j+1}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left\langle \Psi,\left[
[\![\nu_{i},\nu_{j}]\!]\right] \wedge\left[ \nu_{1}\right] \wedge\ldots
\hat{\imath}\ldots\hat{\jmath}\ldots\wedge\left[ \nu_{k}\right]
\right\rangle ,$$ (see [@K5]) and we obtain the cohomology algebra $$\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}},B\right) :=\mathsf{H}^{\bullet
}{\LARGE ((}\Gamma{\LARGE (}\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right)
^{\ast}{\Large ))}^{\Gamma\left( B\right) },\bar{\delta}{\Large )}.$$ The homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) }$ commutes with the differentials $\bar{\delta}$ and $d_{L}$, where $d_{L}$ is the differential operator in $\Omega\left( L\right) =\Gamma\left( \bigwedge L^{\ast}\right)
$, see [@B-K]. In this way we obtain the cohomology homomorphism $$\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}},B\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( L\right) .$$ In the case where $L=A\ $and $\nabla=\operatorname{id}_{A}:A\rightarrow A$ is the identity map, we have particular case of a homomorphism for the pair $\left( A,B\right) $:$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) } & :=\Delta_{\left( A,B,\operatorname{id}_{A}\right) }:\Gamma{\LARGE (}\bigwedge\nolimits^{k}\left(
{{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}{\LARGE )}^{\Gamma\left( B\right)
}\longrightarrow\Omega\left( A\right) ,\\
{\large (}\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) }\Psi{\large )}_{x}\left( \upsilon
_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge\upsilon_{k}\right) & =\langle\Psi_{x},[-\breve
{\lambda}\left( \upsilon_{1}\right) ]\wedge\ldots\wedge\lbrack
-\breve{\lambda}\left( \upsilon_{k}\right) ]\rangle,\ \ \ \ \upsilon_{i}\in
A_{|x}.\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) }$ can be written as a composition$$\begin{CD}
\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) }:\operatorname{\Gamma}\left( \bigwedge
\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}\right)
@>{ \Delta_{\left( A,B\right) } }>>
\Omega\left( A\right) @>{\nabla^{\ast} }>> \Omega\left( L\right),
\end{CD}$$ where $\nabla^{\ast}$ is the pullback of forms. For this reason, $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) }$ induces the cohomology homomorphism$$\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}},B\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( A\right) ,$$ which factorizes $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ for every flat $L$-connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$:$$\begin{CD}
\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}\right) @>{ \Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}}>>
\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(A\right) @>{{\nabla}^{\#} }>> \mathsf
{H}^{\bullet}\left( L\right) .
\end{CD}\label{deltacohomology}$$ The map $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}$ is called the *characteristic homomorphism* of the FS-Lie algebroid $\left(
A,B,\nabla\right) $. We call elements of a subalgebra $\operatorname{Im}\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \#}\subset\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
L\right) $ the *secondary* (*exotic*)* characteristic classes* of this algebroid. In particular, $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right)
\#}=\Delta_{\left( A,B,\operatorname{id}_{A}\right) \#}$ is the characteristic homomorphism of the Lie subalgebroid $B\subset A$, which we call the *universal exotic characteristic homomorphism*; the characteristic classes from its image we call the *universal characteristic classes* of the pair $B\subset A$.
The secondary characteristic homomorphism for FS-Lie algebroids generalizes the following known characteristic classes: for flat regular Lie algebroids (Kubarski), for flat principal fibre bundles with a reduction (Kamber, Tondeur) and for representations of Lie algebroids on vector bundles (Crainic).
1. For $L=F$ we obtain the case in which $\nabla:F\rightarrow A$ is a usual connection in $A$. In this way the exotic characteristic homomorphism is a generalization of one for a flat regular Lie algebroid given in [@K5], see [@B-K].
2. For $L=TM$ and $A=TP/G$, and $B=TP^{\prime}/H$ ($P^{\prime}$ is an $H$-reduction of $P$) we obtain the case equivalent to the standard classical theory on principal fibre bundles [@K-T3] (see [@B-K] and Section \[Exotic\_for\_principal\_bundle\] below for more details).
3. [@B-K] Let $A=\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $ be the Lie algebroid of a vector bundle $\mathfrak{f}$ over a manifold $M$, $B=\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f,}\left\{ h\right\} \right) \subset A$ its Riemannian reduction ([@K3]), $L$ a Lie algebroid over $M$, $\nabla
:L\rightarrow\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $ an $L$-connection on $\mathfrak{f}$. Let $\Delta_{\#}$ denote the exotic characteristic homomorphism for FS-Lie algebroid $\left( \mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) ,\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f,}\left\{ h\right\} \right)
,\nabla\right) $. If the vector bundle $\mathfrak{f}$ is nonorientable or orientable and of odd rank $n$, then the domain of $\Delta_{\#}$ is isomorphic with $\bigwedge\left( y_{1},y_{3},\ldots,y_{n^{\prime}}\right) $ where $n^{\prime}$ is the largest odd integer $\leq n$ and $y_{2k-1}\in
\mathsf{H}^{4k-3}\left( \operatorname*{End}\mathfrak{f},\mathcal{A}\left(
\mathfrak{f},\left\{ h\right\} \right) \right) $ is represented by the multilinear trace form $\widetilde{y}_{2k-1}\in\Gamma\left( \bigwedge
\nolimits^{4k-3}\left( \operatorname*{End}\mathfrak{f/}\operatorname*{Sk}\mathfrak{f}\right) ^{\ast}\right) $. Then the image of $\Delta_{\#}$ is generated by the Crainic classes $u_{1}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $, $u_{5}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $,$\ldots$,$u_{4\left[ \frac{n+3}{4}\right] -3}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $ (for details about the classes developed by Crainic see [@Cr], [@Cr-F], [@B-K]). If $\mathfrak{f}$ is orientable of even rank $n=2m$ with a volume form $\operatorname{v}$, the domain of $\Delta_{\#}$ is additionally generated by some class $y_{2m}\in\mathsf{H}^{2m}\left( \operatorname*{End}\mathfrak{f},\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h,\operatorname{v}\right\} \right)
\right) $ represented by a form induced by the Pfaffian and where $\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h,\operatorname{v}\right\} \right)
$ is the Lie algebroid of the $SO\left( n,\mathbb{R}\right) $-reduction $\mathcal{L}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h,\operatorname{v}\right\} \right)
$ of the frames bundle $\mathcal{L}\mathfrak{f}$ of $\mathfrak{f}$; see [@B-K]. Then the algebra of exotic characteristic classes for $\left(
\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) ,\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f,}\left\{ h,\operatorname{v}\right\} \right) ,\nabla\right) $ is generated by $u_{1}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $, $u_{5}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right)
$,$\ldots$,$u_{4\left[ \frac{n+3}{4}\right] -3}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right)
\ $and additionally by $\Delta_{\#}\left( y_{2m}\right) $. In [@B-K] we give an example of FS-Lie algebroid where the Pfaffian induces the non-zero characteristic class.
From (\[deltacohomology\]) one can see that for a pair of regular Lie algebroids $\left( A,B\right) $, $B\subset A$, both over a foliated manifold $\left( M,F\right) $, and for an arbitrary element $\zeta\in\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}\right) $ there exists a (universal) cohomology class $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \,\#}\left(
\zeta\right) \in\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( A\right) $ such that for any Lie algebroid $L$ over $M$ and a flat $L$-connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ the equality$$\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \,\#}\left( \zeta\right) =\nabla
^{\#}\left( \Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \,\#}\left( \zeta\right) \right)$$ holds. Therefore, no element from the kernel of $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right)
\,\#}$ can be used to compare the flat connection $\nabla$ with a reduction $B\subset A$. Hence it is interesting the following
Is the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \,\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}\right) \rightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( A\right) $ a monomorphism for a given $B\subset A$? *The answer yes holds in some cases, see below.*
Functoriality and Homotopic Properties\[functorial\]
====================================================
Functoriality
-------------
Let $\left( A,B\right) $ and $\left( A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\right) $ be two pairs of regular Lie algebroids over $\left( M,F\right) $ and $\left(
M^{\prime},F^{\prime}\right) ,$ respectively, where $B\subset A$, $B^{\prime
}\subset A^{\prime},$ and let $H:A^{\prime}\rightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of Lie algebroids over a mapping $f:\left( M^{\prime},F^{\prime}\right)
\rightarrow\left( M,F\right) $ of foliated manifolds such that $H\left[
B^{\prime}\right] \subset B$. We write $\left( H,f\right) :\left(
A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\right) \rightarrow\left( A,B\right) $. Let $H^{+\,\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}\right) \rightarrow
\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}}^{\prime}{,B}^{\prime}\right) $ be the homomorphism of cohomology algebras induced by the pullback $H^{+\,\ast
}:\Gamma\left( \bigwedge\nolimits^{k}\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right)
^{\ast}\right) \rightarrow\Gamma\left( \bigwedge\nolimits^{k}({{\pmb{g}}}^{\prime}{{/\pmb{h}}}^{\prime})^{\ast}\right) $, see [@K5 Proposition 4.2].
\[The functoriality of $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \,\#}$\]\[functorof0\]For a given pair of regular Lie algebroids $\left( A,B\right) $, $\left(
A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\right) $ and a homomorphism $\left( H,f\right)
:\left( A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\right) \rightarrow\left( A,B\right) \ $we have the commutativity of the following diagram
One can see that $H^{+}\circ\breve{\lambda}^{\prime}(u^{\prime})-\breve
{\lambda}(Hu^{\prime})\in{{\pmb {h}\;}}$for all $u^{\prime}\in A^{\prime}$, where $\lambda$ and $\lambda^{\prime}$ are auxiliary connections in $B$ and $B^{\prime},$ respectively. Applying this fact, it is sufficient to check the commutativity of the diagram on the level of forms. The calculations are left to the reader.
*Let* $\left( A^{\prime},B^{\prime},\nabla^{\prime}\right) $ *and* $\left( A,B,\nabla\right) $ *be two FS-Lie algebroids on foliated manifolds* $\left( M^{\prime},F^{\prime}\right) $ *and* $\left(
M,F\right) ,$ *respectively, where* $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ *and* $\nabla^{\prime}:L^{\prime}\rightarrow A^{\prime}$ *are flat connections. By a* homomorphism ** $$H:(A^{\prime},B^{\prime},\nabla^{\prime})\longrightarrow\left( A,B,\nabla
\right)$$ over ** $f:\left( M^{\prime},F^{\prime}\right) \rightarrow\left(
M,F\right) $ *we mean a pair* $\left( H,h\right) $ *such that:*
- $H:A^{\prime}\rightarrow A$ *is a homomorphism of regular Lie algebroids over* $f$ *and* $H\left[ B^{\prime}\right] \subset
B$*,*
- $h:L^{\prime}\rightarrow L$ *is also a homomorphism of Lie algebroids over* $f$*,*
- $\nabla\circ h=H\circ\nabla^{\prime}.$
Clearly, $h^{\#}\circ\nabla^{\#}=\nabla^{\prime\,\#}\circ H^{\#}$. So, from (\[deltacohomology\]) and Theorem \[functorof0\] we obtain as a corollary the following theorem:
\[*The functoriality of* $\Delta_{\left( A,B,\nabla\right) \,\#}$\] ** The following diagram
commutes.
Homotopy Invariance
-------------------
We recall the definition of homotopy between homomorphisms of Lie algebroids.
*[@K4]* *Let* $H_{0},\,H_{1}:L^{\prime}\rightarrow L$ *be two homomorphisms of Lie algebroids. By a* homotopy joining $H_{0}$ to ** $H_{1}$ *we mean a homomorphism of Lie algebroids* $$H:T\mathbb{R}\times L^{\prime}\longrightarrow L,$$ *such that* $H\left( \theta_{0},\cdot\right) =H_{0}$ *and* $H\left( \theta_{1},\cdot\right) =H_{1}$*, where* $\theta_{0}$ *and* $\theta_{1}$ *are null vectors tangent to* $\mathbb{R}$ *at* $0$ *and* $1$,$\ $*respectively. We say that* $H_{0}$ *and* $H_{1}$ *are* homotopic *and write* $H_{0}\sim H_{1}$*. We say that* $F:L^{\prime}\rightarrow L$ *is a* *homotopy equivalence* *if there is a homomorphism* $G:L\rightarrow L^{\prime}$ *such that* $G\circ F\sim\operatorname{id}_{L^{\prime}}$ *and* $F\circ
G\sim\operatorname{id}_{L}\emph{.}$
The homotopy $H:T\mathbb{R}\times L^{\prime}\rightarrow L$ determines a chain homotopy operator ([@K4], [@Balcerzak-Stokes])$\ $which implies that $H_{0}^{\#}=H_{1}^{\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( L\right) \rightarrow
\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( L^{\prime}\right) $.
*[@K5]* \[defhomotop\]*Two Lie subalgebroids* $B_{0},\,B_{1}\subset A$ *(both over the same foliated manifold* $\left(
M,F\right) $*) are said to be* homotopic*, if there exists a Lie subalgebroid* $B\subset T\mathbb{R}\times A$ *over* $\left(
\mathbb{R}\times M,T\mathbb{R}\times F\right) $*, such that for* $t\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} $$$\upsilon_{x}\in B_{t|x}\text{\ \ \emph{if\ and only if}\ \ }\left( \theta
_{t},\upsilon_{x}\right) \in B_{|\left( t,x\right) }. \label{homotopB}$$ $B$ *is called a* subalgebroid joining $B_{0}$ with $B_{1}$.
*See [@K5 Proposition 5.2] to compare the relation of homotopic subbundles of a principal bundle with the relation of homotopic subalgebroids.*
Let $B_{0},\,B_{1}$ be two homotopic Lie subalgebroids over $\left(
M,F\right) $ and let $B\subset T\mathbb{R}\times A$ be a subalgebroid of $T\mathbb{R}\times A$ joining $B_{0}$ with $B_{1}$, $t\in\left\{ 0,1\right\}
$. For the homomorphism of Lie algebroids $F_{t}^{A}:A\rightarrow
T\mathbb{R}\times A$, $\upsilon_{x}\mapsto\left( \theta_{t},\upsilon
_{x}\right) $ over $f_{t}:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times M$, $f_{t}\left(
x\right) =\left( t,x\right) $, (\[homotopB\]) yields $F_{t}^{A}\left[
B_{t}\right] \subset B$. Applying the functoriality of $\Delta_{t\,\#}:=\Delta_{\left( A,B_{t}\right) \,\#}$ and $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right)
\,\#}$ (see Theorem \[functorof0\]), we obtain the commutativity of the diagram
=1600 =1400
(, )(,) (420,650)\[\^(,B\_[0]{})‘\^(A)‘\^(0,B)‘ \^(TA);\_[0 \#]{}‘[F\_[0]{}]{}\^[+ \#]{}‘[F\_[0]{}]{}\^[A \#]{}‘\_[(TA,B) \#]{}\] (420,100)\[“\^(,B\_[1]{})‘\^(A);‘[F\_[1]{}]{}\^[+ \#]{}‘[F\_[1]{}]{}\^[A \#]{}‘\_[1 \#]{}\] (500,380)[(0,0)[$\simeq$]{}]{} (500,900)[(0,0)[$\simeq$]{}]{} (20,1210)[(0,-1)[1100]{}]{} (19,1210)[(1,0)[195]{}]{} (19,110)[(1,0)[195]{}]{} (-70,650)[(0,0)[$\alpha$]{}]{}
where $F_{t}^{+\,\#}\equiv\left( F_{t}^{A}\right) ^{+\,\#}$. In the paper [@K5] it is shown that $F_{t}^{+\,\#}$ are isomorphisms of algebras. We add that in the proof of this fact one makes use of some theorem concerning invariant cross-sections over $\mathbb{R}\times M$ (with respect to a suitable representation) and one uses global solutions of some system of first-order partial differential equations with parameters, see [@K6].
For any flat $L$-connection $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$, the induced $T\mathbb{R}\times L$-connection $\operatorname{id}_{T\mathbb{R}}\times\nabla$ is also flat. $F_{t}^{A}$ determines a homomorphism $$\left( A,B_{t},\nabla\right) \longrightarrow\left( T\mathbb{R\times
}A,B,\operatorname{id}_{T\mathbb{R}}\times\nabla\right)$$ of **** FS-Lie algebroids over $f_{t}:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times
M$; and so we can complete the previous diagram to the following one.
=3000 =1370
(, )(,) (560,650)\[\^(,B\_[0]{})‘\^(A)‘\^(0,B)‘ \^(TA);\_[0 \#]{}‘[F\_[0]{}]{}\^[+ \#]{}‘[F\_[0]{}]{}\^[A \#]{}‘ \_[(TA,B) \#]{}\] (1840,650)\[‘\^(L)“ \^(TL);“[F\_[0]{}]{}\^[L \#]{}‘()\^[\#]{}\] (1740,1198)[(1,0)[720]{}]{} (2090,1280)[(0,0)[${\nabla}^{\#}$]{}]{} (560,100)\[“\^(,B\_[1]{})‘\^(A);‘[F\_[1]{}]{}\^[+ \#]{}‘[F\_[1]{}]{}\^[A \#]{}‘\_[1 \#]{}\] (1840,100)\[“‘\^(L);“[F\_[1]{}]{}\^[L\#]{}‘\] (1740,110)[(1,0)[720]{}]{} (2090,60)[(0,0)[${\nabla}^{\#}$]{}]{} (640,380)[(0,0)[$\simeq$]{}]{} (640,900)[(0,0)[$\simeq$]{}]{} (160,1210)[(0,-1)[1100]{}]{} (159,1210)[(1,0)[195]{}]{} (159,110)[(1,0)[195]{}]{} (60,650)[(0,0)[$\alpha$]{}]{}
Observe that the rows of the above diagram are characteristic homomorphisms of **** FS-Lie algebroids. Since $F_{0}^{L},\,F_{1}^{L}:L\rightarrow
T\mathbb{R}\times L$ are homotopic homomorphisms, then $F_{0}^{L\,\#}=F_{1}^{L\,\#}$. To prove the homotopy independence of the exotic characteristic homomorphism (in the sense of Definition \[defhomotop\], i.e., the independence of a class of homotopic subalgebroids), it is sufficient to show that $F_{0}^{L\,\#},\,F_{1}^{L\,\#}$ are isomorphisms.
We shall see below that$\;F_{t}^{L}$ are homotopically equivalent. Take the projection $\pi:T\mathbb{R}\times L\rightarrow L$ (over $\operatorname{pr}_{2}:\mathbb{R}\times M\rightarrow M$). Of course, $\pi$ is a homomorphism of Lie algebroids. Note that $F_{t_{o}}^{L}\circ\pi=\left( \hat{t}_{o}\right)
_{\ast}\times\operatorname{id}_{L}$, where $\hat{t}_{o}:\mathbb{R\rightarrow
R}$ is defined by $t\mapsto t_{o}$. We take $\tau:\mathbb{R\times R\rightarrow
R}$, $\left( s,t\right) \mapsto t_{o}+s\,\left( t-t_{o}\right) $. Since the differential $f_{\ast}:TM\rightarrow TN$ of any smooth mapping $f:M\rightarrow N$ is a homomorphism of Lie algebroids [@K4], we obtain that the map $\tau_{\ast}:T\left( \mathbb{R\times R}\right)
=T\mathbb{R\times}T\mathbb{R\rightarrow}T\mathbb{R}$ is a homomorphism of Lie algebroids. We put $$\begin{aligned}
H & :T\mathbb{R\times}\left( T\mathbb{R}\times L\right) \longrightarrow
T\mathbb{R}\times L,\\
H & =\tau_{\ast}\times\operatorname{id}_{L}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
H\left( \theta_{0},\cdot,\cdot\right) & =\tau\left( 0,\cdot\right)
_{\ast}\times\operatorname{id}_{L}=\left( \hat{t}_{o}\right) _{\ast}\times\operatorname{id}_{L}=F_{t_{o}}^{L}\circ\pi,\\
H\left( \theta_{1},\cdot,\cdot\right) & =\tau\left( \cdot,1\right)
_{\ast}\times\operatorname{id}_{L}=\operatorname{id}_{T\mathbb{R\times}L},\end{aligned}$$ $H$ is a homotopy joining $F_{t_{o}}^{L}\circ\pi$ with $\operatorname{id}_{T\mathbb{R\times}L}$, i.e. $F_{t_{o}}^{L}\circ\pi\sim\operatorname{id}_{T\mathbb{R\times}L}$. Evidently, $\pi\circ F_{t_{o}}^{L}=\operatorname{id}_{L}$. Therefore, $F_{t}^{L}$ are isomorphisms.
These facts lead us to the following result:
\[The Rigidity Theorem\]\[TheRigidityTheorem\]If $B_{0},\,B_{1}\subset A$ are homotopic subalgebroids of $A$ and $\nabla:L\rightarrow A$ is a flat $L$-connection in $A$, characteristic homomorphisms $\Delta_{\left(
A,B_{0},\nabla\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}_{0}\right) \rightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( L\right) $ and $\Delta_{\left( A,B_{1},\nabla\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
{{\pmb{g},B}}_{1}\right) \rightarrow H_{L}\left( M\right) $ are equivalent in the sense that there exists an isomorphism of algebras $$\alpha:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}_{0}\right) \overset{\simeq
}{\longrightarrow}\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},B}}_{1}\right)$$ such that $$\Delta_{\left( A,B_{1},\nabla\right) \#}\circ\alpha=\Delta_{\left(
A,B_{0},\nabla\right) \#}.$$ In particular, $\Delta_{\left( A,B_{1}\right) \#}\circ\alpha=\Delta_{\left(
A,B_{0}\right) \#}$.
Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be a vector bundle and $\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $ its Lie algebroid. Two Lie subalgebroids $B_{0}=\mathcal{A}\left(
\mathfrak{f},\left\{ h_{0}\right\} \right) $, $B_{1}=\mathcal{A}\left(
\mathfrak{f},\left\{ h_{1}\right\} \right) $ of the Lie algebroid $\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) $, corresponding to two Riemannian metrics $h_{0}$, $h_{1}$, are homotopic Lie subalgebroids *[@K5]*. Therefore, according to the Rigidity Theorem *\[TheRigidityTheorem\]* we conclude that $\Delta_{\left( \mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right)
,\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h_{0}\right\} \right) \right)
\#}=\Delta_{\left( \mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f}\right) ,\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h_{1}\right\} \right) \right) \#}$, i.e. the characteristic homomorphism for the pair $\left( \mathcal{A}\left(
\mathfrak{f}\right) ,\mathcal{A}\left( \mathfrak{f},\left\{ h\right\}
\right) \right) $ is an intrinsic notion for $\mathcal{A}\left(
\mathfrak{f}\right) $ not depending on the metric $h$.
Particular Cases of the Universal Exotic Characteristic Homomorphism\[universal\]
=================================================================================
The Koszul Homomorphism\[Koszul\]
---------------------------------
In this section, we will consider the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}$ for a pair of Lie algebras $\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $, $\mathfrak{h\subset g}$, and give a class of such pairs for which $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}$ is a monomorphism.
An arbitrary Lie algebra is a Lie algebroid over a point with the zero map as an anchor. Considering the homomorphism of pairs of Lie algebras $\left(
\operatorname*{id}_{\mathfrak{g}},0\right) :\left( \mathfrak{g},0\right)
\rightarrow\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) ,$ $\mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{g}$, the functoriality property gives that $$\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}=\Delta_{\left(
\mathfrak{g},0\right) \#}\circ\left( \operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{\mathfrak{g}},0\right) ^{+\#}=-\left( \operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{\mathfrak{g}},0\right) ^{+\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
\mathfrak{g,h}\right) \rightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right)$$ is induced (in cohomology) by minus of the projection $s:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}/\emph{h}$, since $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},0\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g},0\right)
=\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right)
\xrightarrow{{\left(-\operatorname*{id}\nolimits_{\mathfrak{g}}\right)_{\#}}}\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right) $. More precisely, if $\operatorname*{k}:\left( \bigwedge\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}\right)
_{i_{\mathfrak{h}}=0,\theta_{\mathfrak{h}}=0}\rightarrow\bigwedge
\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}$ denotes the inclusion from the basic subalgebra $\left(
\bigwedge\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}\right) _{i_{\mathfrak{h}}=0,\theta
_{\mathfrak{h}}=0}$ (i.e. subalgebra of invariant and horizontal elements of $\bigwedge\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}$ with respect to the Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$) to $\bigwedge\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}$ (see [@GHV p. 412]), then the secondary characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}$ for the pair $\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $ can be written as a superposition$$\begin{CD}
\Delta _{(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right)
@> \ {\left( -s \right) ^{\#}} >\cong> \mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}\right)
@> \ {\operatorname{k}}^{\#} >> \mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right),
\end{CD}$$ where $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}\right) $ denotes the cohomology algebra $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \left( \bigwedge
\mathfrak{g}^{\ast}\right) _{i_{\mathfrak{h}}=0,\theta_{\mathfrak{h}}=0},d_{\mathfrak{g}}\right) $.
\[examplereductivepair\]*Let* $\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $ *be a reductive pair of Lie algebras (*$\mathfrak{h}\subset\mathfrak{g}$*),* $s:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}$ ** *the canonical projection. Theorems IX and X from [@GHV sections 10.18, 10.19] yield that* $\operatorname*{k}^{\#}$ *is injective if and only if* $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}\right) $ *is generated by* $1$ *and odd-degree elements. Therefore, because of* $\left( -s\right) ^{\#}$ *is an isomorphism of algebras, it follows that* $\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) \#}$ *is injective if and only if* $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $ *is generated by* $1$ *and odd-degree elements. In a wide class of pairs of Lie algebras* $\left( \mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h}\right) $ *such that* $\mathfrak{h}$ *is reductive in* $\mathfrak{g}$*, the homomorphism* $\operatorname*{k}^{\#}$ *is injective if and only if* $\mathfrak{h}$ *is noncohomologous to zero (briefly: n.c.z.) in* $\mathfrak{g}$ *(i.e. if the homomorphism of algebras* $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
\mathfrak{g}\right) \rightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{h}\right) $ *induced by the inclusion* $\mathfrak{h}\hookrightarrow
\mathfrak{g}$ *is surjective). Tables I, II and III at the end of Section XI [@GHV] contain many n.c.z. pairs, eg:* $\left( \mathfrak{gl}\left(
n\right) ,\mathfrak{so}\left( n\right) \right) $ *for odd* $n,$ ** $\left( \mathfrak{so}\left( n,\mathbb{C}\right) ,\mathfrak{so}\left(
k,\mathbb{C}\right) \right) $ *for* $k<n,$ ** $\left(
\mathfrak{so}\left( 2m+1\right) ,\mathfrak{so}\left( 2k+1\right) \right)
$ *and* $\left( \mathfrak{so}\left( 2m\right) ,\mathfrak{so}\left(
2k+1\right) \right) $ *for* $k<m$ *and others.*
In view of the above, the examples below yield that the secondary characteristic homomorphism for the reductive pair $\left( \operatorname{End}\left( V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) $ of Lie algebras is a monomorphism for any odd dimensional vector space $V$ and not a monomorphism for even dimensional.
\[The pair of Lie algebras $\left( \operatorname{End}\left( V\right)
,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) $\]\[ex\]*(a) Let* $V$ *be a vector space of odd dimension,* $\dim V=2m-1$*. Then* $$\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( \operatorname{End}\hspace
{-0.1cm}\left( V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( V\right)
\right) \cong\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( \mathfrak{gl}\left(
2m-1,\mathbb{R}\right) ,O\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( 2m-1\right) \right)
\cong\bigwedge\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( y_{1},y_{3},\ldots,y_{2m-1}\right) ,$$ *where* $y_{2k-1}\in\mathsf{H}^{4k-3}\left( \operatorname{End}\left(
V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) $ *are represented by the multilinear trace forms ([@Godbillon], [@K-T3]). We conclude from the previous example that* $\Delta_{\left( \operatorname{End}\left(
V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) \#}$ *is injective*$.$*(b) In the case where* $V$ *is an even dimensional vector space (*$\dim V=2m$*), we have [@Godbillon]* $$\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( \operatorname{End}\hspace
{-0.1cm}\left( V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( V\right)
\right) \cong\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( \mathfrak{gl}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( 2m,\mathbb{R}\right) ,SO\hspace{-0.1cm}\left(
2m\right) \right) \cong\bigwedge\hspace{-0.1cm}\left( y_{1},y_{3},\ldots,y_{2m-1},y_{2m}\right) ,$$ *where* $y_{2k-1}$ *are the same as above and* $y_{2m}\in
\mathsf{H}^{2m}\left( \operatorname{End}\left( V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) $ *is a nonzero class determined by the Pfaffian. For details concerning elements* $y_{2m}$ *see [@B-K]. Example \[examplereductivepair\] shows that if* $\dim V$ *is even*$,$ *the homomorphism* $\Delta_{\left( \operatorname{End}\left(
V\right) ,\operatorname{Sk}\left( V\right) \right) \#}$ *is not a monomorphism.*
\[exdirectproduct\]*Let* $\mathfrak{g}$, $\mathfrak{h}$ *be Lie algebras and* $\mathfrak{g}\oplus\mathfrak{h}$ *their direct product.* *The characteristic homomorphism of the pair* $\left( \mathfrak{g}\oplus\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}\right) $ *is a monomorphism. It is equal to* $$\Delta_{\left( \mathfrak{g}\oplus\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}\right)
\#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right) \rightarrow
\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}\right) \otimes\mathsf{H}^{\bullet
}\left( \mathfrak{h}\right) ,\ \ \Delta_{\#\mathfrak{g}\oplus\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}}\left( \left[ \Phi\right] \right) =[\left( -1\right)
^{\left\vert \Phi\right\vert }\cdot\Phi]\otimes1.\nonumber$$
The Exotic Universal Characteristic Homomorphism of Principal Fibre Subbundles\[Exotic\_for\_principal\_bundle\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recall briefly secondary (exotic) flat characteristic classes for flat principal bundles [@K-T3] and its connection to the exotic characteristic classes for a pair of a Lie algebroids of a suitable vector bundle and its reduction [@B-K].
Let $P$ be a $G$-principal fibre bundle on a smooth manifold $M$, $\omega\subset TP$ a flat connection in $P$ and $P^{\prime}\subset P$ a connected $H$-reduction, where $H\subset G$ is a closed Lie subgroup of $G$. Let us consider Lie algebroids $\operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) ,$ $\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) $ of the principal bundles $P,P^{\prime}$, respectively, the induced flat connection $\omega
^{A}:TM\rightarrow\operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) $ in the Lie algebroid $\operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) $, and the secondary characteristic homomorphism$$\Delta_{\left( \operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) ,\operatorname*{A}\left(
P^{\prime}\right) ,\omega^{A}\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
{{\pmb{g},}}\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) \right)
\longrightarrow\mathsf{H}_{dR}^{\bullet}\left( M\right)$$ for the FS-Lie algebroid $\left( \operatorname*{A}\left( P\right)
,\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) ,\omega^{A}\right) $. Moreover, let $$\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime},\omega\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
\mathfrak{g},H\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}_{dR}^{\bullet}\left(
M\right)$$ be the classical homomorphism on principal fibre bundles (F. Kamber, Ph. Tondeur [@K-T3]), where $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}(\mathfrak{g},H)$ is the relative Lie algebra cohomology of $\left( \mathfrak{g},H\right) $ (see [@K-T3], [@Chev-Eil]). There exists an isomorphism of algebras $\kappa:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g}{,H}\right) \overset{\simeq
}{\longrightarrow}\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g},}}\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) \right) $ such that$$\Delta_{\left( \operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) ,\operatorname*{A}\left(
P^{\prime}\right) ,\omega^{A}\right) \#}\circ\kappa=\Delta_{\left(
P,P^{\prime},\omega\right) \#} \label{equival}$$ (see [@K5 Theorem 6.1]). Hence, their characteristic classes are identical. In [@B-K] we showed that the homomorphism $$\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime}\right) \#}:=\Delta_{\left( \operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) ,\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) \right)
\#}\circ\kappa:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g},H\right)
\longrightarrow\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \operatorname*{A}\left( P\right)
\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}_{dR}^{r\bullet}\left( P\right)$$ factorizes $\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime},\omega\right) \#}$ for any flat connection $\omega$ in $P$, i.e. the following diagram commutes
where $\omega^{\#}$ on the level of right-invariant differential forms ${\Omega}^{r}\left( P\right) $ is given as the pullback of differential forms. In particular, if $G$ is a compact, connected Lie group and $P^{\prime
}$ is a connected $H$-reduction in a $G$-principal bundle $P$, $H\subset G$, then there exists a homomorphism of algebras$$\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime}\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left(
\mathfrak{g},H\right) \longrightarrow\mathsf{H}_{dR}^{\bullet}\left(
P\right)$$ (called a *universal exotic characteristic homomorphism* for the pair $P^{\prime}\subset P$) such that for arbitrary flat connection $\omega$ in $P$, the characteristic homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime},\omega\right) \#}:\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( \mathfrak{g},H\right)
\rightarrow\mathsf{H}_{dR}^{\bullet}\left( M\right) $ is factorized by $\Delta_{\left( P,P^{\prime}\right) \#}$, i.e. the following diagram is commutative
About a Monomorphicity of the Universal Exotic Characteristic Homomorphism for a Pair of Transitive Lie Algebroids\[ostatni\]
=============================================================================================================================
Consider a pair $\left( A,B\right) $ of transitive Lie algebroids on a manifold $M$, $B\subset A$, $x\in M$, and a pair of adjoint Lie algebras $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $. Clearly, the inclusion $\iota_{x}:\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) \rightarrow\left(
A,B\right) $ is a homomorphism of pairs of Lie algebroids over $\left\{
\ast\right\} \hookrightarrow M$. Theorem \[functorof0\] gives rise to the commutative diagram $$\begin{split}\setsqparms[1`1`1`1;900`500]
\square[\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}({\pmb{g}},B)`\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}(A)`\mathsf
{H}^{\bullet}({\pmb{g}_{x}},\pmb{h}_{x})`\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}(\pmb{g}_{x}).;
{\Delta}_{(A,B)\#} `\iota_{x}^{+ \#}`\iota_{x}^{\#}`{\Delta}_{(\pmb{g}_{x},\pmb{h}_{x})\#}]\end{split}
\label{fu}$$ Obviously, if the left and lower homomorphisms are monomorphisms, then $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ is a monomorphism as well. The homomorphism $\iota_{x}^{+\#}$ is a monomorphism, if each invariant element $v\in\left(
\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}\right)
^{\mathfrak{h}_{x}}$ can be extended to a global invariant cross-section of the vector bundle $\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}$. In consequence, we obtain the following theorem linking the Koszul homomorphism with exotic characteristic classes:
\[threductive\_general\]Let $\left( A,B\right) $ be a pair of transitive Lie algebroids over a manifold $M$, $B\subset A$, and let $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ be a pair of adjoint Lie algebras at $x\in M$. If each element of $\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}\right) ^{\mathfrak{h}_{x}}$ can be extended to an invariant cross-section of $\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right)
^{\ast}$ and the Koszul homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) \#}$ for the pair $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ is a monomorphism, then $\Delta_{\left(
A,B\right) \#}$ is a monomorphism.
The assumptions of the above theorem hold for integrable Lie algebroids $A$ and $B$ ($B\subset A$), i.e. if $A=\operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) $ for some principal $G$-bundle $P$ and $B=\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime
}\right) $ for some reduction $P^{\prime}$ of $P$ with connected structural Lie group $H\subset G$ (remark: on account of Theorem 1.1 in [@exp] for any transitive Lie subalgebroid $B\subset\operatorname*{A}\left( P\right) $ there exists a connected reduction $P^{\prime}$ of $P$ having $B$ as its Lie algebroid, i.e. $B=\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) $, but, in general, the structural Lie group of $P^{\prime}$ may be not connected). Let $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\mathfrak{h}$ denote the Lie algebras of $G$ and $H$, respectively. The representation $\operatorname*{ad}_{B,{{\pmb{h}}}}$ is integrable: it is a differential of the representation $\operatorname*{Ad}_{P^{\prime},{{\pmb{h}}}}:P^{\prime}\rightarrow L\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) $ of the principal fibre bundle $P^{\prime}$ defined by $z\mapsto\left[ \hat{z}\right] $, see [@K5 p. 218]. We recall that for each $z\in P^{\prime}$, the isomorphism $\hat{z}:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow
\pmb{g}_{x},$ $v\mapsto\left[ \left( A_{z}\right) _{\ast e}v\right] $ ($A_{z}:G\rightarrow P,$ $a\mapsto za$) maps $\mathfrak{h}$ onto $\pmb{h}_{x}$ (see [@K1 Sec. 5.1]) and determines an isomorphism $\left[ \hat
{z}\right] :\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{h}\rightarrow\pmb{g}_{x}/\pmb{h}_{x}$. Therefore (see also ([@K1 Prop. 5.5.2-3])), we have a natural isomorphism$$\kappa:\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right)
^{\ast}\right) ^{H}\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow}\left( \Gamma\left(
\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}\right) \right)
^{\Gamma\left( B\right) }$$ and because of the connectedness of $H$, $\hspace{-0.05cm}\left(
\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}\right)
^{H}\hspace{-0.06cm}=\hspace{-0.05cm}\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}\right) ^{\mathfrak{h}_{x}}$, which gives that $\iota_{x}^{+\#}$ is an isomorphism. In this way we obtain the following corollary:
Let $\left( A,B\right) $ be a pair of Lie algebroids, $B\subset A$, where $A$ is an integrable Lie algebroid via a principal fibre bundle $P$ and let $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ be a pair of adjoint Lie algebras at $x\in M$. If the structure Lie group of the connected reduction $P^{\prime}$ of $P$ such that $\operatorname*{A}\left( P^{\prime}\right) =B$ is a connected Lie group and the Koszul homomorphism $\Delta_{\left(
{{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) \#}$ for the pair $\left(
{{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ is a monomorphism *(*for examples see Example *\[examplereductivepair\])*, then $\Delta_{\left(
A,B\right) \#}$ is a monomorphism as well.
Let $\left( A,B\right) $ be a pair of transitive Lie algebroids over a manifold $M$, $B\subset A$, for which the kernels ${{\pmb{g}}},{{\pmb{h}}}$ of anchors are abelian Lie algebra bundles, and let $x\in M$. An example of the mentioned Lie algebroid is the Lie algebroid $A\left( G,H\right) $ of a nonclosed and connected Lie subgroup $H$ of $G$ (see [@K1]). The existence of such nonintegrable Lie algebroids is shown in [@A-M]. Since the homomorphism $\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}\right)
=\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}\rightarrow\bigwedge\left(
{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) ^{\ast}=\mathsf{H}^{\bullet}\left( {{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ induced by the inclusion ${{\pmb{g}}}_{x}\hookrightarrow
{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}$ is surjective and $\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) $ is a reductive pair of Lie algebras, the Koszul homomorphism $\Delta_{\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x},{{\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right) \#}$ is injective (see Example \[examplereductivepair\]). Hence, in view of Theorem \[threductive\_general\] we obtain that if $\left( A,B\right) $ is a pair of transitive Lie algebroids on a manifold $M$ such that kernels of their anchors ${{\pmb{g}}},{{\pmb{h}}}$ are abelian Lie algebra bundles and each element of $\left( \bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}}}_{x}{{/\pmb{h}}}_{x}\right)
^{\ast}\right) ^{\mathfrak{h}_{x}}$ can be extended to an invariant cross-section of $\bigwedge\left( {{\pmb{g}/\pmb{h}}}\right) ^{\ast}$ for all $x\in M$, then $\Delta_{\left( A,B\right) \#}$ is a monomorphism.
*An example of a nontrivial universal characteristic class determined by the Pfaffian (see [@B-K]) shows that there exists a pair of transitive and integrable Lie algebroids* $\left( A,B\right) $ *for which the left arrow in the diagram (\[fu\]) describes an isomorphism, the bottom one is not a monomorphism, however, the top one is a monomorphism.*
[99]{}
R. Almeida and P. Molino, *Suites d’Atiyah et feuilletages transversalement complets*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. I Math. **300** (1985), 13–15.
B. Balcerzak, *The Generalized Stokes theorem for* $\mathbb{R}$*-linear forms on Lie algebroids*, Accepted to Journal of Applied Analysis; available as preprint .
B. Balcerzak, J. Kubarski and W. Walas,** ***Primary characteristic homomorphism of pairs of Lie algebroids and Mackenzie algebroid*, In: Lie Algebroids and Related Topics in Differential Geometry, Banach Center Publ. **54** (2001), 135–173.
B. Balcerzak and J. Kubarski, Some Exotic Characteristic Homomorphism for Lie Algebroids, Accepted to Topology and its Applications; available as preprint (2011).
C. Chevalley and S. Eilenberg, *Cohomology theory of Lie groups and Lie algebras*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **63** (1948), 85–124.
M. Crainic, *Differentiable and algebroid cohomology, Van Est isomorphisms, and characteristic classes*, Comment. Math. Helv. **78** (2003), 681–721.
M. Crainic and R. L. Fernandes, *Secondary Characteristic Classes of Lie Algebroids*, In: Quantum field theory and noncommutative geometry, Lecture Notes in Phys. **662** (2005), Springer, Berlin, 157–176.
S. Evens, J.-H. Lu and A. Weinstein, *Transverse measures, the modular class and a cohomology pairing for Lie algebroids*, Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2) **50**, (1999), 417–436.
R. L. Fernandes, *Lie algebroids, holonomy and characteristic classes*, Adv. Math. **170** (2002), 119–179.
C. Godbillon, *Cohomologies d’algèbres de Lie de champs de vecteurs formels*, Séminaire Bourbaki, 25e année, 1972/73,n$^{\circ}$**421**, Lecture Notes in Math. **383** (1974), 69–87.
W. Greub, S. Halperin and R. Vanstone, *Connections, curvature, and cohomology. Volume III: Cohomology of principal bundles and homogeneous spaces*, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 47-III, New York–San Francisco–London, Academic Press, 1976.
Ph. J. Higgins and K. C. H. Mackenzie, *Algebraic constructions in the category of Lie algebroids*, J. Algebra **129** (1990), 194–230.
F. Kamber and Ph. Tondeur, *Foliated Bundles and Characteristic Classes*, Lectures Notes in Math. **493** (1975), Berlin–Heidelberg–New York, Springer-Verlag.
J.-L. Koszul, *Homologie et cohomologie des algébres de Lie*, Bull. Soc. Math. France **78** (1950), 65–127.
J. Kubarski, *Exponential mapping for Lie groupoids*, Colloq. Math. **47** (1982), 267–282.
J. Kubarski, *The Chern-Weil homomorphism of regular Lie algebroids*, Publ. Dép. Math. Nouvelle Sér. A, Université Claude-Bernard, Lyon, 1991, 1–69.
J. Kubarski, *Tangential Chern-Weil homomorphism*, Proceedings of Geometric Study of Foliations, Tokyo, November 1993, ed. by T. Mizutani, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994, 327–344.
J. Kubarski, *Invariant cohomology of regular Lie algebroids*, In: Analysis and Geometry in Foliated Manifolds, Proceedings of the VII International Colloquium on Differential Geometry, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, July 26-30, 1994, ed. by X. Masa, E. Macias-Virgos, J. Alvarez Lopez, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995, 137–151.
J. Kubarski, *Algebroid nature of the characteristic classes of flat bundles*, In:*** ***Homotopy and Geometry, Banach Center Publ. **45** (1998), 199–224.
J. Kubarski, *The Weil algebra and the secondary characteristic homomorphism of regular Lie algebroids*, In: Lie Algebroids and Related Topics in Differential Geometry, Banach Center Publ. **54** (2001), 135–173.
K. C. H. Mackenzie, *Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids in differential geometry*, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. **124** (1987), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.
I. Vaisman, *Characteristic classes of Lie algebroid morphisms*, Differential Geom. Appl. **28** (2010), 635–647.
A. Weinstein, *The modular automorphism group of a Poisson manifold*, J. Geom. Phys. **23** (1997), 379–394.
Bogdan Balcerzak
e-mail: [email protected]
Jan Kubarski
e-mail: [email protected]
Institute of Mathematics, Technical University of Łódź
ul. Wólczańska 215, 90-924 Łódź, Poland
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Morphological properties of strained epitaxial films are examined through a mesoscopic approach developed to incorporate both the film crystalline structure and standard continuum theory. Film surface profiles and properties, such as surface energy, liquid-solid miscibility gap and interface thickness, are determined as a function of misfit strains and film elastic modulus. We analyze the stress-driven instability of film surface morphology that leads to the formation of strained islands. We find a universal scaling relationship between the island size and misfit strain which shows a crossover from the well-known continuum elasticity result at the weak strain to a behavior governed by a “perfect" lattice relaxation condition. The strain at which the crossover occurs is shown to be a function of liquid-solid interfacial thickness, and an asymmetry between tensile and compressive strains is observed. The film instability is found to be accompanied by mode coupling of the complex amplitudes of the surface morphological profile, a factor associated with the crystalline nature of the strained film but absent in conventional continuum theory.'
author:
- 'Zhi-Feng Huang'
- 'K. R. Elder'
date: '; to be published in Phys. Rev. B'
title: 'Morphological instability, evolution, and scaling in strained epitaxial films: An amplitude equation analysis of the phase field crystal model'
---
Introduction
============
The most recent area of focus in thin film epitaxy has been on exploiting the growth and control of strained solid films to develop specific nanostructure features that can be used in optoelectronic device applications. These structures include junctions, quantum wells, and multilayers/superlattices for which planar interfaces are highly desired. On the other hand, epitaxially grown films are usually strained due to the lattice mismatch with the substrate, leading to a variety of stress-induced effects and structures either on the film surface or across the interfaces, such as islands (quantum dots) or nanowires. [@re:stangl04; @re:shchukin99; @re:teichert02; @re:berbezier09] A wide range of device applications results from such heterostructures, including LEDs, diode lasers, detectors, FETs, etc., [@re:humphreys08; @re:stangl04] with the major technical concerns being the requirement of long-range ordering, size regularity, placement and defect control.
Much progress has been made in understanding film growth above the surface roughening temperature, particularly the formation and evolution of coherent nanostructures. The evolution sequence often involves many physical processes, including an initial morphological instability of the Asaro-Tiller-Grinfeld (ATG) type [@re:asaro72; @re:grinfeld86; @re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91; @re:spencer93] that results in surface ripples and undulations, [@re:sutter00; @re:tromp00] the formation of islands and the evolution from pre-pyramid to faceted shape (e.g., $\{105\}$-faceted pyramids for SiGe [@re:tersoff02]), subsequent islands coarsening, [@re:ross98; @re:floro00; @re:rastelli05] further shape transitions from pyramids to domes [@re:ross98] or to unfaceted prepyramids [@re:rastelli05] and the nucleation of misfit dislocations for very large islands. [@re:jesson95; @re:albrecht95]
To understand these complex processes of nanostructure self-assembly, most of current theoretical efforts are based on either continuum diffusion and elasticity theories or atomistic simulation methods that focus on a certain single scale of description. In standard continuum theory, the film morphology is described by a coarse-grained, continuum surface profile [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91] or phase fields, [@re:muller99; @re:kassner01; @re:wise05] with evolution governed by the relaxation of continuum elastic and surface free energies. Quantitative results have been obtained to reveal fundamental mechanisms of film nanostructure formation observed in a variety of experimental systems. Recent work has focused on morphological instabilities of strained films [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91; @re:spencer93] or superlattices, [@re:shilkrot00; @re:huang03a; @re:huang03b] the coupling to alloy film composition inhomogeneity, [@re:guyer95; @re:leonard98; @re:spencer01; @re:huang02a; @re:huang02b] island evolution, [@re:spencer05; @re:tu07] ordering and coarsening [@re:muller99; @re:kassner01; @re:wise05; @re:liu01; @re:levine07; @re:huangz07] as well as island growth on nanomembranes/nanoribbons. [@re:huangm09; @re:kimlee09] Such continuum approaches give a long-wavelength description of the system, which has a large computational advantage over microscopic approaches but naturally neglects many microscopic crystalline details that can have a significant impact on film structural evolution and defect dynamics. This can be remedied via atomistic simulations such as kinetic Monte Carlo (MC) methods. Recent progress includes identifying detailed properties of strained islands such as morphology, density and size distribution [@re:nandipati06; @re:zhu07] and the evolution of complex surface structures including dots, pits and grooves as a function of growth conditions in both two [@re:lam02] and three [@re:lung05] dimensions. However to simulate strained film growth, novel approaches (e.g., Green’s function method [@re:lam02; @re:zhu07] or local approximation technique [@re:schulze09]) are required to incorporate strain energy via long-range elastic interactions, which usually limit atomistic studies to small length and time scales.
Recently an approach coined Phase Field Crystal (PFC) modeling has been developed to incorporate atomic-level crystalline structures into standard continuum theory for pure and binary systems. [@re:elder02; @re:elder04; @re:elder04b; @re:elder07] This model can be related to other continuum field theories such as classical density functional theory [@re:ry79; @re:singh91; @re:vanteeffelen09; @re:kahl09] and the atomic density function theory. [@re:jin06] The PFC model describes the diffusive, large-time-scale dynamics of the atomic number density field $\rho$, which is spatially periodic on atomic length scales. By including atomic scale variations, the physics associated with elasticity, plasticity, multiple crystal orientations and anisotropic properties (of, e.g., surface energy and elastic constants) is naturally incorporated. This approach has been applied to a wide variety of phenomena including glass formation, [@re:berry08] climb and glide dynamics of dislocations, [@bme06] epitaxial growth, [@re:elder02; @re:elder04; @re:elder07; @re:huang08; @re:wu09; @ybv09] pre-melting at grain boundaries, [@beg08a; @mkp08] commensurate/incommensurate transitions, [@ak06; @ramos08] sliding friction phenomena [@ak09] and the yield strength of polycrystals. [@re:elder02; @re:elder04; @htt09; @Ste09] For strained film epitaxy, the basic sequence of film evolution observed in experiments, i.e., morphological instability $\rightarrow$ nanostructure/island formation $\rightarrow$ dislocation nucleation and climb, has been successfully reproduced in PFC simulations. [@re:elder04; @re:elder07; @re:huang08; @re:wu09] Unfortunately computational simulations of the original PFC model are limited by the need to resolve atomic length scales. This limitation can be overcome by deriving the corresponding amplitude equation formalism as developed by Goldenfeld *et al.* [@re:goldenfeld05; @re:athreya06] to effectively describe the system via the “slow"-scale amplitude and phase of the atomic density $\rho$, while at the same time retaining the key characters (e.g., elasticity, plasticity and multiple crystal orientations) of the modeling. Very recently such a mesoscopic approach has been extended by Yeon *et al.* [@re:yeon10] to incorporate a slowly-varying average density field which is essential to account for the liquid-solid coexistence and a miscibility gap, and also by Elder *et al.* [@re:elder10] to describe the binary alloy systems for both two-dimensional (2D) hexagonal and three-dimensional (3D) bcc and fcc structures. Application of this extended expansion to strained film growth and island formation has yielded promising results, particularly the determination of a universal size scaling of surface nanostructures (strained islands). [@re:huang08] However, in these PFC studies some key factors for understanding the basic mechanisms of strained film evolution are still missing and yet to be addressed, including film surface properties (such as strain-dependent surface tension and width) and the effect of the sign of film/substrate misfit strain, as will be clarified in this work.
In this paper we provide a complete formulation for such multiple-scale analysis of single-component, strained film epitaxy. Compared to our previous work [@re:huang08] which is also based on the amplitude equation formalism established for two-dimensional high temperature growth, here we provide a new and more systematic study of various strained film properties including surface energy, film surface (or liquid-film interface) thickness, and liquid-film miscibility gap that are identified for different misfit strains (both tensile and compressive). Furthermore, morphological instabilities of the strained films and the corresponding behavior of island formation are systematically investigated, showing the important effects of misfit strains (both magnitude and sign) and film surface properties that are absent in previous work. A main feature of our multi-scale (mesoscopic/microscopic) approach is that it can maintain the efficiency advantage of the continuum theory through coarse-grained amplitudes, without losing significant effects due to the discrete nature of the crystalline film structure.
Amplitude Equation Formalism for Strained Film Epitaxy
======================================================
In the PFC model, [@re:elder02; @re:elder04; @re:elder07] the free energy functional $F$ can be derived from the classical density functional theory of freezing [@re:elder07] and be expressed in terms of a dimensionless atomic number density $n=(\rho-\bar{\rho})/\bar{\rho}$, i.e., $$F/\bar{\rho} k_B T = \int d{\bm r}\left \{
\frac{n}{2} \left [ B^\ell+B^x \left ( 2 R^2\nabla^2+R^4\nabla^4
\right) \right ] n -\frac{\tau}{3}n^3 + \frac{v}{4}n^4\right \},
\label{eq:pfc_F}$$ where $\bar{\rho}$ is the average density, $T$ is the temperature, $R$ represents the lattice spacing, $B^\ell$ is related to the isothermal compressibility of the liquid phase, $B^x$ is proportional to the bulk modulus of the crystalline state, and $\tau$ and $v$ are phenomenological parameters (chosen as $\tau=1/2$, $v=1/3$ in the following calculations for simplicity). The liquid-solid transition is controlled by a parameter $\epsilon=(B^x-B^\ell)/B^x$ which is related to temperature difference from the melting point. The solid phase exists at $\epsilon>0$, with hexagonal/triangular crystalline symmetry in 2D and bcc in 3D. Based on the assumption of conserved system dynamics, i.e., $\partial n / \partial t = \Gamma \nabla^2
\delta F / \delta n$ with $\Gamma$ the mobility, the PFC dynamic equation is given by $$\partial n / \partial t = \Gamma \nabla^2 \left [ B^\ell n + B^x (R^4
\nabla^4 + 2R^2 \nabla^2) n - \tau n^2 + v n^3 \right ].
\label{eq:pfc0}$$ Defining a length scale $l_0=R$, a time scale $\tau_0=R^2/\Gamma B^x$, and $n \rightarrow \sqrt{v/B^x}~n$, we obtain the rescaled equation $$\partial n / \partial t = \nabla^2 \left [ -\epsilon\,n + (\nabla^2 +
q_0^2)^2 n - g n^2 +n^3 \right ],
\label{eq:pfc}$$ where $g=\tau / \sqrt{v B^x}$, $q_0=1$ and the symbol $q_0$ is retained for the clarity of presentation.
For the epitaxial system of interest, we consider a system configuration composed of a semi-infinite strained crystalline film and a coexisting homogeneous liquid state, which are separated by a time-evolving interface (i.e., film surface). To access the “slow" time and length scales of the film surface profile we introduce a standard multiple scale expansion of the PFC equation (\[eq:pfc\]) and derive the associated amplitude equations, with detailed procedures given in Refs. . For a 2D system with the film surface normal to the $y$ direction, the atomic density field $n$ is expanded in both liquid and solid regions as the superposition of a spatially/temporally-varying average local density $n_0$ (for the zero wavenumber mode) and three hexagonal base modes, i.e., $$n = n_0(X,Y,T)+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{3} A_j(X,Y,T) e^{i{\bm
q}_j^0 \cdot {\bm r}} + {\rm c.c.},
\label{eq:nexpan}$$ where both $n_0$ and complex amplitudes $A_j$ are slowly varying variables (with $A_j=0$ in the liquid region), and ${\bm q}_j^0$ represent the three hexagonal basic wave vectors $${\bm q_1^0} = q_0 \left ( -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \hat{x} - \frac{1}{2}
\hat{y} \right ), \quad {\bm q_2^0} = q_0 \hat{y}, \quad {\bm q_3^0} =
q_0 \left ( \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \hat{x} - \frac{1}{2}
\hat{y} \right ).
\label{eq:qj0}$$ This expansion (\[eq:nexpan\]) implies the separation of “slow" scales $X=\epsilon^{1/2} x$, $Y=\epsilon^{1/2} y$, $T=\epsilon t$ for $n_0$ and $A_j$ (and hence the film surface profile) from the underlying crystalline structure, at the limit of small $\epsilon$ or high temperature growth. The corresponding amplitude equations are given by (in the form of Model C [@re:hohenberg77]) $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial A_j / \partial t = - q_0^2 \delta {\cal F} / \delta A_j^*,&
\label{eq:amplA}\\
&\partial n_0 / \partial t = \nabla^2 \delta {\cal F} / \delta n_0,&
\label{eq:amplB}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective potential ${\cal F}$ (a Lyapunov functional) is written as $$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal F} =& \int d {\bm r} \left \{ (-\epsilon +3n_0^2-2gn_0)
\sum_{j=1}^3 |A_j|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^3 \left | \left ( \nabla^2
+ 2i{\bm q}_j^0 \cdot {\bm \nabla} \right ) A_j \right |^2
+ \frac{3}{2}\sum_{j=1}^3 |A_j|^4 \right. \nonumber\\
&& + (6n_0-2g) (A_1A_2A_3+A_1^*A_2^*A_3^*)
+ 6\left ( |A_1|^2 |A_2|^2 + |A_1|^2 |A_3|^2 + |A_2|^2 |A_3|^2
\right ) \nonumber\\
&& \left. -\frac{1}{2} \epsilon n_0^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left [ \left (
\nabla^2 + q_0^2 \right ) n_0 \right ]^2 - \frac{1}{3} g n_0^3 +
\frac{1}{4} n_0^4 \right \}. \label{eq:F}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the operator $(\nabla^2 + 2i{\bm q}_j^0 \cdot {\bm \nabla})$ preserves the rotational covariance of these amplitude equations. [@re:gunaratne94] This effective free energy describes a first order phase transition from a liquid ($A_j=0$) to a solid state ($A_j\neq 0$) and incorporates elasticity though the operator $(\nabla^2 + 2i{\bm q}_j^0 \cdot {\bm \nabla})$, as discussed in Ref. . In addition the terms containing $n_0$ incorporate a miscibility gap for the density at liquid-solid coexistence.
For a hexagonal lattice, the equilibrium wave numbers along $x$ and $y$ directions are $q_{x_0}=\sqrt{3} q_0/2$ and $q_{y_0}=q_0$ for the undistorted, zero-misfit bulk lattice. For strained films during epitaxy (with distorted hexagons/triangles), the misfit $\varepsilon_m$ is determined by $$\varepsilon_m = \frac{a_0-a}{a} = \frac{q_x}{q_{x_0}}-1,
\label{eq:misfit}$$ where $a_0=2\pi/q_{x_0}$ is the stress-free bulk film lattice constant and $a=2\pi/q_x$ is the lattice constant of the strained film. The complex amplitudes $A_j$ should then be expressed by $$A_1 = A_1' e^{-i(\delta_x x + \delta_y y /2)}, \quad A_2 = A_2' e^{i
\delta_y y}, \quad A_3 = A_3' e^{i(\delta_x x - \delta_y y /2)},
\label{eq:A'}$$ where amplitudes $A_j'$ are complex, $\delta_x = q_{x_0} \varepsilon_m = \sqrt{3} q_0 \varepsilon_m /2$, and the value of $\delta_y$ ($\neq \delta_x$) is determined by the lattice relaxation along the film growth direction $y$ (corresponding to the Poisson relaxation in continuum elasticity theory). Since both $A_j$ and $A_j'$ are slowly varying quantities, $\delta_x$, $\delta_y$ and the misfit strain ($\varepsilon_m$) should also be sufficiently small. Substituting Eq. (\[eq:A’\]) into Eqs. (\[eq:amplA\])–(\[eq:F\]), the amplitude equations for strained films are then $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t A_1' =& -q_0^2 \left \{ \left [ -\epsilon + 3n_0^2-2gn_0 +
\left ( \partial_x^2+\partial_y^2 - i (\sqrt{3} q_0 +
2\delta_x)\partial_x -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4 \right )^2
\right ] A_1' +(6n_0-2g) A_2'^* A_3'^* \nonumber\\
&& \left. + 3A_1' \left ( |A_1'|^2 +
2|A_2'|^2 + 2|A_3'|^2 \right ) \right \} ,
\label{eq:amplA1'}\\
&\partial_t A_2' =& -q_0^2 \left \{ \left [ -\epsilon + 3n_0^2-2gn_0 +
\left ( \partial_x^2+\partial_y^2 + 2i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
- 2q_0 \delta_y -\delta_y^2 \right )^2
\right ] A_2' \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. +(6n_0-2g) A_1'^* A_3'^* + 3A_2' \left ( |A_2'|^2 +
2|A_1'|^2 + 2|A_3'|^2 \right ) \right \} ,
\label{eq:amplA2'}\\
&\partial_t A_3' =& -q_0^2 \left \{ \left [ -\epsilon + 3n_0^2-2gn_0 +
\left ( \partial_x^2+\partial_y^2 + i (\sqrt{3} q_0 +
2\delta_x)\partial_x -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4 \right )^2
\right ] A_3' +(6n_0-2g) A_1'^* A_2'^* \nonumber\\
&& \left. + 3A_3' \left ( |A_3'|^2 +
2|A_1'|^2 + 2|A_2'|^2 \right ) \right \} ,
\label{eq:amplA3'}\\
&\partial_t n_0 =& \nabla^2 \left \{ \left [ -\epsilon + \left (
\nabla^2 + q_0^2 \right )^2 \right ] n_0 -g n_0^2 + n_0^3
+ (6n_0-2g) \left ( |A_1'|^2 + |A_2'|^2 + |A_3'|^2 \right ) \right .
\nonumber\\
&& \left. +6(A_1'A_2'A_3'+A_1'^*A_2'^*A_3'^*) \right \}. \label{eq:ampln0'}\end{aligned}$$
These amplitude equations describe a strained system and will be used to study morphological instabilities of a liquid-crystal surface under strain. In the next section, steady state or base solutions will be obtained for a planar liquid-crystal interface under strain. In Sec. \[sec:perb\] the stability of these planar solutions to small perturbations at the surface will be examined.
Base State Solution: Film Surface Properties {#sec:base}
============================================
We first construct a base state involving a planar film surface (i.e., a coexisting liquid-crystal interface). The corresponding amplitudes $A_j^0$ and density $n_0^0$ are then only a function of the normal direction $y$, and hence the amplitude equations (\[eq:amplA1’\])–(\[eq:ampln0’\]) can be simplified as $$\partial A_j^0 / \partial t = - q_0^2 \delta {\cal F}^0 / \delta
{A_j^0}^*, \qquad
\partial n_0^0 / \partial t = \partial_y^2 \delta {\cal F}^0 / \delta
n_0^0, \label{eq:An0}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal F}^0 =& \int d {\bm r} \left \{ (-\epsilon +3{n_0^0}^2-2gn_0^0)
\sum_{j=1}^3 |A_j^0|^2 + \frac{3}{2}\sum_{j=1}^3 |A_j^0|^4 \right. \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
-\sqrt{3} q_0 \delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4
\right ] A_1^0 \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 + 2i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
- 2q_0 \delta_y -\delta_y^2 \right ] A_2^0 \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y
-\sqrt{3} q_0 \delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4
\right ] A_3^0 \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + (6n_0^0-2g) (A_1^0A_2^0A_3^0+{A_1^0}^*{A_2^0}^*{A_3^0}^*)
+ 6\left ( |A_1^0|^2 |A_2^0|^2 + |A_1^0|^2 |A_3^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 |A_3^0|^2
\right ) \nonumber\\
&& \left. -\frac{1}{2} \epsilon {n_0^0}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left [ \left (
\partial_y^2 + q_0^2 \right ) n_0^0 \right ]^2 - \frac{1}{3} g {n_0^0}^3 +
\frac{1}{4} {n_0^0}^4 \right \}. \label{eq:F0}\end{aligned}$$
{height="2.8in"}
\[fig:A0n0\]
![Sample equilibrium profiles of the complete density field $n$ as reconstructed from $n_0^0$ and $A_j^0$ for $\epsilon=0.02$, a misfit of $3\%$, and $B^x=1$ and $10$ in a) and b) respectively.[]{data-label="fig:EqI"}](EqI.eps){height="2.8in"}
![The equilibrium amplitudes $|A_j^0|$ in the solid region as a function of misfit $\varepsilon_m$, for $\epsilon=0.02$. The results in the main panel correspond to $B^x=10$, and those in the inset are for $B^x=1$. Note the much larger vertical scale in the inset.[]{data-label="fig:A0"}](ampl4096eps002Bs_e_A0.eps){height="2.8in"}
The equilibrium profile for the base state (with solid/liquid coexistence) is given in Fig. \[fig:A0n0\], corresponding to non-growing, stationary films of different misfit strains $\varepsilon_m$ and elastic constants (as determined by $B^x$). The amplitudes and $n_0^0$ can be used to reconstruct the full density field $n$ via Eq. (\[eq:nexpan\]), as shown in Fig. \[fig:EqI\]. This figure highlights the increase in interfacial width as the magnitude of elastic moduli (i.e., $B^x$) increases. Since the stationary solution of Eqs. (\[eq:An0\]) and (\[eq:F0\]) cannot be obtained analytically, the results shown were obtained by numerical solutions based on a pseudospectral method. To apply the periodic boundary condition, we set the initial configuration as a pair of symmetric liquid-solid interfaces located at $y=L_y/4$ and $3 L_y/4$ respectively, with $L_y$ the one-dimensional (1D) system size which is chosen up to $L_y=8192$ in our calculations so that these two interfaces are sufficiently far apart from each other and thus evolve independently. In the numerical algorithm adopted, the second order Crank-Nicholson time stepping scheme is used for the linear terms, while a second order Adams-Bashford explicit method is applied for the nonlinearities. A grid spacing $\Delta y = \lambda_0/8$ (i.e., 8 grid points per basic wavelength $\lambda_0=2\pi /q_0$) is chosen in most of calculations, although similar results have been obtained with much larger $\Delta y$. Relatively large time steps $\Delta t$ can be adopted without losing numerical stability: We use $\Delta t = 0.5$ (or even $1$) for $B^x \geq 10$, and $\Delta t = 0.2$ for $B^x=1$ with sharp interface. We also use the same algorithm and parameters in the stability/perturbation calculations given in Sec. \[sec:perb\].
For finite misfits the amplitudes $|A_1^0|=|A_3^0| \neq
|A_2^0|$ and their difference increases with $\varepsilon_m$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:A0\]. This corresponds to a triangular structure distorted along the $y$ direction (the surface normal) and the degree of distortion increases with misfit strain. Also as shown in Fig. \[fig:A0n0\], for larger value of $B^x$ which corresponds to smaller bulk modulus (as we calculate based on one-mode approximation; see Sec. \[sec:perb\]), the interface or film surface is more diffuse (i.e., with larger interface width), but with a narrower coexistence region (i.e., smaller but nonzero miscibility gap). This can also be seen in Fig. \[fig:n0\], which shows the liquidus and solidus rescaled density $n_0^{\rm liq}$, $n_0^{\rm sol}$ as well as the miscibility gap $\Delta n_0 =n_0^{\rm sol} - n_0^{\rm liq}$ as a function of misfit $\varepsilon_m$. The size of miscibility gap decreases with the increasing magnitude of misfit, and shows slight asymmetry with respect to the misfit sign as a result of different non-linear elastic effects on liquid-solid coexistence property for tensile and compressive strains.
0.3in
![(a) The equilibrium densities $n_0^{\rm liq}$ and $n_0^{\rm
sol}$ (in the coexisting liquid and solid regions respectively) as a function of misfit strain $\varepsilon_m$, with parameters the same as those of Fig. \[fig:A0\]. (b) The size of miscibility gap $\Delta n_0 = n_0^{\rm sol} -
n_0^{\rm liq}$ as a function of $\varepsilon_m$, for $B^x=10$ (the main panel) and $1$ (the inset); Note the large vertical scale for $B^x=1$ in the inset.[]{data-label="fig:n0"}](ampl4096eps002Bs_e_n0.eps "fig:"){height="2.3in"} ![(a) The equilibrium densities $n_0^{\rm liq}$ and $n_0^{\rm
sol}$ (in the coexisting liquid and solid regions respectively) as a function of misfit strain $\varepsilon_m$, with parameters the same as those of Fig. \[fig:A0\]. (b) The size of miscibility gap $\Delta n_0 = n_0^{\rm sol} -
n_0^{\rm liq}$ as a function of $\varepsilon_m$, for $B^x=10$ (the main panel) and $1$ (the inset); Note the large vertical scale for $B^x=1$ in the inset.[]{data-label="fig:n0"}](ampl_eps002Bx_e_dn0_new.eps "fig:"){height="2.3in"}
.3in
![Results of surface tension $\gamma$ for different misfit strains $\varepsilon_m$, with parameters the same as those of Fig. \[fig:A0\]. Also shown are the quadratic fitting results for $B^x=10$ (in the main panel) and $1$ (in the inset). Note that the vertical scale in the inset for $B^x=1$ is much larger.[]{data-label="fig:gamma"}](ampl_eps002Bx_e_gamma_new.eps){height="2.8in"}
We also calculate the surface tension $\gamma$ as a function of misfit strain since it is one of the important factors for determining film stability and island formation. Surface energy is known to play a stabilization role on film evolution and for simplicity is often approximated as misfit independent in many strained film studies. However in the presence of a strain field, the surface energy is known to vary as a result of intrinsic surface stress ${\bm \sigma}^0$ and is usually expanded up to 2nd order in terms of strain tensor $u_{ij}$ (with $i,j$ the film surface coordinate indices) in linear elasticity theory, [@re:wolf93; @re:shchukin99] i.e., $$\gamma = \gamma_0 + \sigma^0_{ij} u_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} S_{ijkl} u_{ij} u_{kl},
\label{eq:gamma_expan}$$ where $S_{ijkl}$ are the surface excess elastic moduli. Both $\sigma_{ij}^0$ and $S_{ijkl}$ can be either positive or negative. [@re:shchukin99] For the 1D surface considered here, strain $u_{xx} =
\varepsilon_m$ and hence Eq. (\[eq:gamma\_expan\]) gives $\gamma = \gamma_0 + \sigma^0_{xx} \varepsilon_m + S_{xxxx}
\varepsilon_m^2 /2$, which is consistent with our amplitude-equation calculations shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\]. Data fitting of our numerical results yields $\gamma_0=6.82 \times 10^{-3}$, $\sigma^0_{xx}=-4.77 \times 10^{-4}$, $S_{xxxx}/2=-9.76 \times 10^{-2}$ for $B^x=1$, and $\gamma_0=2.20 \times 10^{-4}$, $\sigma^0_{xx}
= -3.72 \times 10^{-5}$, $S_{xxxx}/2=-2.06 \times 10^{-2}$ for $B^x=10$ (all in dimensionless unit), showing smaller surface energy for larger value of $B^x$ (with larger surface width). These results indicate that for the parameters chosen, both the intrinsic surface stress $\sigma^0_{xx}$ and excess elastic moduli $S_{xxxx}$ are negative, leading to the decrease of surface energy with increasing magnitude of misfit strain. In addition the tensile surface stress is rather weak which can explain the weak asymmetry of $\gamma$ between tensile and compressive strained films.
Morphological Instability and Island Scaling {#sec:perb}
============================================
For strained films with nonzero misfit, a morphological instability of film surface is known to develop as a result of strain energy relaxation, leading to surface undulations and then the formation of surface nanostructures such as strained islands. Such an instability can be revealed via a linear analysis of amplitude equations given above. We can expand the amplitudes in Fourier series as $$\begin{aligned}
& A_j'(x,y,t) = A_j^0(y) + \sum\limits_{q_x} \hat{A}_j(q_x,y,t) e^{i q_x
x},& \label{eq:A_expan}\\
& n_0(x,y,t) = n_0^0(y) + \sum\limits_{q_x} \hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t) e^{i q_x x},&
\label{eq:n_expan}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_j^0(y)$ and $n_0^0(y)$ are the planar base solutions discussed in the previous section and the perturbed quantities $\hat{A}_j$ and $\hat{n}_0$ obey the following linearized equations, $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t \hat{A}_1(q_x,y,t)& = -q_0^2 \left \{
\left [ -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2-2gn_0^0 +
\left ( \partial_y^2 -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y - q_x^2
+ (\sqrt{3} q_0 + 2\delta_x)q_x
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4 \right )^2
+ 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right ) \right ]
\hat{A}_1(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + 6A_1^0 \left [ {A_2^0}^* \hat{A}_2(q_x,y,t) + {A_3^0}^*
\hat{A}_3(q_x,y,t) \right ] + 3{A_1^0}^2 \hat{A}_1^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_3^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_2^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_2^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_2^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_3^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_3^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_1^0 + 6{A_2^0}^*{A_3^0}^* \right ]
\hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t) \right \},
\label{eq:ampl_hatA1}\\
&\partial_t \hat{A}_2(q_x,y,t)& = -q_0^2 \left \{
\left [ -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2-2gn_0^0 +
\left ( \partial_y^2 + 2i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y - q_x^2
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. - 2q_0 \delta_y -\delta_y^2 \right )^2
+ 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right ) \right ]
\hat{A}_2(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + 6A_2^0 \left [ {A_1^0}^* \hat{A}_1(q_x,y,t) + {A_3^0}^*
\hat{A}_3(q_x,y,t) \right ] + 3{A_2^0}^2 \hat{A}_2^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_3^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_2^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_1^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_1^0}^* + 6A_2^0A_3^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_3^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_2^0 + 6{A_1^0}^*{A_3^0}^* \right ]
\hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t) \right \},
\label{eq:ampl_hatA2}\\
&\partial_t \hat{A}_3(q_x,y,t)& = -q_0^2 \left \{
\left [ -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2-2gn_0^0 +
\left ( \partial_y^2 -i (q_0 + \delta_y) \partial_y - q_x^2
- (\sqrt{3} q_0 + 2\delta_x)q_x
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -\delta_y^2 /4 \right )^2
+ 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right ) \right ]
\hat{A}_3(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + 6A_3^0 \left [ {A_1^0}^* \hat{A}_1(q_x,y,t) + {A_2^0}^*
\hat{A}_2(q_x,y,t) \right ] + 3{A_3^0}^2 \hat{A}_3^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_2^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_3^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_1^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_1^0}^* + 6A_2^0A_3^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_2^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_3^0 + 6{A_1^0}^*{A_2^0}^* \right ]
\hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t) \right \},
\label{eq:ampl_hatA3}\\
&\partial_t \hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t)& = \left ( \partial_y^2 - q_x^2 \right )
\left \{ \left [ -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2-2gn_0^0 + \left ( \partial_y^2
-q_x^2 + q_0^2 \right )^2 \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. + 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right )
\right ] \hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_1^0}^* + 6A_2^0A_3^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_1(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_2^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_3^0
\right ] \hat{A}_2(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g){A_3^0}^* + 6A_1^0A_2^0 \right ]
\hat{A}_3(q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_1^0 + 6{A_2^0}^*{A_3^0}^* \right ]
\hat{A}_1^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_2^0 + 6{A_1^0}^*{A_3^0}^* \right ]
\hat{A}_2^*(-q_x,y,t) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left [ (6n_0^0-2g)A_3^0 + 6{A_1^0}^*{A_2^0}^* \right ]
\hat{A}_3^*(-q_x,y,t) \right \}. \label{eq:ampl_hatn0}\end{aligned}$$
The stability of the base planar film surface is examined by introducing initial small random perturbations into $\hat{A}_j$ and $\hat{n}_0$, and solving numerically the initial value problem defined by Eqs. (\[eq:ampl\_hatA1\])–(\[eq:ampl\_hatn0\]), given a specific value of $q_x$. The numerical algorithm introduced in Sec. \[sec:base\] is employed, with the use of a pseudospectral method and periodic boundary conditions.
![Reconstruction of full density field $n$ for an interface profile showing island formation, with a $3\%$ misfit at $\epsilon=0.02$. a) corresponds to density $n$ at $t=125,000$, for $B^x=1$ and the maximum instability wave number $q_x=0.0184$, while b) corresponds to $n$ at $t=2000$, for $B^x=10$ and $q_x=0.026$.[]{data-label="fig:configs"}](P_1.eps){height="1.8in"}
![Reconstruction of full density field $n$ for an interface profile showing island formation, with a $3\%$ misfit at $\epsilon=0.02$. a) corresponds to density $n$ at $t=125,000$, for $B^x=1$ and the maximum instability wave number $q_x=0.0184$, while b) corresponds to $n$ at $t=2000$, for $B^x=10$ and $q_x=0.026$.[]{data-label="fig:configs"}](P10.eps){height="1.8in"}
![(a) Amplitude perturbations, which grow with time around the solid/liquid interface for $\epsilon=0.02$, $B^x=10$, wave number $q_x=0.026$ and $3\%$ misfit. (b) Perturbation growth rate $\sigma$ as a function of wave number $q_x$, for different values of misfit $\varepsilon_m$. Other parameters are the same as (a). (c) Characteristic time scale $\tau$ ($\sim 1/\sigma_{\rm max}$) for the mounding instability as a function of misfit $\varepsilon_m$, for $B^x=1$ and $10$. Two power laws, $\tau \sim \varepsilon_m^{-8}$ and $\sim \varepsilon_m^{-4}$, are also shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig:perb_sig"}](perb4096eps002Bs10_An_half.eps){height="2.3in"}
![(a) Amplitude perturbations, which grow with time around the solid/liquid interface for $\epsilon=0.02$, $B^x=10$, wave number $q_x=0.026$ and $3\%$ misfit. (b) Perturbation growth rate $\sigma$ as a function of wave number $q_x$, for different values of misfit $\varepsilon_m$. Other parameters are the same as (a). (c) Characteristic time scale $\tau$ ($\sim 1/\sigma_{\rm max}$) for the mounding instability as a function of misfit $\varepsilon_m$, for $B^x=1$ and $10$. Two power laws, $\tau \sim \varepsilon_m^{-8}$ and $\sim \varepsilon_m^{-4}$, are also shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig:perb_sig"}](pbqx4096eps002Bs10_sig.eps "fig:"){height="2.26in"} ![(a) Amplitude perturbations, which grow with time around the solid/liquid interface for $\epsilon=0.02$, $B^x=10$, wave number $q_x=0.026$ and $3\%$ misfit. (b) Perturbation growth rate $\sigma$ as a function of wave number $q_x$, for different values of misfit $\varepsilon_m$. Other parameters are the same as (a). (c) Characteristic time scale $\tau$ ($\sim 1/\sigma_{\rm max}$) for the mounding instability as a function of misfit $\varepsilon_m$, for $B^x=1$ and $10$. Two power laws, $\tau \sim \varepsilon_m^{-8}$ and $\sim \varepsilon_m^{-4}$, are also shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig:perb_sig"}](pbqx4096eps002Bs_e_sig.eps "fig:"){height="2.3in"}
For nonzero misfit, within a certain range of wave number $q_x$ the initial perturbations of $\hat{A}_j$ and $\hat{n}_0$ grow with time around the liquid-solid interface, while they always decay to zero far from the interface region, showing the stability of both the solid and liquid bulks. This interface instability results in the formation of islands or mounds at the liquid-solid interface, as shown in Fig. \[fig:configs\]. This figure was obtained by reconstructing full density field $n$ from the amplitudes with wave number $q_x$ of maximum instability (based on Eq. (\[eq:nexpan\])). A typical example of the dynamics of the amplitudes that gives rise to this instability is given in Fig. \[fig:perb\_sig\]a. We then calculate the perturbation growth rate $\sigma(q_x)$, noting that $|\hat{A}_j|, |\hat{n}_0| \propto e^{\sigma t}$. This process is repeated for a range of perturbation wave number $q_x$, and also for various misfits $\varepsilon_m$. Some results of the dispersion relation are shown in Fig. \[fig:perb\_sig\]b, for $\epsilon=0.02$ and $B^x=10$. Previous work of continuum elasticity or phase-field theory has predicted various forms of dispersion relation, including $\sigma \simeq \alpha_3 q^3 - \alpha_4 q^4$ (for surface-diffusion dominated process, [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91; @re:spencer93]) $\sigma \simeq -\alpha_2 q^2 +\alpha_3 q^3 - \alpha_4 q^4$ (if considering wetting effects, [@re:levine07; @re:eisenberg00]) $\sigma \simeq \alpha_1 q - \alpha_2 q^2$ (in the case of evaporation-condensation, [@re:srolovitz89; @re:muller99; @re:kassner01]) or $\sigma \simeq \alpha_2 q^2 - \alpha_3 q^3$ (for bulk-diffusion dominated case, [@re:wu09]) with $q$ the wave number and $\alpha_i$ ($i=1,...,4$) the model-dependent coefficients that are usually a function of surface tension and elastic moduli. However, none of these forms fits our dispersion data, which instead can be well fitted only by a 4th order polynomial of $q_x$ for all range of wave numbers, similar to a combination of all the above forms. This is not unexpected, given that all factors of surface diffusion, bulk diffusion, wetting effects, and evaporation/condensation are naturally incorporated in the PFC model and cannot be easily decoupled. This can be seen through the fact that the PFC modeling of epitaxial growth involves the coexistence of liquid-solid interface that buckles and evolves, and thus naturally involves the diffusion processes along the interface and between liquid region and solid film, and also the variation of material properties such as surface/interface energy and elastic relaxation across the interface (i.e., the wetting effects). We expect that an important parameter controlling these different processes would be $\epsilon$, the temperature distance from the melting point. The $\epsilon$ (or temperature) dependence of properties of system relaxation has been known for pattern formation systems, and is also seen in our PFC studies. Here we focus on high temperature regime where the amplitude equation representation is most relevant and effective, and hence choose $\epsilon=0.02$ which is different from other studies with larger $\epsilon$ and hence lower growth temperature (e.g., $\epsilon=0.1$ in Ref. ). For such small $\epsilon$ (high temperature) surface diffusion process is more prominent and coupled with the bulk diffusion process, a phenomenon that might be weakened or absent in low temperature growth (e.g., in Ref. only bulk diffusion behavior has been identified in the dispersion relation obtained from the original PFC equation).
The development of surface perturbations and instability can be characterized by an evolution time scale $\tau$, which can be approximated via the inverse of maximum perturbation growth rate $\sigma_{\rm max}$ and is found to scale as $\varepsilon_m^{-8}$ or $\varepsilon_m^{-4}$ in continuum elasticity theory with the assumed mass transport mechanism dominated by surface diffusion or evaporation-condensation respectively. [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer93] However, our calculations yield results more complicated than this single power law behavior, as shown in Fig. \[fig:perb\_sig\]c, which can also be expected from the coupling of various mass transport processes in this modeling as discussed above. Our results show that the time scale $\tau$ decreases with misfit strain $\varepsilon_m$, since the $\varepsilon_m$ provides the driving force for the morphological instability. $\tau$ is also found to significantly decreases when $B^x$ increases. For example at a given misfit, $\tau$ is typically one or two orders of magnitude larger for $B^x=1$ compared with $B^x=10$. This difference is most likely due to the significant decrease in surface energy and increase in interfacial thickness as $B^x$ is increased, as shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\] and Fig. \[fig:A0n0\] respectively.
0.3in
![(a) Characteristic wave number $Q_I$ of film surface instability as a function of misfit strain magnitude $|\varepsilon_m|$, for different values of $B^x=1$ and $10$ and both compressive ($\varepsilon_m>0$) and tensile ($\varepsilon_m<0$) films. The limit imposed by “perfect” relaxation condition is indicated by a dashed line. (b) Scaling of island wave number based on a crossover wave number $Q^*=3\gamma q_0^2/4E$ and misfit $\varepsilon_m^*=3\gamma q_0/4E$, for different values of $B^x$ which is proportional to film elastic modulus. The inset highlights the crossover to the continuum result of $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m^2$ at small misfit limit.[]{data-label="fig:Q_misfit"}](pbqx_eps002Bx_e_Q_new.eps "fig:"){height="2.3in"} ![(a) Characteristic wave number $Q_I$ of film surface instability as a function of misfit strain magnitude $|\varepsilon_m|$, for different values of $B^x=1$ and $10$ and both compressive ($\varepsilon_m>0$) and tensile ($\varepsilon_m<0$) films. The limit imposed by “perfect” relaxation condition is indicated by a dashed line. (b) Scaling of island wave number based on a crossover wave number $Q^*=3\gamma q_0^2/4E$ and misfit $\varepsilon_m^*=3\gamma q_0/4E$, for different values of $B^x$ which is proportional to film elastic modulus. The inset highlights the crossover to the continuum result of $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m^2$ at small misfit limit.[]{data-label="fig:Q_misfit"}](pbqx_eps002Bx_e_Q_scaled_new.eps "fig:"){height="2.3in"}
The maximum of the growth rate determines the characteristic wave number $Q_I$ for the instability, and hence the characteristic wave number of the island/mound formation on the film surface. We plot in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]a the relation of this instability/island wave number $Q_I$ vs. misfit strain $\varepsilon_m$, for different values of $B^x$ and for both compressive ($\varepsilon_m>0$) and tensile ($\varepsilon_m<0$) films. For each value of $B^x$ we can identify two regions, corresponding to a quadratic behavior of $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m^2$ at small misfits (see also the inset of Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]b) and a linear dependence of $Q_I$ on $\varepsilon_m$ for large enough strains. Such quadratic scaling in the small misfit limit is consistent with the well-known results of continuum theory including all different assumptions of dominant mechanisms such as surface diffusion, evaporation-condensation and wetting effects. [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91; @re:spencer93; @re:spencer05; @re:levine07; @re:eisenberg00] However, this $\varepsilon_m^2$ scaling result differs from the experimental findings in SiGe/Si(001) growth, [@re:sutter00; @re:tromp00] which indicate the linear behavior $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m$ for the stress-driven surface instability and coherent epitaxial islands. Although this observation of a linear relationship is qualitatively similar to what we obtain above for large enough misfits, it should be cautioned that the experimental systems involve more complicated factors related to the SiGe alloying nature that is not considered here, particularly the atomic mobility difference between the two film components which was verified by recent first principle calculations [@re:huangl06] and was believed to play a key role on island size scaling. [@re:tersoff00; @re:spencer01]
For the single-component films studied here the crossover from the quadratic scaling at the continuum weak-strain limit to linear behavior at high strains is most likely due to the discrete nature of the crystalline lattice that is implicitly included in the amplitude formulation. It is known (and verified in direct simulations of PFC Eq. (\[eq:pfc\]) [@re:elder04; @re:elder07; @re:huang08]) that at late times the instability to form islands or mounds leads to the nucleation of dislocations around the edges of islands or in the valleys between the mounds. These dislocations nucleate to relieve strain in the film and appear at earlier times for larger misfit strains. Here we define a length scale, $\lambda_R$, for “perfect” relaxation such that if the dislocations nucleate at this distance apart, strain in the film will be completely relieved (aside from the strain induced by the dislocations themselves). We can then make the assumption that if the continuum prediction for most unstable wavelength is smaller than $\lambda_R$, continuum theory will break down. To evaluate $\lambda_R$ consider a 1+1 dimensional film; assume $L_x$ being the lateral length of film surface and by definition we have $L_x = N a = M a_0$, where $N$ is the number of atoms in strained lattice, $M$ is the atom number for unstrained state after dislocations nucleate, and $a$ and $a_0$ are the corresponding lattice constants already defined in Eq. (\[eq:misfit\]). Thus from Eq. (\[eq:misfit\]) for the definition of misfit, we obtain $\varepsilon_m=(N-M)/M$, leading to the average distance between dislocations $\lambda_R = L/|N-M| = L/(M|\varepsilon_m|)
= a_0 /|\varepsilon_m|$, with the associated wave number $Q_R=q_{x0}
|\varepsilon_m|$ (plotted as a dashed line in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]a). Assuming that on average at least one dislocation will appear at each island edge/valley, this wave number $Q_R$ will then be the upper limit imposed by the discrete nature of the lattice, as it would be unphysical for islands with size smaller than $\lambda_R$ to appear which would instead cause the “overrelaxation" of the film lattice. Our results of island wave number $Q_I$ for different values of $B^x$ ($=10, 20, 100$) all converge to this limit at large misfit strains (except for $B^x=1$ which will be discussed below).
This “perfect" relaxation condition is expected to be met at large enough misfits, but not at small strains where dislocations appear at far late stage after islands form, leading to the crossover phenomenon between two scaling regimes given in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]. This crossover occurs when $Q_I ({\rm of~ small~ misfit~ limit }) = Q_R$. As stated above, at small $\varepsilon_m$ we can recover the result of continuum theory which predicts $Q_I \propto (E/\gamma) \varepsilon_m^2$ (with $E$ the Young’s modulus). [@re:srolovitz89; @re:spencer91; @re:spencer93] In our calculations based on the PFC model and amplitude equations, we evaluate $E$ from a one-mode approximation, [@re:elder04; @re:elder07] $E=B^x A_{\rm min}^2/2$, where $A_{\rm min}=4 (g-3n_0 +
\sqrt{g^2+24n_0 g-36 n_0^2 + 15\varepsilon_m})/15$. Using the results of $\gamma$ given in Sec. \[sec:base\], we can fit the small misfit data well into a form $Q_I=4E \varepsilon_m^2 / 3\gamma$ (for all values of $B^x$; see the inset of Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]b). Therefore, the misfit ($\varepsilon_m^*$) and island wave number ($Q_I^*$) at the crossover can be determined via $Q_I^*=4E {\varepsilon_m^*}^2 / 3\gamma
=Q_R=q_{x0} \varepsilon_m^*$, resulting in $\varepsilon_m^*=3\gamma q_{x0}/4E$ and $Q_I^* = 3\gamma q_{x0}^2/4E$. Defining rescaled quantities $\hat{Q} = Q_I / Q_I^*$ and $\hat{\varepsilon}_m = \varepsilon_m /
\varepsilon_m^*$, we can then scale all the data from different conditions (e.g., films of different elastic constants, for $B^x>1$) onto a single universal scaling curve accommodating all range of misfit strains, for both compressive and tensile films (see Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]b). The crossover misfit strain $\varepsilon_m^*$ can be very small ($<2\%$, depending on e.g., film elastic properties), showing the breakdown of continuum approach even at relatively large scales.
Note that although this linear behavior due to “perfect" lattice relaxation and the scaling crossover have been observed in our previous work, [@re:huang08] it was limited to compressive strained films and not-too-large misfits. However, the more generalized study given here shows a small deviation from the limit of “perfect" relaxation for small value of $B^x$, as indicated in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]a with island wave numbers of $B^x=1$ lying above such upper limit (the dashed line) when the magnitude of mismatch $|\varepsilon_m|$ exceeds $5\%$ (for tensile films) or $6\%$ (compressive). Similar deviation can be seen in the corresponding scaling plot of Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]b. Nevertheless, at large misfits the linear scaling behavior is still maintained, which is qualitatively different from the quadratic scaling at the small strain limit. Based on the discussions given above for “perfect" relaxation condition, it is expected that $Q_I > Q_R$ occurs only when some of the island edges would be dislocation-free even at late evolution times. The condition for this scenario is not clear; but our results suggest that this may occur when the liquid-solid interface (or film surface) is sharp enough. As given in Fig. \[fig:width\], the interface width $W$ decreases with the value of $B^x$, and is particularly small at $B^x=1$ (with $W \sim
13.5\Delta y$ for both tensile and compressive films, less than 2 lattice spacing) as compared to others. It could then be expected that details of film morphological evolution, including instability and island formation, would be different for such sharp interface, as somewhat indicated in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\]. Further studies are needed to clarify this special scenario of strained film evolution.
![The linear relation between the liquid-solid interface width $W$ and the inverse of crossover wave number $1/Q_I^*$, for $\epsilon=0.02$ and both compressive (filled symbols) and tensile (open symbols) films. Values of $B^x$ are also indicated on the plot.[]{data-label="fig:width"}](width_QI_new.eps){height="2.5in"}
Fig. \[fig:width\] also yields the effect of finite interface width $W$ on the island size (or wave number) scaling. We find $1/Q_I^* \sim W$, i.e., a linear relation between crossover instability wavelength ($=2\pi /Q_I^*$) and the interface thickness. This is consistent with most recent results of direct PFC simulations [@re:wu09] which indicate that the discrepancy or crossover between the classical elasticity result of quadratic scaling of $Q_I$ and the linear behavior identified in the PFC modeling could be attributed to the finite thickness of the interface, a fact that is neglected in the classical continuum theory. As seen in Fig. \[fig:width\], when $W \rightarrow 0$ (i.e., the assumption adopted in continuum elasticity theory), we have $Q_I^* \rightarrow \infty$ and hence recover the continuum theory prediction of $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m^2$ for the whole range of misfit strain, as expected. Corresponding to real experimental systems, Fig. \[fig:width\] predicts that at constant growth temperature (same $\epsilon$ value), the liquid-solid interface thickness varies with film elastic modulus (or the value of $B^x$), and for different film materials the crossover island size separating two island scaling regimes increases linearly with the interface thickness.
Another important feature of our results is the asymmetry between tensile and compressive films which, however, becomes distinct only at small enough $B^x$ and large enough misfits (see Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\] for the data of $B^x=1$). Given the important role played by the surface energy $\gamma$ on film stability and evolution, we expect this asymmetric phenomenon of island wave number to be closely related to the property of $\gamma$ shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\]. The intrinsic surface stress $\sigma_{xx}^0$ determined for $B^x=1$ is an order of magnitude larger than that for $B^x=10$, leading to much larger value of surface energy difference between tensile and compressive strains; also such difference increases with the magnitude of misfit strain. The corresponding behavior of surface instability and island formation would then follow the similar trend, as observed in Fig. \[fig:Q\_misfit\].
Free Energy Analysis and Mode Coupling
======================================
To further elucidate the properties of the strained surface, it is interesting to analyze the effective free energy ${\cal F}$ (given in Eq. (\[eq:F\])). Consider the net change of ${\cal F}$ relative to that of a planar interface, i.e., $$\Delta {\cal F} = {\cal F} - {\cal F}^0,$$ where ${\cal F}^0$ is the free energy of the planar interface given in Eq. (\[eq:F0\]). $\Delta {\cal F} <0$ indicates film surface instability against the initial perturbation, while $\Delta {\cal F} >0$ refers to the energy penalty of any perturbations and hence corresponds to stability of planar film surface.
Based on the Fourier expansion (\[eq:A\_expan\]) and (\[eq:n\_expan\]), $\Delta {\cal F}$ can be expanded up to second order in the perturbed quantities $\hat{A}_j$ and $\hat{n}_0$, i.e., $$\Delta {\cal F} = \Delta {\cal F}^{(1)} + \Delta {\cal F}^{(2)}.
\label{eq:dF12}$$ Detailed expression of the first order term $\Delta {\cal F}^{(1)}$ is given in the Appendix (see Eq. (\[eq:dF1\])). We find numerically $\Delta {\cal F}^{(1)} \sim 0$, and hence the net energy change $\Delta {\cal F}$ is determined by the second order quantity $$\Delta {\cal F}^{(2)} = \Delta {\cal F}_{+} + \Delta {\cal F}_{-},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta {\cal F}_{-} = L_x \int dy \sum\limits_{q_x} \left \{
(6n_0^0 - 2g) \sum\limits_{j=1}^{3} \left [ A_j^0 \hat{A}_j^*(-q_x)
+ {A_j^0}^* \hat{A}_j(q_x) \right ] \hat{n}_0^*(q_x)
\right. & \nonumber\\
& \left. + (6n_0^0 - 2g) \left [ A_3^0 \hat{A}_1(q_x) \hat{A}_2(-q_x) +
A_2^0 \hat{A}_1(q_x) \hat{A}_3(-q_x) + A_1^0 \hat{A}_2(q_x)
\hat{A}_3(-q_x) + {\rm c.c.} \right ] \right \}, & \nonumber\\
&& \label{eq:dF_}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{A}_j(q_x) = \hat{A}_j(q_x,y,t)$ and $\hat{n}_0(q_x) =
\hat{n}_0(q_x,y,t)$, and the contribution $\Delta {\cal F}_{+}$ is shown in Eq. (\[eq:dF+\]) of the Appendix.
![Time evolution of effective free energy density change $\Delta {\cal F}$ (per unit volume $V=L_x L_y$) of the perturbed state, with misfit $\varepsilon_m=3\%$, wave number $Q_I=0.026$, $\epsilon=0.02$, and $B^x=10$. Also included are the positive contribution $\Delta {\cal F}_+$ and the negative contribution $\Delta {\cal
F}_-$.[]{data-label="fig:perb_dF"}](perb4096eps002Bs10e003_F.eps){height="2.8in"}
Given the numerical solution for the perturbed amplitudes (see Eqs. (\[eq:ampl\_hatA1\])–(\[eq:ampl\_hatn0\])) as described in Sec. \[sec:perb\], $\Delta {\cal F}$ ($\simeq \Delta
{\cal F}^{(2)}$) can be approximated via the most unstable characteristic wave number by substituting the numerical solutions for amplitudes at $q_x=\pm Q_I$. We find that all terms in Eq. (\[eq:dF+\]) are positive, i.e., $\Delta {\cal F}_{+} > 0$; both two terms in Eq. (\[eq:dF\_\]) yield negative contribution (noting that usually $6n_0^0 - 2g <0$ for liquid-solid coexistence), so that $\Delta {\cal F}_{-} < 0$, and the magnitude of the last term is much larger than the 1st one. As shown in Fig. \[fig:perb\_dF\], at large enough time $\Delta {\cal F}_{-}$ dominates over the stabilizing terms in $\Delta {\cal F}_{+}$, leading to negative net free energy change $\Delta {\cal F}$ and thus the film instability. Note that the last term in Eq. (\[eq:dF\_\]), which dominates $\Delta {\cal F}_{-}$, arises from the 2nd-order expansion of $(A_1 A_2 A_3 + A_1^* A_2^* A_3^*)$ in the effective free energy formula (\[eq:F\]). It represents the coupling of different modes of complex amplitudes, and our numerical results show that it contributes to the integral of $\Delta {\cal F}_-$ only in the interface or film surface region (as the perturbed amplitudes decay fast in the bulks). We can then argue that it is the mode coupling of complex amplitudes at the liquid-solid interface that is mainly responsible for the morphological instability of the strained film. Note that the amplitudes of structural profile $A_j$ are complex, and thus their evolution involves an important process of phase perturbation (or phase winding). Physically this phase behavior corresponds to the elastic relaxation of the lattice structure, and thus the mode coupling property identified above indicates that the coupling of elastic relaxation for different lattice modes (or wave vectors) around the film surface would be one of the major factors underlying the film instability and mounding behavior. Such phase behavior is related to details of crystalline structure, as captured by the PFC model and the amplitude equation formalism, but not by the continuum theory. Furthermore, the competition between $\Delta {\cal F}_+$ ($>0$) and $\Delta {\cal F}_-$ ($<0$) shown in Fig. \[fig:perb\_dF\] is consistent with previous analysis of continuum elasticity theory showing the competition between film stabilization effects (such as surface energy) and destabilizing factors (mainly elastic effects). Note also that the above mechanism identified should be already incorporated in the original PFC equation (\[eq:pfc\]) and the associated PFC free energy (\[eq:pfc\_F\]), while the analysis given here based on the amplitude formulation has the advantage of being able to single out individual contributions from different lattice modes.
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated the detailed properties of a strained film surface, its morphological instability, and the associated island wave number scaling through a systematic analysis of the amplitude equation formalism based on the phase field crystal model. We identify the amplitude and average density profiles of liquid-film coexisting interface, the interface width, miscibility gap, and surface energy (including intrinsic surface stress and excess elastic modulus), for various misfit strains (both magnitude and sign) and film elastic constants (or values of $B^x$). The morphological or mounding instability of the strained film is systematically examined, showing results absent in all previous continuum elasticity and phase-field approaches and atomistic modeling. In particular, we obtain a crossover phenomenon of instability or island wave number scaling, from the well-known continuum, ATG result of $Q_I \sim
\varepsilon_m^2$ to a linear behavior $Q_I \sim \varepsilon_m$ at large enough strains which is identified by an upper limit imposed by the condition of “perfect" lattice relaxation. Most data (of different parameter ranges) can be scaled onto a universal scaling relation for the whole range of misfit strain, with some small deviations for very narrow liquid-solid interfaces in the large strain limit. The asymmetry of film properties between tensile and compressive strains is also observed. Note that although either linear or quadratic scaling has been reported in experiments (such as SiGe/Si(001)) and model simulations (e.g., kinetic MC) or continuum theory (e.g., ATG instability), the universal scaling relation with crossover of the two regions has not been found before. We expect our prediction here to be examined by experiments of single-component film epitaxy or atomistic simulations with large enough length and time scales.
Our study highlights an important feature of the amplitude formulation for strained film epitaxy, in that it can simultaneously reproduce continuum results (e.g., the ATG instability) and reveal significant corrections due to the microscopic nature of the crystalline structure. Our approach adopts a mesoscopic-level description of the system, via the amplitudes or envelopes of the slowly varying surface profile for which the well-developed continuum, mesoscopic theory can be applied. On the other hand, the crystalline nature of the strained film is preserved particularly via phase perturbations of the complex amplitudes that are prominent around the film surface. The latter has been emphasized through revealing the breakdown of traditional continuum approaches even at relatively small misfit stress and the associated crossover effect of island size scaling, and also through examining the origin of film instability that is accompanied by mode coupling of complex amplitudes in the liquid-solid interface region. Our results thus emphasize the importance of multiple scale modeling of complex material systems such as the strained film epitaxy process studied above. Note that although in this paper we focus on 2D hexagonal/triangular crystal structure, we expect the approach and analysis technique developed here to be directly extended for other crystalline symmetries and other surface directions, such as the epitaxial growth and island formation in 3D bcc or fcc films for which we have developed the corresponding amplitude expansion formulation very recently. [@re:elder10]
We are indebted to Kuo-An Wu and Peter Voorhees for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CAREER DMR-0845264 (Z.-F.H.) and DMR-0906676 (K.R.E.).
Free energy expansion {#append}
=====================
In this appendix the detailed expansion forms of free energy difference $\Delta {\cal F}$ are presented. For the first order term $\Delta {\cal F}^{(1)}$ shown in Eq. (\[eq:dF12\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta {\cal F}^{(1)}& = L_x \int dy \left \{ \sum_{j=1}^{3}
\left ( -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2 - 2g n_0^0 + 3 |A_j^0|^2 \right )
\left ( {A_j^0}^* \hat{A}_j(0) + {\rm c.c.} \right )
\right. \nonumber\\
&& + (6n_0^0 - 2g) \sum_{j=1}^{3} |A_j^0|^2 \hat{n}_0(0) \nonumber\\
&& + \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 + i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 - \delta_y^2/4 \right )
{A_1^0}^* \right ] \nonumber\\
&& \times \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 - i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y
-\sqrt{3} q_0 \delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -
\delta_y^2/4 \right ) \hat{A}_1(0) \right ] + {\rm c.c.}
\nonumber\\
&& + \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 - 2i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y - 2q_0
\delta_y - \delta_y^2 \right ) {A_2^0}^* \right ] \nonumber\\
&& \times \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 + 2i(q_0+\delta_y)
\partial_y - 2q_0 \delta_y - \delta_y^2
\right ) \hat{A}_2(0) \right ] + {\rm c.c.}\nonumber\\
&& + \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 + i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 - \delta_y^2/4 \right )
{A_3^0}^* \right ] \nonumber\\
&& \times \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 - i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y
-\sqrt{3} q_0 \delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 -
\delta_y^2/4 \right ) \hat{A}_3(0) \right ] + {\rm c.c.}
\nonumber\\
&& + (6n_0^0 - 2g) \left [ A_2^0 A_3^0 \hat{A}_1(0) + A_1^0 A_3^0
\hat{A}_2(0) + A_1^0 A_2^0 \hat{A}_3(0) + {\rm c.c.} \right ]
\nonumber\\
&& + 6 \left (A_1^0 A_2^0 A_3^0 + {A_1^0}^* {A_2^0}^* {A_3^0}^* \right
) \hat{n}_0(0) + 6 \left ( |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right )
\left ( {A_1^0}^* \hat{A}_1(0) + {\rm c.c.} \right ) \nonumber\\
&& + 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right ) \left ( {A_2^0}^*
\hat{A}_2(0) + {\rm c.c.} \right ) + 6 \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 \right )
\left ( {A_3^0}^* \hat{A}_3(0) + {\rm c.c.} \right ) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left ( -\epsilon + {n_0^0}^2 - g n_0^0 \right ) n_0^0
\hat{n}_0(0) + \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 + q_0^2 \right ) n_0^0
\right ] \left [ \left ( \partial_y^2 + q_0^2 \right )
\hat{n}_0(0) \right ] \right \},
\label{eq:dF1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{A}_j(0) = \hat{A}_j(q_x=0,y,t)$ and $\hat{n}_0(0) =
\hat{n}_0(q_x=0,y,t)$. For the second order terms, the contribution $\Delta {\cal F}_{+}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta {\cal F}_{+}& = L_x \int dy \sum\limits_{q_x} \left \{
\sum_{j=1}^{3} \left ( -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2 - 2g n_0^0 + 3
|A_j^0|^2 \right ) |\hat{A}_j(q_x)|^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&& + \frac{3}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{3} \left | {A_j^0}^* \hat{A}_j(q_x) +
A_j^0 \hat{A}_j^*(-q_x) \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 - i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y - q_x^2
+ (\sqrt{3}q_0 + 2\delta_x ) q_x \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 - \delta_y^2/4 \right ]
\hat{A}_1(q_x) \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 + 2i(q_0+\delta_y)
\partial_y - q_x^2 - 2q_0 \delta_y - \delta_y^2 \right ]
\hat{A}_2(q_x) \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \left | \left [ \partial_y^2 - i(q_0+\delta_y) \partial_y - q_x^2
- (\sqrt{3}q_0 + 2\delta_x ) q_x \right. \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. \left. -\sqrt{3} q_0
\delta_x - \delta_x^2 - q_0 \delta_y /2 - \delta_y^2/4 \right ]
\hat{A}_3(q_x) \right |^2 \nonumber\\
&& + 6 \left [ \left ( |A_2^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right )
|\hat{A}_1(q_x)|^2 + \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_3^0|^2 \right )
|\hat{A}_2(q_x)|^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left ( |A_1^0|^2 + |A_2^0|^2 \right )
|\hat{A}_3(q_x)|^2 \right ] \nonumber\\
&& + 6 \left [ \left ( A_2^0 A_3^0 \hat{A}_1(q_x) + A_1^0 A_3^0
\hat{A}_2(q_x) + A_1^0 A_2^0 \hat{A}_3(q_x) \right )
\hat{n}_0^*(q_x) + {\rm c.c.} \right ] \nonumber\\
&& + 6 \left [ \left ( {A_1^0}^* \hat{A}_1(q_x) + A_1^0
\hat{A}_1^*(-q_x) \right ) \left ( {A_2^0}^* \hat{A}_2(-q_x) + A_2^0
\hat{A}_2^*(q_x) \right ) \right. \nonumber\\
&& + \left ( {A_1^0}^* \hat{A}_1(q_x) + A_1^0
\hat{A}_1^*(-q_x) \right ) \left ( {A_3^0}^* \hat{A}_3(-q_x) + A_3^0
\hat{A}_3^*(q_x) \right ) \nonumber\\
&& \left. + \left ( {A_2^0}^* \hat{A}_2(q_x) + A_2^0
\hat{A}_2^*(-q_x) \right ) \left ( {A_3^0}^* \hat{A}_3(-q_x) + A_3^0
\hat{A}_3^*(q_x) \right ) \right ] \label{eq:dF+} \\
&& \left. + \frac{1}{2} \left [ -\epsilon + 3{n_0^0}^2 - 2g n_0^0 + 6
\sum_{j=1}^{3} |A_j^0|^2 \right ] |\hat{n}_0(q_x)|^2 + \frac{1}{2}
\left | \left ( \partial_y^2 -q_x^2 + q_0^2 \right ) \hat{n}_0(q_x)
\right |^2 \right \}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[59]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Shervin Malmasi\
Harvard Medical School\
`[email protected]`
- |
Mark Dras\
Macquarie University\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'nlisg.bib'
date: March 2017
title: '[Native Language Identification using Stacked Generalization]{}'
---
=
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '*Cristina* Martellini[^1], *Stefano* Maria Mari, *Paolo* Montini'
- '*Giulio* Settanta'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Towards a reconstruction of Supernova Neutrino Spectra in JUNO
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO)[@An:2015jdp] is a 20kton multi-purpose underground liquid scintillator (LS) detector, which is located at Kaiping, Jiangmen in South China, is design primarily to determine the neutrino mass hierarchy (MH) using reactor antineutrinos. The detector features make it suitable for a whole series of measurements in the $\nu$ Physics such as atmospheric neutrinos, geoneutrinos, solar neutrinos and supernova and diffuse supernova neutrinos, as a natural accessible source and other exotic searches[@An:2015jdp].The JUNO central detector consists of a $\sim 36 m$ diameter acrylic sphere, filled with 20kton of liquid scintillator (LS). The light will be collected by a double-system of photosensors: 18.000 20“ PMTs and 25.000 3” PMTs. As a LS calorimeter it has a very low energy threshold and can measure supernova neutrinos with unprecedent performaces and excellent energy resolution. In this work, we present simulations studies on Core Collapse Supernova (CCSN) neutrino event for different detection channels involving different flavours of SN neutrinos. Using the supernova flux model from Nakazato *et al* [@Nakazato:2015rya] and assuming the galactic supernova explosion occurring at three different distances, a statistic sample can be simulated to be able to build an unfolding method to get back to the original SN parameters and hence reconstruct the SN neutrino energy spectra.
Core Collapse Supernova Neutrinos {#sec-1}
=================================
A massive star of mass above $\sim 8 M_{\odot}$ is expected to experience a core collapse under its own gravity and then a violent explosion, where 99$\%$ of the gravitational binding energy of the core-collapse supernova (CCSN) will be carried by the intense burst of neutrinos. Because of this they play a decisive role during all the stages of such an event. While the neutrinos detected from the SN 1987A were useful to give basic confirmation of the theory of neutron star (NS) formation, their event statistics was too poor to highlight some useful information about the dynamics of the explosion mechanism of the CCSN[@Mirizzi:2015eza]. High-statistics measurement of neutrinos from the next Galactic SN will therefore be of major importance for astrophysics, but also neutrino and nuclear physics. As the largest new generation LS detector, JUNO will be superior in its high statistics, in the energy resolution (3$\%/\sqrt{MeV}$) and flavour informations. Since the average SN distance is around 10 kpc, JUNO will register about 5000 from inverse beta decay (IBD) caused by the interaction of electron antineutrinos with the LS, (${\bar{\nu}}_{e}+p \rightarrow n + e^{+}$), around 1500 events from all-flavour elastic neutrino-proton elastic scattering, ($\nu +p \rightarrow \nu + p$), more than 300 events from neutrino-electron elastic scattering, ($\nu + e^{-} \rightarrow \nu + e^{-}$), as well as other charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) interactions on the $^{12}C$ nuclei.
------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Channel Type
(lr)[3-5]{} 12 MeV 14 MeV 16 MeV
${\bar{\nu}}_{e}+p \rightarrow e^{+}+n $ CC $4.3\times10^{3}$ $5.0\times10^{3}$ $5.7\times10^{3}$
$\nu + p \rightarrow \nu + p$ NC $0.6 \times10^{3}$ $1.2\times10^{3}$ $2.0\times10^{3}$
$\nu + e \rightarrow \nu + e$ ES $3.6\times10^{2}$ $3.6\times10^{2}$ $3.6\times10^{2}$
$\nu + ^{12}C \rightarrow \nu + ^{12}C^{*}$ NC $1.7\times10^{2}$ $3.2\times10^{2}$ $5.2\times10^{2}$
$\nu_{e} + ^{12}C \rightarrow e^{-} + ^{12}N$ CC $0.5\times10^{2}$ $0.9\times10^{2}$ $1.6\times10^{2}$
${\bar{\nu}}_{e} + ^{12}C \rightarrow e^{+} + ^{12}B$ CC $0.6\times10^{2}$ $1.1\times10^{2}$ $1.6\times10^{2}$
------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------- ------------------- -------------------
: Numbers of neutrino events in JUNO for a SN at a typical distance of 10 kpc. Three representative values of the average neutrino energy $\langle E_{\nu} \rangle$ = 12, 14 and 16 MeV are taken for illustration. For the elastic neutrino-proton scattering a threshold of 0.2 MeV for the proton recoil energy is considered.[]{data-label="tab-1"}
The numbers of neutrino events at JUNO[@An:2015jdp] for a SN at a typical distance of 10 kpc are presented in Table \[tab-1\]. With these measurements of SN neutrinos, JUNO may have the capability to get unique informations to measure the initial SN neutrino fluxes, to constrain the neutrino’s mass scale and ordering, to test the scenario of collective neutrino oscillations and even to probe the neutrino electromagnetic properties.
Monte Carlo Supernova Simulations {#sec-2}
=================================
For the simulation the Supernova Generator implemented in the JUNO Software has been used, setting a sample based on different solar masses ($M_{\odot}$), metallicity (Z) and revival time ($\tau_{rev}$), setting our simulation supposing normal hierarchy (NH), we generated SN at three different reference distances, building the statistic sample shown in Table\[tab-1\].
Mass Metallicity (Z) Revival time $\tau$ (ms) Distance D (kpc)
------ ----------------- -------------------------- ------------------
2
10
20
2
10
20
2
10
20
: Different SN fluxes generated by different progenitor star at three different distances and with two values of the metallicity.[]{data-label="tab-2"}
We simulated therefore 18 SN bursts, which provided us with different event rates and then we run those through the detector to evaluate its response. We plotted the energy spectrum from each of the different channels first as a function of the visible energy and subsequently as a function of the number of photoelectrons (PE) detected by the two PTMs optical systems in JUNO. In Figure \[fig:fig-1\] below the distributions for all the different channels are shown.
[![Left: Distribution of the energy spectra as a function of the visible energy for IBD (blue),$\nu-p$ ES (red) and $\nu-e$ ES (green). Right: distribution of the NPE for the IBD (blue), $\nu-p$ ES (red) and $\nu-e$ ES (green). \[fig:fig-1\]](visible.png "fig:"){width="60mm"}]{}[![Left: Distribution of the energy spectra as a function of the visible energy for IBD (blue),$\nu-p$ ES (red) and $\nu-e$ ES (green). Right: distribution of the NPE for the IBD (blue), $\nu-p$ ES (red) and $\nu-e$ ES (green). \[fig:fig-1\]](PE.png "fig:"){width="60mm"}]{}
Unfolding Method {#sec-3}
================
Following the analysis of the simulation the main aim of this work is to build an unfolding method to get back to the original parameters of the SN and reconstruct the original neutrino spectra. Taking into consideration the contributions given to their event rate in the detector, the three main channels have been taken into account for the development of this work, which are the IBD event, the $\nu-p$ ES and the $\nu-e$ ES event. Depending on the channel, the probability of having a $\nu-{\bar{\nu}}$ of any flavour of a given energy have been identified as follow: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{IBD}(E_{{\bar{\nu}}_{e}}) &\propto \int\limits_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}} P_{IBD}(E_{{\bar{\nu}}_{e}}|E_{0})\cdot P_{IBD}(E_{0}) \mathrm{d}E_{0} \\
P_{pES}(E_{\nu}) &\propto \sum_{flavour=1}^{3} \int\limits_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}} P_{pES}^{flavour}(E_{\nu}|E_{0})\cdot P_{pES}^{flavour}(E_{0}) \mathrm{d}E_{0} \\
P_{eES}(E_{\nu}) &\propto \sum_{flavour=1}^{3} \int\limits_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}} P_{eES}^{falvour}(E_{\nu}|E_{0})\cdot P_{eES}^{flavour}(E_{0}) \mathrm{d}E_{0} \\
\end{aligned}$$ where we consider the probability of measuring the energy $E_{0}$ in the detector $P_{IBD}(E_{0})$, $P_{pES}^{flavour}(E_{0})$ and $P_{eES}^{flavour}(E_{0})$ as the observables, the $P_{IBD}(E_{{\bar{\nu}}_{e}})$, $P_{pES}^{flavour}(E_{\nu})$ and $P_{pES}^{flavour}(E_{\nu})$ as the unfolded spectra which are given by the convolution of the prior probabilities and the conditional probabilities that given the visible energy $E_{0}$ measured by the JUNO detector, this has been generated by $\nu/ \bar{\nu}$ of energy $E_{\nu}$. These last ones are obtained from the Bayes Theorem. The expressions are then integrated within an energy range ($E_{min}, E_{max}$) and for the two elastic scattering also sum on the three different neutrino flavours.
Conclusions {#sec-5}
===========
This work illustrates a preliminary study on the capability of the JUNO experiment to detect SN neutrinos and to act together with other neutrino experiment as an alert system for astrophysical object. How reconstructing the SN energy neutrino spectra gives us the chance to learn useful informations about the SN evolution mechanism has been appointed. JUNO should be competitive and improve our knowledge not just on the neutrino oscillation parameters but also with a unique potential for SN neutrinos.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Oxygen abundances of 67 dwarf stars in the metallicity range $-1.6<{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-0.4$ are derived from a non-LTE analysis of the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet lines. These stars have precise atmospheric parameters measured by Nissen and Schuster, who find that they separate into three groups based on their kinematics and $\alpha$-element (Mg, Si, Ca, Ti) abundances: thick-disk, high-$\alpha$ halo, and low-$\alpha$ halo. We find the oxygen abundance trends of thick-disk and high-$\alpha$ halo stars very similar. The low-$\alpha$ stars show a larger star-to-star scatter in \[O/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] and have systematically lower oxygen abundances compared to the other two groups. Thus, we find the behavior of oxygen abundances in these groups of stars similar to that of the $\alpha$ elements. We use previously published oxygen abundance data of disk and very metal-poor halo stars to present an overall view ($-2.3<{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<+0.3$) of oxygen abundance trends of stars in the solar neighborhood. Two field halo dwarf stars stand out in their O and Na abundances. Both G53-41 and G150-40 have very low oxygen and very high sodium abundances, which are key signatures of the abundance anomalies observed in globular cluster (GC) stars. Therefore, they are likely field halo stars born in GCs. If true, we estimate that at least $3\pm2$% of the local field metal-poor star population was born in GCs.'
author:
- 'I.Ramírez, J.Meléndez, and J.Chanamé'
title: |
OXYGEN ABUNDANCES IN LOW- AND HIGH-ALPHA FIELD HALO STARS AND\
THE DISCOVERY OF TWO FIELD STARS BORN IN GLOBULAR CLUSTERS
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Important clues to understand the formation and evolution of the Milky Way’s halo and disk components, as well as any possible connections between them, are imprinted in the photospheric chemical composition of FGK-type dwarf stars. These objects have probably retained the chemical composition of the gas from which they formed, thus being excellent tracers of Galactic chemical evolution (GCE). Moreover, their long lifetimes, in particular for the G and K types, allow us to probe the Milky Way’s GCE over many billions of years. Consequently, combined with kinematics and information on stellar ages, chemical composition analyses of FGK dwarf stars have the potential to be useful for reconstructing the history of our Galaxy.
The simplest picture for the Galactic halo formation involves a monolithic collapse which leads to a halo star population showing a strong correlation between orbital eccentricity an overall metal abundance [@eggen62]. Although historically important, this model has long been known to be incomplete. Metallicity determinations of giant stars in globular clusters, for example, led [@searle78] to conclude that the halo was formed in a more “chaotic” fashion. Indeed, state-of-the-art simulations show that the properties of the stellar component of galactic halos could be heavily influenced by merging events that occur as the galaxy assembles [e.g., @abadi03; @guo08; @read08; @stewart08; @scannapieco09]. In these scenarios, rather than consisting of a single simple evolving population, the halo is expected to contain sub-structures as remnants of its formation history. The discovery and detailed characterization of halo streams and tidal debris heavily support this idea [e.g., @majewski93; @helmi08; @klement10; @majewski12].
Very strong evidence for halo sub-structures in the solar neighborhood has been recently provided in a series of papers by [@nissen10; @nissen11], and [@schuster12]. From a detailed spectroscopic analysis of 94 dwarf stars in the ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ range from $-1.6$ to $-0.4,$[^1] @nissen10 [hereafter NS10] found that stars with halo kinematics separate into two groups based on their $\alpha$-element abundances (in their case quantified by the average abundance of Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti). NS10 argue that the halo stars in the low-$\alpha$ group could have been accreted from satellite galaxies, possibly $\omega$Cen. Their abundance analysis of heavier elements, particularly Na and Ba/Y, however, showed that the $\omega$Cen and low-$\alpha$ halo star connection is weak, unless chemical evolution within the satellite galaxy was different for its inner and outer regions, an idea supported by the observation of an abundance gradient in a dwarf galaxy [cf. @nissen11]. Finally, [@schuster12] show that the low-$\alpha$ halo stars are about 2–3Gyr younger than the high-$\alpha$ halo stars and that these two groups exhibit different orbital properties, with the low-$\alpha$ stars having very eccentric orbits, larger $r_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum distance from the Galactic center), and larger $z_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum distance from the Galactic disk).
A very important chemical element missing from the NS10 paper series is oxygen. As the third most abundant element in the universe and in stellar atmospheres, after H and He, and having one of the best identified production sites of all elements as well as reliable supernovae yields, oxygen is crucial for GCE studies. Furthermore, oxygen is a key element in the investigation of abundance variations in globular clusters (GCs). Stars with enhanced Na are known to be depleted in O, i.e., they follow the well-known oxygen-sodium anti-correlation in GCs [e.g., @gratton04; @cohen05; @yong05; @alves12]. A number of recent studies have investigated the contribution of GCs to the build-up of the field halo population [@yong08; @carretta10; @martell10; @martell11], but none of them have found field stars with both high Na and low O abundances. Since NS10 have already studied Na in their sample of metal-poor stars, the addition of oxygen allows us to assess to which level the halo field has been contaminated by stars formed in GCs.
Determining reliable oxygen abundances in metal-poor dwarf stars is not a straightforward task. Few spectral features due to oxygen are available in the visible spectrum and all are affected by a number of model uncertainties or severe line blending. Our past experience successfully deriving oxygen abundances from a restricted non-LTE analysis of the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet [@ramirez07 hereafter R07] now allows us to infer them. In this work, we derive oxygen abundances for as many as possible of the stars in the NS10 study in order to better understand the nature of the two distinct halo populations in the solar neighborhood.
SAMPLE AND SPECTROSCOPIC DATA
=============================
Given the careful sample selection and high precision of the stellar parameters and elemental abundances derived by NS10, we adopted their sample in our work, as stated above. We collected high-quality spectra of the 777nm region for as many of these stars as possible. We started by searching for data in our own spectral libraries and then in publicly available data archives. We complemented this data set with new observations, as described below.
First, we used data from the R07 work on oxygen abundances in nearby stars. Nearly all of these spectra were acquired with the R.G.Tull coudé spectrograph on the 2.7m Telescope at McDonald Observatory, and reduced in the standard manner using IRAF,[^2] as described in R07. One spectrum from the High Resolution Spectrograph (HRS) on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET), reduced also as in R07, and one spectrum from the VLT-UVES POP (Paranal Observatory Project) library [@bagnulo03] were also used. The McD-Tull data have a spectral resolution $R=\lambda/\Delta\lambda\simeq60,000$ while the HET-HRS and VLT-UVES spectra have $R\simeq120\,000$ and $R\simeq80\,000$, respectively.
Then, we searched for spectra taken with the HIRES spectrograph [@vogt94] at the KeckI Telescope. We found 11 stars available in the Keck Observatory data archive covering the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet. These spectra were reduced using MAKEE,[^3] a data reduction tool developed by T.A.Barlow specifically for reduction of Keck-HIRES spectra. In some cases, we re-reduced the archive spectra with MAKEE by fine-tuning the extraction parameters in order to improve the results. Most of the HIRES spectra have $R\simeq67\,000$, but some of them were taken at $R\simeq50\,000$ or $R\simeq100\,000$.
We found 27 of the NS10 stars in the R07 work and 11 more in the Keck-HIRES archive. In order to build a more statistically significant sample, we performed spectroscopic observations of 24 additional stars using the MIKE spectrograph on the 6.5m Magellan/Clay Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. We acquired the data for these stars in four observing runs in July, September, and November of 2011, as well as in February of 2012. We used the MIKE standard setting with the narrowest slit (0.35arcsec width), which provides complete wavelength coverage from 3350 to 9500Å, including the 777nm oxygen triplet, at a spectral resolution $R=65\,000$ in the oxygen triplet region [@bernstein03]. The signal-to-noise ratios of these spectra vary from star to star from about 100 to 500 at 777nm. The MIKE spectra were reduced using the CarnegiePython pipeline.[^4] One more star (G150-40) was observed at McDonald Observatory in April of 2012. Its spectrum ($R\simeq60\,000$, $S/N\simeq150$) was reduced as in R07.
The high quality of our spectroscopic data allows a very precise measurement of the equivalent widths (EWs) of the three lines of the oxygen triplet. Based on the spectral resolution and typical signal-to-noise ratio of most of our data ($R\simeq60\,000$, $S/N\simeq200$), we estimate an error of about 0.7mÅ for each EW measurement (using @cayrel88 formula). The actual EW error is likely larger due to uncertainties in the continuum determination, but tests made measuring the EW of a number of lines while varying slightly the continuum location showed that these errors are unlikely to be larger than about 1.0mÅ. Thus, we estimate our EW errors to be about 1.2mÅ.
Three of the stars from the NS10 work, and for which we did not find spectra or were unable to acquire them, have precise (errors of order 2mÅ) EWs of the oxygen triplet by [@akerman04]. We adopted those EW values in our work. Also, for G75-31, although a spectrum from R07 is available, it is of relatively low quality, and therefore we preferred to use the EW values for the star measured by [@nissen02] using a higher quality VLT-UVES spectrum. For the Sun, which we use to transform the abundances from absolute ($A_\mathrm{O}$) to relative (\[O/H\]), we adopted the solar EWs by R07. These values were obtained as the average of EWs measured in three solar spectra, two skylight observations and one asteroid reflected sunlight spectrum, which were shown to be in very good agreement.
OXYGEN ABUNDANCES {#s:oxygen}
=================
The EWs of the three lines of the [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet at 777nm were measured by fitting Voigt profiles using IRAF’s splot task, except for weak lines with relatively low signal-to-noise ratio spectra. The Gaussian profile is a very good approximation to the real line shapes considering the spectral resolution of most of our data and the fact that these lines are not so strong in this metallicity regime. Voigt profile fits are more accurate for strong lines with extended wings, but they tend to confuse noise with wing depth for weak lines in low S/N spectra. In those cases a Gaussian fit often works better. Our measured equivalent widths were then used to derive the oxygen abundances using a standard curve-of-growth (COG) approach, as described below.
The abfind driver of the 2010 version of the spectrum synthesis code MOOG [@sneden73][^5] was used to compute COGs and derive the oxygen abundances from our EW measurements. We used the new MARCS grid of model atmospheres [@gustafsson08]. The stellar parameters ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\log g}$, and ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ adopted are those derived by NS10. For a number of stars (6), NS10 provide two sets of stellar parameters, each derived from a different spectrum. For all these stars, the two sets of parameters are in excellent agreement considering the observational errors. In these cases, we adopted the averages of the two sets of atmospheric parameters derived by NS10.
NS10 estimate their differential errors for ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$, ${\log g}$, and ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ at 30K, 0.05dex, and 0.03dex, respectively. Using the reference stars HD22879 and HD76932, we can obtain an estimate for the oxygen abundance (\[O/H\]) error by calculating the variation of their absolute oxygen abundances, $A_\mathrm{O}$, for a given change in stellar parameters. This procedure is safe because these uncertainties are only weakly correlated. Propagated into our abundance analysis, the errors in stellar parameters translate into a 0.025dex uncertainty for \[O/H\]. The microturbulent velocities, $v_t$, were also adopted from NS10, where no estimate of the $v_t$ error is given. If we assume a $v_t$ error of 0.2[kms$^{-1}$]{}, which is a conservative estimate considering the high precision of the strictly differential work by NS10, the uncertainty introduced to the oxygen abundance is only about 0.015dex. The EW uncertainty of each of the triplet lines translates into a 0.020dex error, which implies a total oxygen abundance error of about 0.035dex (internal error only). Model uncertainties and noise or instrumental defects are probably responsible for the larger line-to-line scatter (in the oxygen abundances inferred for the three of the triplet lines) seen in some of our sample stars.
The spectrum synthesis code used to derive our oxygen abundances assumes local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE). However, it is well known that in the photospheres of cool stars, both dwarfs and giants, the [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} 777nm triplet spectral feature is formed under conditions far from the LTE approximation. Using a well-justified two-level approximation, [@kiselman93] elegantly demonstrates that the non-LTE effect is due to an infrared mean intensity that departs from its LTE value (the Planck function) at depths where the triplet lines are formed [see also @eriksson79; @kiselman01]. Since the radiation field is stronger in warmer stars and the gas densities are smaller in lower surface gravity stars, the errors due to non-LTE effects are larger for warmer ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ and lower ${\log g}$ values. An important ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$-dependence is also anticipated, with larger non-LTE effects at lower \[Fe/H\] due to a decrease of continuum opacity and smaller rate of collisions [see, e.g., @fabbian09]. In the solar case, the non-LTE correction to the oxygen abundances inferred from the triplet is about 0.2dex [e.g., @kiselman93; @takeda94; @ramirez07; @fabbian09]. In warmer stars (${T_\mathrm{eff}}\simeq6250$K), these corrections can be as high as $\sim0.4$dex, which means that even in a solar relative analysis, differential non-LTE errors of $\sim0.2$dex could be introduced. Thus, non-LTE corrections to the LTE abundances derived with MOOG must be applied.
A number of authors have computed non-LTE corrections for FGK-type stars of several metallicities, including those of our targets. There is good qualitative agreement between the various calculations available in the literature, but differences of order 0.1dex between them are common. In this work, we use the non-LTE corrections tabulated by R07. The main reason for this choice is that the same corrections were applied to the abundances of disk stars which we will use later in Section \[s:discussion\], and similar corrections were applied to the very metal-poor stars from the [@melendez06 hereafter M06] work, which we will also use in Section \[s:discussion\]. To prevent systematic biases arising from the use of very different non-LTE prescriptions in our final analysis, we decided to make a choice that will bring the non-LTE oxygen abundances to approximately the same scale.
R07 computed their non-LTE corrections using an oxygen model atom with 54 levels and 242 transitions by [@allende03a], with a few minor improvements. [@kurucz93:cd13] atmosphere models were employed to determine the level populations by solving the rate equations with TLUSTY [@hubeny88]. Although this implies a certain level of inconsistency within this work, because the model atmospheres used to derive the LTE oxygen abundances are from the MARCS grid, note that the non-LTE corrections were derived with respect to LTE abundances computed also from [@kurucz93:cd13] models. It is expected that the non-LTE corrections are less sensitive to the choice of model atmosphere grid than the absolute values of the abundances, either LTE or non-LTE. Indeed, [@fabbian09] have shown that the model-dependence in this context is only important for stars with ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-2.5$, i.e., stars with metallicities below that of our most metal-poor sample star. Once the non-LTE level populations were computed with TLUSTY, spectrum synthesis was performed using SYNSPEC [@hubeny95].
As acknowledged by R07, one of the deficiencies of their non-LTE calculations is the neglect of inelastic collisions with neutral H, which tend to bring the level populations closer to their LTE values. R07 noticed that their non-LTE oxygen abundances presented systematic offsets between the three lines of the triplet, and suggested empirically correcting for these offsets to reduce the line-to-line scatter. The nature of these offsets is qualitatively well explained by the fact that inelastic collisions with neutral H were ignored, but detailed calculations were not made to confirm this hypothesis. However, if true, these empirical corrections are roughly taking this effect into account.
The importance of inelastic collisions with neutral H in non-LTE calculations is typically parameterized by the multiplicative factor $S_\mathrm{H}$ to the [@drawin68] formula, as suggested by [@steenbock84]. Interestingly, the improved non-LTE computations by [@fabbian09], including the impact of collisions with neutral H, show that their non-LTE corrections to the solar oxygen abundance with $S_\mathrm{H}=1$ are, albeit fortuitously, in good agreement with those by R07. In their three-dimensional hydrodynamic analysis of oxygen line formation in the solar photosphere, [@pereira09a; @pereira09b] find that $S_\mathrm{H}\simeq1$ provides an excellent fit to the observational data. Note, however, that [@ramirez06] find that a one-dimensional static model atmosphere spectrum with $S_\mathrm{H}=10$ reproduces the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet line profile better than one with $S_\mathrm{H}=1$ in the case of the moderately metal-poor star BD+174708, although the derived oxygen abundance in that case appears too high.
We measured oxygen abundances, $A_\mathrm{O}$, for each of the three triplet lines. The solar values were used to convert these quantities into \[O/H\] by averaging the three relative abundances. The same solar-differential line-by-line procedure was employed to derive the LTE and non-LTE relative abundances. Finally, \[O/Fe\] values were determined using the very precise ($\simeq0.03$dex error) iron abundances inferred by NS10: \[O/Fe\]=\[O/H\]–\[Fe/H\]. The mean error in the non-LTE \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios derived in this work is 0.05dex.
Our derived oxygen abundances, both in LTE and non-LTE, as well as the stellar parameters by NS10, their $\alpha$/Fe classification, and the source of our spectroscopic data for oxygen abundance analysis, are given in Table \[t:ofe\].
DISCUSSION {#s:discussion}
==========
Oxygen in Low- and High-$\alpha$ Halo Stars
-------------------------------------------
NS10 convincingly showed that halo stars in the solar neighborhood divide into two groups based on their $\alpha$-element abundances. Their main result is reproduced here in Figure \[f:ofe\]a, but note that we show only the 67 stars for which we have also derived oxygen abundances. The NS10 work is based on the analysis of 94 stars. Nevertheless, our sub-sample is large enough to show the differences and similarities between the three groups plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\]a. NS10 sorted their stars into high-$\alpha$ halo stars (open circles in Figure \[f:ofe\]), low-$\alpha$ halo stars (filled circles), and thick-disk members (crosses). The latter were intentionally included in the work by NS10 for comparison with the old disk population, and they were disentangled from the halo group by their total Galactic space velocity, with thick-disk stars being slower than 175[kms$^{-1}$]{}. While the high-$\alpha$ and thick-disk groups appear to have indistinguishable \[$\alpha$/Fe\] versus ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ trends, the low-$\alpha$ group, as their name suggests, have systematically lower \[$\alpha$/Fe\] at any given ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$. Note, however, that the low and high-$\alpha$ groups appear to merge at the lowest ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ values covered by this sample. Although oxygen is an $\alpha$ element, it was not included in the NS10 work; their \[$\alpha$/Fe\] values are based on Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti abundances.
![[**a)**]{} $\alpha$-element abundances as a function of ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ for the thick-disk (crosses), high-$\alpha$ (open circles), and low-$\alpha$ (filled circles) halo stars from NS10 included in this work. The two low-$\alpha$ stars with large open circles surrounding them are G53-41 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.20$) and G150-40 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.81$). [**b)**]{} LTE oxygen abundances as a function of ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ for the stars plotted in panel a). [**c)**]{} Non-LTE corrected oxygen abundances. The $\alpha$-element abundances are those derived by NS10; the oxygen abundances are those derived in this work (TW). Typical error bars are shown at the bottom right side of each panel.[]{data-label="f:ofe"}](f1.ps){width="8.85cm"}
The LTE oxygen abundance patterns we derive for the NS10 stars are plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\]b. The exact same behavior is noted for the three groups, i.e., low-$\alpha$ stars have also low oxygen abundances. Note that the \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios appear to increase with lower ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ in a relatively rapid manner, similar to the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] case. However, this trend is mostly due to non-LTE effects, which become important at low \[Fe/H\] and the somewhat warmer ${T_\mathrm{eff}}$ values of the more metal-poor stars in this sample (cf. Section \[s:oxygen\]). As shown in Figure \[f:ofe\]c, the \[O/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] relation, corrected for non-LTE effects, is nearly flat up to ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.7$ for both the low- and high-$\alpha$ groups, and also for the thick disk. A hint of a knee towards lower \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.7$ for the high-$\alpha$ group is detected, and it will be confirmed later in this paper when we introduce additional (literature) data. Hereafter, the oxygen abundances used in our discussion are those corrected for non-LTE effects, i.e., those shown in Figure \[f:ofe\]c.
The star-to-star scatter in \[O/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] appears to be the largest for the low-$\alpha$ group. Simple linear fits to the \[O/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] relation result in a 1$\sigma$ scatter of 0.056dex for the high-$\alpha$ stars, 0.047dex for the thick-disk stars, and 0.075dex for the low-$\alpha$ group. We note, however, that there are two stars which show very low oxygen abundances (\[O/Fe\]$<0.2$) and they increase significantly the scatter of the low-$\alpha$ group. Excluding these stars, the 1$\sigma$ scatter of the low-$\alpha$ group (0.058dex) is essentially the same as that of the high-$\alpha$ halo stars.
As pointed out by NS10, and as mentioned before, the low- and high-$\alpha$ populations appear to merge below ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-1.4$, making it more difficult to disentangle them using chemical abundances. Note, however, that the separation is more clear if $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$ is used instead of, for example, \[Mg/Fe\]. Moreover, if we calculate a new $\alpha$ element abundance as $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]'=(4[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]+{\mathrm{[O/Fe]}})/5$, the separation appears even clearer.
Our sample includes five low-$\alpha$ and two high-$\alpha$ halo stars with ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-1.4$. With the exception of one low-$\alpha$ star, which has an \[O/Fe\] abundance ratio similar to the average of that for the high-$\alpha$ stars at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-1.4$ (HD219617, ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.45$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.50$), Figure \[f:ofe\]c strengthens the classification suggested by NS10. Although four of the five low-$\alpha$ halo stars with ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-1.4$ have \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios that are marginally consistent, considering the 1-$\sigma$ error, with the average \[O/Fe\] of the most metal-poor high-$\alpha$ stars, it is highly unlikely that all, simultaneously, have underestimated oxygen abundances. Indeed, the probability that all these four stars have \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios greater by $1\,\sigma$ is only about 1%. Similarly, the probability that the two high-$\alpha$ stars both have \[O/Fe\] lower by $1\,\sigma$ is about 10%. Thus, the ambiguity regarding population membership at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-1.4$ may affect only one star: HD219617. If instead of considering this object as a low-$\alpha$ star we assume that it belongs to the high-$\alpha$ group, our conclusions remain unaltered. For example, the $1\,\sigma$ scatter values mentioned in the previous paragraph do not change by more than 0.001dex. Therefore, we conclude that the “merging” of low- and high-$\alpha$ populations at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-1.4$ do not affect our conclusions in a significant manner.
The two stars with the lowest oxygen abundances in Figure \[f:ofe\]c are G53-41 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.20$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.18$) and G150-40 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.81$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.19$). Interestingly, these stars have perfectly normal low-$\alpha$ abundances, i.e., although their \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundance ratios are low compared to the high-$\alpha$ and thick-disk stars, they are not significantly lower than those of a typical low-$\alpha$ halo star. NS10 noticed that these stars also have very high Na abundances, suggesting that the gas which formed them was polluted by nucleosynthesis products from nearby asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, similarly to Na-enhanced stars in globular clusters (see Section \[s:gc\] for more details).
![\[$\alpha$/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] relation for the stars in Figure \[f:ofe\]. Typical error bars are shown at the bottom right corner.[]{data-label="f:ao"}](f2.ps){width="8.8cm"}
Not surprisingly, the oxygen and $\alpha$-element abundances correlate well, as shown in Figure \[f:ao\], with the exception of the two stars with the lowest \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios mentioned above. Although the star-to-star scatter of the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] relation is low for the high-$\alpha$ and thick-disk stars (1$\sigma$ scatter of 0.033 and 0.017dex, respectively, for a simple linear fit), that for the low-$\alpha$ stars is clearly larger (0.057dex), even if we exclude the two stars with \[O/Fe\]$<0.2$ (0.055dex).
{width="16.0cm"}
Galactic Chemical Evolution of Oxygen: 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} Triplet Analyses of Solar Neighborhood Stars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to put the oxygen abundance trends of low- and high-$\alpha$ halo stars, as inferred from the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet lines, into a broader context, in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\] we show also the non-LTE corrected \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios by M06 and R07. Stars from the NS10 work included in these previous studies were excluded; i.e., we used the results obtained in this paper instead of the literature values. The use of M06 and R07 data allows us to study the GCE of oxygen from ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-2.3$ to +0.3, and therefore that of the different stellar populations it includes, albeit only their solar neighborhood members. We note that, although not identical, the stellar parameter determination and non-LTE corrections applied in M06, R07, NS10, and this work, are similar. This prevents systematic offsets from biasing our data and artificially introducing noise to the chemical abundance trends. As shown in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\], stars of common populations but from different data sets connect nicely, suggesting that systematic differences between these three studies are indeed not very important.
The stars from M06 are shown with open squares in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\]; they are all metal-poor main-sequence and turn-off stars with halo kinematics selected by [@akerman04] and [@nissen04]. These authors mention that their sample has halo kinematics, without given further details. M06 verified that they indeed have halo kinematics based on their large total Galactic space velocities ($V_\mathrm{tot}$). In fact, the Galactic space velocities of this sample fulfill the same criteria used by NS10 for selecting halo stars, meaning that they all have $V_\mathrm{tot}$ larger than 180 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, except one star, BD+083095, which has halo kinematics according to its admittedly uncertain [*Hipparcos*]{} parallax, but it may actually be a thick-disk star based on its spectroscopic parallax. Nevertheless, the uncertain membership of this single star does not affect our results.
Most of the objects from M06 appear to be the natural extension of the high-$\alpha$, high-oxygen abundance population down to ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-2.3$. Four objects from M06, however, seem to have low oxygen abundance and are more likely associated with the low-$\alpha$ population. These stars are CD$-$4214278 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.86$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.46$), G24-3 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.47$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.31$), HD146296 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.72$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.31$), and HD160617 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.70$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.30$). They can be identified in the color version of Figure \[f:ofe\_all\] as red open squares.
The R07 data includes thin-disk, thick-disk, and a few halo stars. Along with the M06 and NS10 stars, objects from R07 are all in the solar neighborhood, i.e., within a volume with radius of a few hundreds of parsecs. This region is dominated by thin-disk stars. Studying thick-disk or halo stars [*in-situ*]{} would require observing objects at distances of order 1kpc in the direction perpendicular to the Galactic plane, as the thick-disk scale height has been claimed to be between 0.6 and 1.5kpc [e.g., @gilmore83; @siegel02; @cabrera05; @dejong10; @mateu11]. Although a kinematic criterion could be applied to disentangle the disk populations in the solar neighborhood, it has been shown that there is not a perfect one-to-one correspondence with the abundances (see also below). Thus, for local stars within a few hundreds of parsecs of distance, a chemical tagging approach would be more appropriate. In this work, we separate thin-disk and thick-disk stars by their \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios instead of their kinematics. A broken line with nodes at $({\mathrm{[Fe/H]}},{\mathrm{[O/Fe]}})=(-0.03,0.22),(-0.55,0.35),(-1.00,0.35)$ is (somewhat arbitrarily) used as the thin/thick disk boundary. In Figure \[f:ofe\_all\], our chemically-tagged thin-disk stars are shown with small open circles, while the thick-disk members are plotted with bold asterisks. The latter also appear to be a natural extension of the NS10 data for thick-disk stars up to ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.1$. The apparent lack of disk stars with \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios intermediate between those of a typical thin-disk and thick-disk star at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.5$ is most likely due to sample selection biases (see Section \[s:kinematics\]).
A few objects with halo kinematics from R07 are shown in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\] with five-pointed stars. These stars have a probability greater than 50% of being halo members according to the kinematic criterion employed by R07 (their Sect. 3.3). In summary, the thin disk, thick disk, and halo populations are assumed to have Gaussian Galactic space velocity distributions, with mean $U,V,W$ values and velocity dispersions given by [@soubiran03] for the thin/thick disk and [@chiba00] for the halo.
Only one of the halo stars from R07 seems to belong to the low-$\alpha$ population: HIP4544 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.81$, ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}=0.30$). We note that, according to R07, HIP4544 has a high probability of being a thick-disk member (43%), but its low oxygen abundance clearly suggests that it is a low-$\alpha$ halo object instead. [@reddy06] have measured the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundance ratio for this object, which is 0.23, a value that at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.81$ appears too high for a low-$\alpha$ halo star, but it is only marginally consistent with the thick-disk trend, so it is not at all clear what $\alpha$-element population this star belongs to. Note that [@reddy06] and NS10 $\alpha$-element abundances are not necessarily on the same scale, so systematic differences between these two studies could be responsible for this apparent discrepancy. Combining all three data sets, we find that the high-$\alpha$ population shows \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios that decrease slightly from ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}\simeq0.60$ at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-2.3$ to ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}\simeq0.55$ at $-0.7$, and from there more abruptly to ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}\simeq0.35$ at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.1$.
![[**a)**]{} Oxygen abundance trends of thin- (circles) and thick-disk (crosses and asterisks) stars. The solid curve and broken line are fits to the thin- and thick-disk data, respectively, and they are shown also in panels b) and c). [**b)**]{} Oxygen abundance trend of high-$\alpha$ halo stars. The dashed broken line is a fit to the high-$\alpha$ halo data and it is shown also in panel c). [**c)**]{} Oxygen abundance pattern of low-$\alpha$ halo stars. Typical error bars are shown at the bottom left corner of each panel.[]{data-label="f:ofe_all_multi"}](f4.ps){width="8.9cm"}
The chemically-tagged stellar populations from Figure \[f:ofe\_all\] have been re-plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\_multi\], in three panels: a) disk, b) high-$\alpha$, high-oxygen halo, and c) low-$\alpha$, low oxygen halo. In panel a), the solid line which has a knee at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.6$ is a fit to the high-$\alpha$ disk data (the “thick-disk”) whereas the solid curve is a cubic fit to the low-$\alpha$ disk data (the “thin-disk”). These fits are reproduced in panels b) and c). In panel b), the dashed line which has a knee at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.7$ is a fit to the high-$\alpha$ halo data, and is reproduced in panel c). The “broken” linear fits were made by allowing the knee location to be a free parameter. We monitored the 1$\sigma$ star-to-star scatter around these linear fits to make sure that these relations closely correspond to a minimum standard deviation. We also ensured that the fits resulted in two linear segments connecting smoothly at the knee.
The cubic fit to the thin-disk data has a star-to-star \[O/Fe\] scatter of only 0.04dex, which is compatible with a zero cosmic scatter, i.e., it suggests that observational errors alone explain it. This probably reflects the fact that the thin-disk stars have been born from well-mixed material at late stages in the history of Galactic evolution. The steep decline in \[O/Fe\] abundance ratio with increasing \[Fe/H\] has often been attributed to the chemical pollution of the interstellar medium by Type Ia supernovae (SNIa), which dominate GCE only after a few billion years since the birth of the Galaxy.
The high-$\alpha$ halo and thick-disk populations appear very similar, but the linear fits suggest a small downwards offset for the thick disk relative to the halo. Also, the location of the knee seems to be about 0.1dex lower for the high-$\alpha$ halo group. The star-to-star scatter of these fits is about 0.06dex. Although observational errors are larger for these groups of stars, mainly because they are more distant and their atmospheric parameters cannot be determined as precisely as those of most thin-disk stars, some of this scatter could be real. Estimates of \[O/Fe\] errors are about 0.05dex for most of these objects. We note also that the star-to-star scatter of the thick-disk stars with ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-0.6$ is about 0.07dex, suggesting that a less well-mixed gas, or more likely a mixture of different gases, gave origin to these objects compared to the high-$\alpha$ halo stars.
The fact that the high-$\alpha$ halo and thick-disk star oxygen abundance trends are best fit with a broken line suggests that their more metal-poor members were born from gas enriched mainly by the pollution of massive stars, whose yields (at the end of their lives as TypeII supernovae, SNII) have large O/Fe abundance ratios. The shallow negative slope of the \[O/Fe\]–\[Fe/H\] relation at low ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ ($\lesssim-0.65$) could be fully explained by metallicity-dependent SNII yields (R07). Later (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\gtrsim-0.6$), SNIa contributed significantly to the chemical evolution of these populations, quickly lowering their \[O/Fe\] ratios while ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ continued to increase. That the high-$\alpha$ halo stars have a knee at a slightly lower ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ is a possible indication that the transition happened earlier in the halo than in the thick disk, or that the star formation rate was somewhat slower in the halo. Note that the ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ errors are about 0.05dex in this compilation of oxygen abundances, while the difference in ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ for the location of the high-$\alpha$ halo and thick-disk knees is about 0.1dex, implying that this difference, although marginally consistent with zero within the errors, is unlikely due to observational uncertainties.
As shown in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\_multi\]c, the low-$\alpha$ halo stars do not follow any of the other \[O/Fe\] trends. They appear as a continuation of the thin disk, but this connection is very weak on light of other well-known observational evidence such as the stellar kinematics and age (thin-disk stars are younger and have cold kinematics, the complete opposite of what is normal in halo stars). On average, and excluding the stars with very low oxygen abundances discussed above, these stars have \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios that are about 0.2dex lower than those of high-$\alpha$ and thick-disk stars. There seems to be a downwards trend of \[O/Fe\] with increasing \[Fe/H\], but the star-to-star scatter is large. In any case, the mean \[O/Fe\] in the low-$\alpha$ halo population decreases from ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}\simeq0.5$ at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-1.8$ to ${\mathrm{[O/Fe]}}\simeq0.35$ at ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}\simeq-0.7$.
Low \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios at low ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ have been typically attributed to populations with a history of slow star formation rate. They have been observed in the dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, suggesting that the low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen halo stars are remnants of merger processes that occurred early in the history of our Galaxy, or perhaps stars that have been stripped from their parent satellite galaxies as they came close or passed through the solar neighborhood in their Galactic orbits.
Kinematics and Chemical Abundances {#s:kinematics}
----------------------------------
![Toomre diagram for the stars plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\_all\]. Dashed lines correspond to speeds of 65 and 180[kms$^{-1}$]{}.[]{data-label="f:toomre"}](f5.ps){width="9.0cm"}
A very important tool to explore further the GCE interpretations is the Toomre diagram, which is shown for our sample of stars in Figure \[f:toomre\]. Here we plot the Galactic space velocity $V$ (which goes in the direction of disk rotation and is measured relative to the Sun), and the other two components combined: $UW=\sqrt{U^2+W^2}$ ($U$ is defined as the Galactic space velocity component towards the Galactic center while $W$ is the component perpendicular to the plane). This diagram is sometimes used to separate stars kinematically into thin-disk, thick-disk, and halo members. Although such kinematic membership criteria have been proven useful, particularly for solar neighborhood stars, as larger samples of stars are analyzed using better spectroscopic data and performing more careful elemental abundance work, we are starting to see that kinematics and chemical composition do not make a one-to-one correspondence for the local stellar populations. For example, although thin-disk stars tend to have cooler kinematics (i.e., $V$ closer to zero and low $UW$) compared to thick-disk members (lagging $V$ velocities and higher $UW$), there is an important number of stars with chemical composition typical of that of a thin-disk (thick-disk) star which have thick-disk (thin-disk) kinematics. The observed fraction of these stars with “ambiguous” kinematics and chemical abundances cannot be fully accounted for by observational errors (Ramírez, Allende Prieto, & Lambert, in preparation).
Figure \[f:toomre\] shows that the chemically-tagged thin-disk stars, as a group, tend to have cold kinematics, i.e., they rotate fast ($V$ closer to zero) and do not depart much (small $UW$) from the mid-plane of the Milky Way’s disk. Thick-disk stars, on the other hand, rotate slower (i.e., lag the Sun and the thin-disk stars, as a group) and have larger $U$ and $W$ velocities. This has been known for many years [e.g., @soubiran93; @soubiran03], and it has been used to select one group of stars or the other in chemical abundance studies [e.g., @bensby04; @reddy06]. However, there is significant overlap between the two groups, and because of that, kinematic selection of thin/thick disk stars has often avoided the intermediate region, leading to thin/thick disk abundance patterns that may be affected by severe kinematic biases. An extended discussion of this possible bias will be given in Ramírez, Allende Prieto, and Lambert (in preparation). Here, we note that, although the thin-disk and thick-disk groups appear on average to separate kinematically, there is a significant number of stars with thin-disk abundances but thick-disk kinematics, and vice versa. If we make a simple kinematic separation, with a boundary of total speed equal to 65[kms$^{-1}$]{}, which corresponds to the inner dashed line shown in Figure \[f:toomre\], we find that these stars with ambiguous kinematics and elemental abundances amount to about 30% of each sample, a number that is certainly not negligible, as has been sometimes assumed or ignored altogether.
The thick disk has long been thought to be formed from a violent merger event early in the history of the Galaxy [e.g., @quinn93]. This merger would have destroyed a previously formed disk, heating the stars into more eccentric orbits. It is suggested by some authors that thick-disk stars could have been formed in the merging galaxies as well as in the original disk [e.g., @abadi03; @brook05; @kobayashi11]. These scenarios, however, are not able to fully explain the large fraction of stars with ambiguous kinematics and abundances. An alternative picture, revived by the work of [@sellwood02], involves internal processes, particularly radial mixing, which explains many of the solar neighborhood observables [e.g., @schonrich09a; @schonrich09; @loebman11]. Nevertheless, recent SEGUE/SDSS observations of the Galaxy on a larger scale appear to be inconsistent with these models [e.g., @schlesinger12 see, however, @bovy12_nothick [@bovy12_vertical; @bovy12_spatial]]. The issues of sample completeness and sample selection functions need to be fully addressed before observations of solar neighborhood stars are used to determine which scenario is more realistic. Upcoming and ongoing high-resolution spectroscopic surveys such as HERMES [@freeman10] and APOGEE [@allende08:apogee; @majewski10] should allow us to solve this problem within the next decade.
Regarding the halo, there is not a one-to-one correspondence in chemical abundances and kinematics of high-$\alpha$ and low-$\alpha$ stars either, but an average trend was detected by NS10. They found that the low-$\alpha$ stars tend to have very low $V$ velocities, in fact most of them are in retrograde Galactic orbits. Four of the five low-$\alpha$ stars we found in M06 and R07 and which are not included in NS10 also have retrograde orbits, strengthening their conclusion. In their update of the R07 work, Ramírez, Allende Prieto, and Lambert (in preparation) also find a number of additional halo stars in retrograde orbits which have low oxygen abundances relative to the “normal” halo.
![Orbital parameters $r_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum horizontal distance from the Galactic center), $z_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum vertical distance from the Galactic plane), and $e_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum eccentricity) as a function of \[O/Fe\] for the NS10 stars analyzed in this work. Symbols are the same as in Figure \[f:ofe\].[]{data-label="f:ofe_maxs"}](f6.ps){width="9.0cm"}
In Figure \[f:ofe\_maxs\], our oxygen abundances are plotted against the orbital parameters $r_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum distance from the Galactic center), $|z|_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum height with respect to the Galactic plane), and $e_\mathrm{max}$ (maximum eccentricity), as derived by [@schuster12] from 5Gyr orbit integrations computed using the NS10 star’s kinematic data and a detailed semi-analytic model for the Milky Way potential. The orbital parameters plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\_maxs\] correspond to those obtained by [@schuster12] with a realistic non-symmetrical Galaxy model. Note that the stars plotted in Figure \[f:ofe\_maxs\] are those from Figure \[f:ofe\] and that the symbols used there are the same as those used in Figure \[f:ofe\] as well.
All of the high-$\alpha$, high-oxygen halo stars have orbits that do not go beyond 20kpc of distance from the Galactic center, contrary to about half of the low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen stars, which have $r_\mathrm{max}$ up to about 40kpc. Similarly, the high-$\alpha$, high-oxygen stars reach heights above the Galactic plane up to about 8kpc whereas some low-$\alpha$ stars have orbits that go about twice as high (see also Figure 8 in @schuster12). The orbits of thick-disk members, on the other hand, are smaller in both directions, and they are also less eccentric than those of both types of halo stars. In fact, a majority of the latter have $e_\mathrm{max}$ greater than 0.8, whereas thick-disk stars have $e_\mathrm{max}\simeq0.35\pm0.15$. Note also that there are more high-$\alpha$, high-oxygen stars with $e_\mathrm{max}$ lower than 0.8 than low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen stars. The implications of these distinct orbital distributions were already discussed by [@schuster12]. In particular, they reinforce the idea that the two halo populations require different formation scenarios, with the low-$\alpha$ group being accreted stars. Interestingly, the distribution of $r_\mathrm{max}$ values for globular clusters is fully consistent with the scatter of $r_\mathrm{max}$ values seen in Figure \[f:ofe\_maxs\] for the low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen halo stars [e.g., @dauphole96; @dinescu99].
Field Halo Stars Born in Globular Clusters {#s:gc}
------------------------------------------
Based on their kinematics, NS10 proposed that the low-$\alpha$ halo stars could have been born in the dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, with some of them probably originating from the globular cluster (GC) $\omega$Cen. The more detailed chemical composition analysis made by these authors in [@nissen11], however, revealed more differences (e.g., in $\alpha$, Na, and Ba/Y) than similarities (e.g., in Ni and Cu) between the low-$\alpha$ halo stars and $\omega$Cen. As suggested by them, perhaps chemical evolution in $\omega$Cen was different for its inner (or more bound) and outer (less bound) regions, explaining the present-day differences.
The association of groups of field halo stars with $\omega$Cen based on chemical analysis is tempting, as the many examples that can be found in the literature demonstrate, including the NS10 work. We must be reminded, however, that of all of the Milky Way’s GCs, $\omega$Cen is the most complex example, exhibiting a wide range of stellar ages [e.g., @hughes00; @stanford06] and metallicities [e.g., @norris95_wCen; @frinchaboy02]. The latter imply that chemical evolution within the cluster has occurred following not a single but a number of episodes of star formation. Indeed, large chemical abundance surveys of $\omega$Cen stars suggest distinct chemical evolution paths followed by a number of clearly identified sub-populations [e.g., @johnson10_wCen; @marino11].
One of the most notable chemical properties of $\omega$Cen, observed also in most other GCs, is the so-called Na-O anti-correlation [e.g., @norris95; @gratton01; @gratton07; @carretta09; @johnson10_wCen; @dantona11; @marino11], a property that is not seen in field halo stars. It has been suggested that this anti-correlation is due to [*in-situ*]{} mixing of intermediate-mass AGB star nucleosynthesis products [e.g., @ventura01; @gratton04]. With our oxygen abundance data and the Na abundances from NS10 we can now explore another possible connection in the form of the Na-O anti-correlation.
In Figure \[f:nao\] we plot \[Na/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] for the stars studied in this work. With the exception of G53-41 and G150-40, the low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen abundance halo stars all have sub-solar \[Na/Fe\] abundance ratios. This observation is consistent with the oxygen and sodium abundance data for $\omega$Cen red giants by [@norris95]. A similar conclusion can be reached by looking at the [@johnson10_wCen] or [@marino11] larger data sets. We note, however, that the spread of oxygen and sodium abundances measured in $\omega$Cen stars is large, and in fact the \[Na/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] relation in $\omega$Cen overlaps also with the location of the high-$\alpha$ halo and thick-disk stars studied in this work. Only the presence of G53-41 and G150-40, the stars with lowest \[O/Fe\] and highest \[Na/Fe\] in our sample, hints at an Na-O anti-correlation for the low-$\alpha$ group. In fact, their peculiar chemical composition can be attributed to pollution by nearby AGB stars to the proto-stellar gas, in a similar fashion to globular cluster stars (NS10), although note that the abundance anomalies could also be due to fast rotating massive stars [e.g., @decressin07]. In any case, it is clear that the majority of low-$\alpha$ stars do not exhibit an obvious Na-O anti-correlation, which in principle further weakens the $\omega$Cen connection. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that there are no stars with this type of peculiar composition in the high-$\alpha$ halo or thick-disk groups.
![\[Na/Fe\] versus \[O/Fe\] relation for the stars in Figure \[f:ofe\]. Sodium abundances are from [@nissen10]. Typical error bars are shown at the bottom left corner.[]{data-label="f:nao"}](f7.ps){width="8.8cm"}
The stars G53-41 and G150-40 are the only field stars showing the classical signatures of abundance anomalies in second generation GC stars, i.e., enhanced Na and depleted O. Other abundance peculiarities are also discussed in Section \[s:other\]. Since we have analyzed 67 stars, we conclude that the fraction of metal-poor field stars originating from second-generation GC stars is about 3%. Adopting a binomial distribution, which is appropriate in this case given the relatively low number of objects and the fact that there are two possible “outcomes” for each star, i.e., field and GC, an error bar can be estimated from the variance of the probability distribution [e.g., @bevington69 Chapter 3]: $\sigma^2=np(1-p)$, where $n=67$ is the number of stars and $p$ the probability of “success” ($p=2/67=0.03$). We find $\sigma=1.4$, which implies a probability error of $1.4/67=2$%.
Of course, the actual fraction of halo field stars originally formed in GCs may be significantly higher than the value of $3\pm2$% derived above, as the clusters have likely also contributed to the halo field with “normal” (i.e., first generation) stars, which may be hard to distinguish from the bulk of halo field stars observed today. Thus, our oxygen abundances and the Na abundances from NS10 suggest that the fraction of halo stars born in globular clusters is [*at least*]{} $3\pm2$%.[^6] Indeed, although the fraction of field metal-poor giants with anomalous CN and CH bands (typical of second-generation GC stars) is only 3% according to [@martell11], a minimum of 17% of the present-day mass in the halo field originated from GCs. Using the binomial distribution on the [@martell11] results, we obtain a more precise value of $2.85\pm0.70$% for the first of these fractions, in excellent agreement with our estimate of $3\pm2$%. Note, however, that our highly reliable O and Na abundances connect these objects to GCs in a more direct way than the intensities of CN and CH bands.
{width="9.1cm"} {width="9.1cm"}
A comparison between the two peculiar low-$\alpha$ stars (G53-41 and G150-40) and the Na and O abundances observed in second generation stars in the globular cluster M71 is instructive, as this cluster has ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-0.8$ [@melendez09:m71]. In relation to first generation stars, the second generation stars in M71 have O depleted by only about 0.1dex while Na is enhanced by about 0.4dex [@melendez09:m71]. Similarly, for M4 (${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}=-1.1$), [@marino11_m4] find an O depletion of about 0.25dex and a Na enhancement of about 0.4dex. These abundance variations are fully compatible with the ones observed between G53-41 and G150-40 and the bulk of low-$\alpha$ halo stars (Figure \[f:nao\]). While oxygen in these two dwarfs is depleted by about 0.2$\pm$0.1 dex, Na seems enhanced by about 0.4$\pm$0.1 dex. This quantitative comparison reinforces the idea that the two anomalous dwarfs may have been formed in GCs. If that is the case, G53-41 and G150-40 would be the first field stars with firm O/Na signatures of being originated in GCs. The discovery of these signatures certainly shows the benefit of high precision differential abundance studies.
Oxygen Compared to Other Elements {#s:other}
---------------------------------
It is interesting to note that, even though the high-$\alpha$, low-$\alpha$, and thick-disk stars studied in this work separate in both \[Na/Fe\] (Figure 6 in NS10) and \[O/Fe\] (our Figure \[f:ofe\]) when each of these abundance ratios is plotted against \[Fe/H\], the run of \[O/Na\] with \[Fe/H\] is essentially indistinguishable between the three groups, as shown by Figure \[f:ox\_feh\]. The obvious exceptions are, again, G53-41 and G150-40. This striking similarity in elemental abundance ratios \[O/X\] between the three groups is seen also for the $\alpha$-elements as well as Zn. Other elements show systematic offsets in the distribution of \[O/X\] abundance ratios of the three stellar populations, although for Y and Ba the star-to-star scatter is too large to distinguish them, if present.
In Figure \[f:ox\_feh\], the range in the \[O/X\] axis has been set equal to 1.0dex for all panels, except that for Ba, for which it is 1.2dex. This allows a fair comparison of the star-to-star scatter differences and offsets between high-$\alpha$ halo stars, low-$\alpha$ halo stars, and thick-disk stars. For example, it is clear that the run of \[O/Zn\] with \[Fe/H\] is the tightest of all, especially if we exclude the three low-$\alpha$ stars with the lowest \[O/Zn\]. Two of these three stars are G53-41 and G150-40, which have been mentioned before as having peculiar composition. The other object, which is the one with the lowest \[O/Zn\] in our sample, is G112-43. As pointed out by [@nissen11], this object is one of the components of a wide binary, and, along with its companion (with which it has consistent chemical abundances), they seem to also have peculiar abundances (in \[Mn/Fe\] and \[Zn/Fe\]) when compared to the mean low-$\alpha$ trends.
Excluding G53-41, G150-40, and G112-43 from Figure \[f:ox\_feh\] results in tighter correlations and stronger population similarities for \[O/$\alpha$\], \[O/Na\], and \[O/Zn\]. In addition to the latter abundance ratios, the outlier stars appear to be very peculiar in \[O/Y\] and \[O/Ba\]. The most extreme case is \[O/Na\], but, interestingly, only for G53-41 and G150-40, i.e., not for the binary component G112-43. For \[O/Y\] and \[O/Ba\], only one of the two stars with very low oxygen abundance (G53-41) has an unusually high (relative to other low-$\alpha$ stars) \[Ba/Fe\] abundance ratio ($\mathrm{[Ba/Fe]}=+0.24$ according to NS10), whereas the other (G150-40) shows marginally low \[O/Y\] and \[O/Ba\] which may be considered normal for a low-$\alpha$ halo star. Barium abundance anomalies relative to normal field halo stars have also been seen in $\omega$Cen members [e.g., @norris95; @smith00], but the enhancement observed in those stars is significantly higher than that measured in G53-41.
Conclusions
===========
Non-LTE oxygen abundances from the 777nm [O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>]{} triplet lines have been derived for as many as possible of the stars in the work by NS10. These authors have derived very precise atmospheric parameters and elemental abundances (excluding oxygen) for their sample stars, allowing them to clearly separate the field halo stars into low-$\alpha$ and high-$\alpha$ groups.
We find the run of \[O/Fe\] abundance ratios with ${\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}$ of high-$\alpha$ halo and thick-disk stars very similar, while that of low-$\alpha$ halo stars is systematically lower by about 0.2dex and it has, in general, a larger star-to-star scatter compared to the other two groups. A few additional low-$\alpha$, low-oxygen abundance halo stars are identified in previously published works. Their kinematic properties strengthen the hypothesis by NS10 that these objects may have originated in dwarf satellite galaxies early in the history of the Milky Way. A connection between the low-$\alpha$, low oxygen halo stars and $\omega$Cen is not well established, unless assumptions about the early chemical abundance distribution within this extremely complex globular cluster are made.
Our oxygen abundance data for the three groups of stars studied by NS10 exhibit a behavior that is similar to that of the $\alpha$-elements. The exceptions are two stars, G53-41 and G150-40, which seem to be the first firm candidates of field halo stars born in globular clusters, although probably not $\omega$Cen, which has been previously argued as one of the main contributors of low-$\alpha$ field halo stars. Both G53-41 and G150-40 show the classic signatures of abundance anomalies in globular cluster stars, namely very low oxygen and highly enhanced sodium abundances. Since these properties are seen in 2 of the 67 stars studied in this work, we estimate that the contribution of globular clusters to the local field metal-poor ($-1.6<{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}<-0.4$) stellar population is at least $3\pm2$%.
We thank Dr. A. F. Marino for her helpful advice on the chemical properties of globular clusters. I.R.’s work was performed under contract with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program. J.M. would like to acknowledge support from USP (Novos Docentes), FAPESP (2010/17510-3) and CNPq (Bolsa de Produtividade). Work by J.C. has been supported by the Centro de Astrofísica FONDAP 15010003, the Centro de Astrofísica y Tecnologías Afines CATA del Proyecto Financiamiento Basal PFB06, and by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-51239.01-A, awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555.
[lrrrrrrrcc]{}
\[t:ofe\]
[^1]: In this work we use the standard definitions: $\mathrm{[X/Y]}=\log(N_\mathrm{X}/N_\mathrm{Y})-\log(N_\mathrm{X}/N_\mathrm{Y})_\odot$, and $A_\mathrm{X}=\log(N_\mathrm{X}/N_\mathrm{H})+12$, where $N_\mathrm{X}$ is the number density of element X.
[^2]: 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 – http://iraf.noao.edu
[^3]: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tab/makee
[^4]: http://obs.carnegiescience.edu/Code/mike
[^5]: http://www.as.utexas.edu/ chris/moog.html
[^6]: Errors in our \[O/Fe\] and NS10’s \[Na/Fe\] abundance ratios are too small to have a significant impact on this lower limit.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper studies the quantum dynamics of a charged particle in a 2D square lattice, under the influence of electric and magnetic fields, the former being aligned with one of the lattice axes and the latter perpendicular to the lattice plane. While in free space these dynamics consist of uniform motions in the direction orthogonal to the electric field vector, we find that, in a lattice, this directed drift takes place only for specific initial conditions and for electric field magnitudes smaller than a critical value. Otherwise, the quantum wave–packet spreads ballistically in both directions orthogonal to the electric field. We quantify this ballistic spreading and identify the subspace of initial conditions insuring directed transport with the drift velocity. We also describe the effect of disorder in the system.'
author:
- 'Andrey R. Kolovsky$^{1,2}$'
- 'Giorgio Mantica$^{3,4}$'
title: 'Cyclotron-Bloch dynamics of a quantum particle in a 2D lattice'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum transport in periodic potentials is a topic of permanent interest since the early days of quantum mechanics. Recently this topic has attracted a renewed interest thanks to the experiments with cold atoms in optical lattices, where the quantum dynamics can be observed both in real and in momentum space. In particular, during the last decade much attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of Bloch oscillations of cold atoms subject to a static (for example, gravitational) field (see [*e.g.*]{} Ref. [@Daha96; @Mors01; @80; @Hall10] to cite just a few of the relevant papers). These new studies have also shed additional light on the old problem of electron transport in a solid crystal induced by an external electric field [@Ott04; @69; @79].
Present research in cold atoms physics is also focused on the problem of generating synthetic magnetic fields, which could impart a Lorenz–like force to otherwise neutral atoms in motion [@Jaks03; @Oste05; @Sore05; @preprint]. This opens an interesting perspective for studying the quantum Hall effect with cold atoms in 2D optical lattices [@Gold07]. A preliminary but necessary step in this direction is the analysis of the Bloch dynamics of cold atoms in the presence of an artificial magnetic field [@remark0]. In this paper we study these dynamics in the tight-binding approximation, where the single-particle Hamiltonian of an atom in a 2D lattice has a relatively simple form. In spite of this simple form, we find a surprisingly rich variety of behaviors, which range from the ballistic spreading of the wave-packet to directed transport.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\] we introduce the model and perform a preliminary analysis, following the standard route which leads to the Harper equation [@Harp55] and, hence, is referred to as the Harper approach. The Harper approach reduces the original 2D problem to a 1D problem, which on the one hand is simpler to describe, but on the other hand it limits the class of initial conditions that can be considered. Therefore, in Sec. \[sec3\] we tackle the problem using the more powerful formalism of Landau-Stark states, which are the eigenstates of a charged particle in a lattice subject to both magnetic and electric fields. In some sense this approach is opposite to the Harper approach: here one begins with a particle in an electric field (i.e., with the problem of Bloch oscillations) and then introduces a magnetic field. The Landau-Stark states approach is fully two dimensional and, hence, imposes no limitations on the class of initial conditions that can be considered. In addition, it allows us to construct 2D localized wave packets, which propagate across the lattice without changing their shapes.
Finally, in Sec. \[sec4\] we discuss the transport in the presence of on-site disorder. Here we consider generic initial conditions in the form of a wide incoherent wave packet. In this case, for vanishing disorder, the wave–packet spreads ballistically in the direction orthogonal to the electric field. We study the modifications of this ballistic spreading caused by the presence of on-site disorder. In the case of null magnetic field this problem was considered in the recent paper [@78]. Our analysis unveils the differences between the 1D Harper approach of Sec. \[sec2\] and the full 2D approach of Sec. \[sec3\], that, to the contrary, predict the same rate of ballistic spreading when disorder is absent or negligible. This provides us with a significant new model for the problem of Anderson localization, where the effective dimensionality is larger than one but smaller than two.
The Hamiltonian model and its approximations {#sec2}
============================================
In this section we introduce the physical model under investigation and we discuss two common approximations. We also derive a first dynamical phenomenon: the presence of a drift of the particle/wave–packet with constant velocity. Let us therefore consider a quantum particle of mass $M$ and charge $e$ in a 2D square lattice of side $d$ in the $x$-$y$ plane, created by a periodic potential $V(x,y)$. The particle is also under the action of an in-plane electric field, aligned with the $y$ axis and of a magnetic field normal to the $x$-$y$ plane. This particle is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{1}
\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2M}\left(\hat{\bf{p}}-\frac{e}{c}{\bf A}\right)^2+V(x,y) \;,\quad
V(x+ld,y+md)=V(x,y) \;,$$ where ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential. A convenient choice of the vector potential, corresponding to the field configuration described above is $$\label{1a}
{\bf A}=B(0,x,0)+F(0,ct,0) \;,$$ where $B$ and $F$ are the magnetic and electric field magnitudes, respectively, and where vectors are described in line notation. It is easy to check that the Hamiltonian (\[1\]) commutes with the generalized translation operator $\widehat{T}'_x=\exp(-i2\pi\alpha y/d)\widehat{T}_x$, where $\widehat{T}_x$ is the usual translation operator and where $$\label{2}
%\widetilde{T}_x=\exp\left(-i\frac{2\pi\alpha}{d}y\right)\widehat{T}_x \;,
%\quad \widetilde{T}_y=\widehat{T}_y \;,\quad
\alpha=\frac{eBd^2}{hc} \;.$$ The parameter $\alpha$ defines the so-called magnetic period $\lambda = d/\alpha$, which has the dimensions of a length and will play an important role in the following. A rigorous analysis of the motion generated by the Hamiltonian (\[1\]) is a difficult, unsolved problem. Therefore, one deals with this problem by introducing suitable approximations.
The effective mass approximation {#sec2a}
--------------------------------
The simplest approximation of the Hamiltonian (\[1\]) starts by defining the effective mass $M^*$ as the curvature of the ground Bloch band of (\[1\]) at ${\bf A}=0$: $$\label{3}
M^*=(M_x M_y)^{1/2} \;,\quad M_{x,y}=\frac{1}{\hbar^2}\frac{d^2 E}{d\kappa_{x,y}^2} \;,$$ where $E=E(\kappa_x,\kappa_y)$ is the dispersion relation. The approximate Hamiltonian then reads $$\label{4}
\widehat{H}_{em}=\frac{\hat{p}_x^2}{2M_x}
+\frac{1}{2M_y}\left(\hat{p}_y-\frac{eB}{c}x-eFt\right)^2 \;.$$ For vanishing electric field the eigenfunctions of (\[4\]) are Landau oscillators with energy spectrum $E_n=\hbar\omega_c(n+1/2)$. Here $\omega_c=eB/cM^*$ is the cyclotron frequency. It appears from eq. (\[4\]) that a non-zero value of $F$ shifts the origin of a Landau oscillator linearly in time. Thus, the particle is transported in the direction orthogonal to the electric field with a drift velocity $v^*=cF/B$.
Although the effective mass approximation correctly predicts the drift velocity, it completely ignores the lattice discreteness, which is important in many aspects. To take the lattice discreteness into account one usually introduces a tight-binding approximation to the original Hamiltonian.
The tight-binding approximation {#sec2b}
-------------------------------
The tight-binding approximation amounts to the following ansatz for the wave function of the system, $$\label{5}
\Psi(x,y)=\sum_{l,m} \psi_{l,m} w_{l,m}(x,y) \;,\quad
w_{l,m}(x,y)=w_{0,0}(x-ld,y-md) \;,$$ that is written in terms of two-dimensional Wannier states $w_{l,m}(x,y)\equiv |l,m\rangle$. In this approximation one also neglects coupling other than between nearest neighbors pairs of states, so to approximate the Hamiltonian (\[1\]-\[2\]) in the form $$\label{6}
\widehat{H}_{tb}= -\frac{J_x}{2} \sum_{l,m} \left(|l+1,m\rangle \langle l,m | + h.c.\right)
-\frac{J_y}{2} \sum_{l,m} \left(|l,m+1\rangle \langle m | e^{i(2\pi\alpha l-\omega_Bt)} + h.c.\right) ,$$ where $\omega_B=edF/\hbar$ is the Bloch frequency. This latter is the second characteristic frequency of the system, which is overlooked by the effective mass approximation. The hopping matrix elements $J_x$ and $J_y$ in the Hamiltonian (\[6\]) can be related via eq. (\[3\]) to the parameters of the original system as $J_{x,y}=\hbar^2/d^2 M^*_{x,y}$. In what follows, to simplify equations, we shall set $e$, $c$, $\hbar$, $M$ and $d$ to unity. The magnetic period is then given by $\lambda = 1/\alpha$, the Bloch frequency becomes $\omega_B=F$, the cyclotron frequency $$\label{6a}
\omega_c=2\pi\alpha(J_xJ_y)^{1/2} \;,$$ and the drift velocity $$\label{6b}
v^*=F/2\pi\alpha \;.$$
The Hamiltonian (\[6\]) with four parameters $J_x$, $J_y$, $\alpha$, and $\omega_B\equiv F$ defines the model being analyzed in the following sections. More precisely, we are interested in wave-packet dynamics of the system (\[6\]), which is governed by the Schrödinger equation for the amplitudes $\psi_{l,m}(t)$: $$\label{7}
i\dot{\psi}_{l,m}=-\frac{J_x}{2}\left(\psi_{l+1,m}+\psi_{l-1,m}\right)
-\frac{J_y}{2}\left(e^{i(2\pi\alpha l-Ft)} \psi_{l,m+1}+e^{-i(2\pi\alpha l-Ft)} \psi_{l,m-1}\right) \;.$$ Remark that the discrete index $l$ refers to the $x$ direction, while $m$ labels the $y$ direction, parallel to the electric field.
Semiclassical analysis of a one-dimensional reduced Hamiltonian {#sec2c}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We begin our analysis of the system dynamics with considering a class of initial conditions with uniform probability density along the $y$ direction. This leads to a one-dimensional reduction of the quantum problem. In fact, in this case we may use the substitution $$\label{7z}
\psi_{l,m}(t)= \frac{e^{i\kappa m}}{\sqrt{L_y}} b_l(t) \;,\quad \kappa=\frac{2\pi}{L_y}k \;,$$ which reduces the Schrödinger equation (\[7\]) to the following 1D equation for the amplitudes $b_l(t)$: $$\label{7a}
i\dot{b}_l=-\frac{J_x}{2}(b_{l+1}+b_{l-1}) -J_y\cos(2\pi\alpha l+\kappa-Ft)b_l \;.$$ The substitution (\[7z\]) assumes periodic boundary conditions, of period $L_y$, that eventually tends to infinity. Equation (\[7a\]) can be rewritten in the more familiar form of the Schrödinger equation for the driven Harper Hamiltonian $$\label{8}
\widehat{H}_{1D}=-J_x\cos\hat{p}-J_y\cos(2 \pi \alpha x+\kappa-Ft) \;.$$ In this paper we shall mostly limit ourselves to the case $\alpha\ll 1$, which can be considered as a semiclassical limit for Harper-like Hamiltonians [@harpr]. Thus, we can appeal to the quantum-classical correspondence to facilitate the physical understanding of the problem. Letting the operators $\hat{x}'=2 \pi \alpha x$ and $\hat{p}'=-i2 \pi \alpha \; {\rm d}/{\rm d}x'$ be considered as classical canonical variables yields the the classical driven Harper Hamiltonian $$\label{8b2}
H_{cl}=-J_x\cos(p')-J_y\cos(x' - Ft) \;.$$
![(color online). Stroboscopic map of the driven Harper for $J_x=J_y=1$ and $F=0$, a small $F\ll F_{cr}$ and moderate $F$ below and above $F_{cr}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="11.5cm"}
Figure \[fig1\] shows the Poincare’ surfaces of section for the classical motions. Phase trajectories near the stationary point $(p',x')=(0,0)$ in the panel (a), which refers to the case $F=0$, encircle this point with the cyclotron frequency (\[6a\]) and are thus associated with the Landau states in the effective mass approximation. For weak field intensity $F$, these trajectories are captured into the nonlinear resonance, which is seen as the stability island in Fig. \[fig1\](b-c), and are transported with the drift velocity $v^*$. The stability island, however, shrinks with increasing $F$ and completely disappears when $|F|>F_{cr}$, where $$\label{9}
F_{cr}=2\pi\alpha J_x \;.$$ Thus the drift is possible only if $|F|<F_{cr}$. Translated into the quantum language this means that the Landau state can be transported only if the condition (\[9\]) is satisfied. To support this statement, in Fig. \[fig2\] we show the dynamics of a localized wave packet associated with the ground Landau state in the effective mass approximation, given by the initial condition $b_l(t=0)\sim\exp(-\pi\alpha l^2)$. A nice, directed transport is observed only in a weak field regime, while in the strong field regime the wave packet spreads almost symmetrically both directions. Remark that these results refer to the one-dimensional model (\[7a\]). We will describe wave-packet spreading in more detail in Sec. \[sec4a\].
We also note that eq. (\[9\]) removes a seemingly illogical consequence of eq. (\[6b\]), that predicts an infinite drift velocity for null magnetic field. As a matter of facts, when the magnetic field intensity $B$ tends to zero, the transporting island in Figure \[fig1\] disappears. Thus, eq. (\[6b\]) for the drift current implicitly assumes that $F < 2 \pi \alpha J_x$.
![Space–time plot of the dynamics of a wave packet initially localized about the origin for $J_x=J_y=1$, $\kappa=0$, $\alpha=1/20$ and $F=0,0.5,0.1$ (left, center, right). To increase visibility, the packets for $F=0$ and $F=0.1$ have been shifted by $\mp 20$ lattice sites. Wave-functions amplitudes $|b_l(t)|^2$ are reported in grey scale, black maximum. The time axis is measured in units of the Bloch period $T_B = {2 \pi}/{\omega_B}$ and we have arbitrarily set $T_B = 2 \pi$ for null electric field. For $F=0.1$ the particle is captured into the nonlinear resonance and transported across the lattice, traveling one magnetic period $\lambda$ in one Bloch period $T_B$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="11.5cm"}
To conclude this section we note that directed transport in the weak field regime (i.e., the drift) takes place not only for states associated with trajectories near $(p',x')=(0,0)$, but also for states associated with trajectories near $(p',x')=(\pi,\pi)$ in Fig. \[fig1\](a). These are high-energy counterparts of the low-energy (Landau) states of the Harper Hamiltonian, related by the transformation $b_l^{(high)}=(-1)^l b_l^{(low)}$.
Quantum analysis of the 2D system {#sec3}
=================================
We now move to the analysis of the two-dimensional tight–binding Hamiltonian. By using the Kramers–Hennenberger transformation, $\psi_{l,m}(t) \rightarrow \psi_{l,m}(t)\exp(-iFmt)$, we can reduce the Hamiltonian (\[6\]) to the form $$\label{c2}
(\widehat{H}_{tb} \psi)_{l,m} = -\frac{J_x}{2}\left(\psi_{l+1,m}+\psi_{l-1,m}\right)
-\frac{J_y}{2}\left(e^{i2\pi\alpha l} \psi_{l,m+1}+e^{-i2\pi\alpha l} \psi_{l,m-1}\right)
+Fm \psi_{l,m} \;.$$ This can also be seen as the tight-binding approximation to the Hamiltonian $$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\hat{\bf{p}}-\frac{e}{c}{\bf A}\right)^2+V(x,y) +eFy \;,$$ where the vector potential ${\bf A}=B(0,x,0)$ is used instead of that in eq. (\[1a\]). They describe the same physical situation.
Landau-Stark states {#sec3a}
-------------------
One gets important insight into the dynamics by analyzing the energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian (\[c2\]), $(\widehat{H}_{tb} \psi)_{l,m} = E \psi_{l,m}$. By assuming periodicity in the $x$ direction, of an arbitrary (large) period $L_x$, and eventually letting $L_x$ tend to infinity, we can write the eigenfunctions in the form $$\label{c3}
\psi_{l,m}= \frac{e^{i\kappa l}}{\sqrt{L_x}} c_m e^{-i2\pi\alpha lm} ,$$ where $\kappa$ is free to vary in the interval $[0,2 \pi]$. \[Please notice the difference between eqs. (\[c3\]) and (\[7z\]).\] This reduces the spectral problem to the one-dimensional problem: $$\label{c4}
-\frac{J_y}{2}(c_{m+1}+c_{m-1}) + [Fm - J_x\cos(2\pi\alpha m-\kappa)]c_m =E c_m \;.$$ Labeling the eigen-solutions of (\[c4\]) by the discrete index $\nu$, so that $E = E_{\nu}(\kappa)$ and $c_m = c_m ^{\nu}(\kappa)$ and inserting these values in eq. (\[c3\]), we construct the eigenfunctions of (\[c2\]) in the form of the [*Landau–Stark states*]{}: $|\Psi_{\nu,\kappa}\rangle=\sum_{l,m} \psi_{l,m}^{(\nu,\kappa)} |l,m\rangle$.
For $J_x=0$ the spectrum of (\[c4\]) consists of a ladder of Bloch bands of zero width, separated by the Stark energy $F$. For $J_x\ne0$ these bands acquire a finite width $\sim 2J_x$ and for any fixed $\kappa$ the spectrum is a modulated Wannier-Stark ladder. A fragment of the spectrum covering three modulation periods is shown in Fig. \[fig3\] for two values of the field intensity $F$. Note that for small $F$ a pattern of straight lines emerges in the picture. The eigenstates belonging to this lines (which always appear in pairs) are associated with two transporting islands in the classical approach. We shall discuss them in more details in the next subsection.
![(color online). A fragment of the energy spectrum of (\[c2\]) for $J_x=J_y=1$, $\alpha=1/10$, and $F=1$ (left) and $F=0.3$ (right).[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="11.5cm"}
It follows from eq. (\[c3\]) that Landau-Stark states are extended states in the $x$ direction. Moreover, they are current states, [*i.e.*]{} the mean value of the current operator $\hat{v}$, $$\label{c5}
\hat{v}=\frac{J_x}{2i}\left(\sum_{l,m} |l+1,m\rangle\langle l,m| -h.c.\right) \;,$$ is non-zero for almost all Landau-Stark states $|\Psi_{\nu,\kappa}\rangle$. This value, $v_\nu(\kappa)$, can be calculated via eq. (\[c3\]): $$\label{c6}
v_\nu(\kappa)=\langle \Psi_{\nu,\kappa}|\hat{v}| \Psi_{\nu,\kappa}\rangle
=\sum_m |c_m^{\nu}(\kappa)|^2 \sin(2\pi\alpha m -\kappa) \;.$$ The upper panel in Fig. \[fig4\] shows the mean current for a set of one-hundred states $|\Psi_{\nu,\kappa}\rangle$ with $\kappa=0.1$ for the same parameters of Fig. \[fig3\](b). It is seen that the Landau-Stark states carry currents of different magnitude and sign. However, completeness of the basis of eigenstates implies the sum rule $$\label{c7}
\sum_\nu v_\nu(\kappa)=0 \;.$$
![(color online). The mean current (\[c5\]) carried by Landau-Stark states $|\Psi_{\nu,\kappa}\rangle$ with $\kappa=0.1$. Parameters are $J_x=J_y=1$, $F=0.3$, $\alpha=1/10$ (upper panel) and $\alpha=1/10.1417$ (lower panel). The dashed line corresponds to the drift velocity $v^*$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="11.5cm"}
A remark about commensurably of the magnetic and lattice periods is in turn. In Fig. \[fig3\] the spectrum $E_\nu(\kappa)$ is periodic along the energy axis because $\alpha$ is rational. This periodicity is replaced by quasi-periodicity when $\alpha$ is irrational. As a consequence, the same happens also for $v_\nu(\kappa)$, as can be seen clearly in Fig. \[fig4\](b). However, Landau-Stark states are still extended functions in the $x$ direction and the summation rule (\[c7\]) also holds. Thus, irrationality of the value $\alpha$ does not change properties of the system in a crucial way. This differs from the case of vanishing electric field, where the eigenstates are localized functions for irrational $\alpha$ if $J_x>J_y$ [@Aubr80].
Transporting states {#sec3b}
-------------------
In this subsection we describe a procedure for constructing localized wave packets, which propagate across the lattice with the drift velocity velocity $v^*$ in eq. (\[6b\]) without changing their shapes.
First of all we note that for $|F|<F_{cr}$ the potential energy term in eq. (\[c4\]), $V(m)=Fm-J_x\cos(2\pi\alpha m-\kappa)$, has local minima and maxima. These local extrema can support a number of well localized states. The exact number of these states depends on the system parameters and coincides with number of straight lines in the energy spectrum. In first order approximation they can be found by expanding $V(m)$ in the vicinity of the extremum. Without loss of generality, let us consider the minimum at $m=0$. This expansion reduces (\[c4\]) to the following equation, $$\label{c8}
-\frac{J_y}{2}(c_{m+1}+c_{m-1})
+ \left[Fm+\frac{J_x}{2}(2\pi\alpha m-\kappa)^2 \right]c_m = E c_m$$ (the constant term is omitted), which is a Mathieu-type equation whose properties are well-known. As an example, Fig. \[fig5\] compares the localized state, which is calculated using the exact equation (\[c4\]) with that following from the approximate equation (\[c8\]) for the parameters of Fig. \[fig3\](b). The two states well coincide with the exception of ten points in the $\kappa$ axis, in coincidence of which \[see Fig. \[fig3\](b)\] the spectrum shows avoided crossings.
![Absolute values of the expansion coefficients $c_m$, calculated on the basis of the exact equation (\[c4\]) and the approximate equation (\[c8\]). Parameters are $J_x=J_y=1$, $F=0.3$, and $\alpha=1/10$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="11.5cm"}
Ignoring avoided crossings \[i.e., using eq. (\[c8\]) instead of eq. (\[c4\])\] and tracking the energy $E_\nu(\kappa)$ along the straight lines in Fig. \[fig3\](b) we can construct a localized state by integrating extended Landau-Stark states over the quasimomentum, $$\label{c9}
\psi_{l,m}= e^{-i2\pi\alpha lm} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{i\kappa l} c_m(\kappa) {\rm d}\kappa \;.$$ It follows from eq. (\[c8\]) that the time evolution of this state is defined by the trivial shift, $$\label{packet}
\psi_{l,m}(t)=\psi_{l-v^*t,m}(0) \;,$$ where $v^*$ is the drift velocity. Needless to say, transporting states can be constructed for any local minimum or maximum of $V(m)$, [*i.e.*]{} for any straight line in the spectrum. Examples of transporting states for $F=0.1$ and two different values of $\alpha$ are given Fig. \[fig6\]. It is seen that the states (\[c9\]) are well localized in both spatial directions, the characteristic localization length along the $y$ axis being defined by the magnetic period $\lambda = 1/\alpha$.
![Grey scale representation of transporting states. Parameters are $J_x=J_y=1$, $F=0.1$, and $\alpha=1/10$ (left) and $\alpha=1/20$ (right).[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.eps){width="11.5cm"}
We mentioned above that transporting states are associated with transporting islands in the semiclassical approach, which is justified if $|\alpha|\ll 1$. An advantage of the Landau-Stark states formalism is that one can make predictions also for $|\alpha|\sim 1/2$, i.e., in the deep quantum regime. (Without a loss of generality one may consider $-1/2<\alpha\le 1/2$.) In particular, for $\alpha\approx1/2$ we have found exotic transporting states, which have no classical analogue. An example is given in the left panel of Fig. \[fig7\], which shows the band spectrum $E_\nu(\kappa)$ for $\alpha=1/(2.2)$. Using the procedure described above one can construct localized transporting states for any straight line in the spectrum, see right panel in Fig. \[fig7\]. Note that, while in Fig. \[fig3\](b) the slope of the straight lines is positive, in Fig. \[fig7\](a) it is negative: therefore the depicted localized state transports quantum particles in the opposite direction to what (classically) expected by the electric-magnetic field geometry.
![(color online). A fragment of the energy spectrum of the system (left) and the ’exotic’ transporting state (right), which transports particles in the counter-intuitive direction. The system parameters are $J_x=J_y=1$, $F=0.1$ and $\alpha=1/(2.2)$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.eps){width="11.5cm"}
In closing this section we need to stress again that we ignored avoided crossings when constructing the transporting states. The presence of these avoided crossings leads to back-scattering effects: the traveling packet in eq. (\[packet\]) emits tiny packets, which propagate in the opposite direction. Thus, strictly speaking, the perfect transport of a localized wave packet in a lattice is impossible.
Wave–Packet spreading {#sec4}
=====================
The band spectrum of the Landau-Stark states and the summation rule (\[c7\]) imply that the time evolution of a generic localized wave packet is a ballistic spreading along both the positive and the negative $x$ direction, with the obvious exception of specific initial conditions such as the transporting states. In this section we study wave–packet spreading in some detail, extending the analysis also to the case of disordered lattices. To construct a generic initial wave packet, we shall superimpose random phases to a wide Gaussian envelope of width $\sigma_0\gg 1/\alpha$. Note that by averaging the results over such random phases we can mimic the dynamics of an incoherent wave packet.
One-dimensional system {#sec4a}
----------------------
To have a reference model for the phenomena under investigation, we first analyze the dynamics in the one-dimensional system (\[8\]). The simplest situation is obtained for large $F\gg F_{cr}$, where the classical phase–space trajectories are nearly straight lines parallel to the $x$ axis. In this case we can safely neglect the potential energy term and hence assume that the spreading motion coincides with that in the absence of driving. For an incoherent wave packet this implies that the square root of the second spatial moment, $\sigma(t)$, is $$\label{d1}
\sigma(t)=\sqrt{\sigma_0^2+J_x t^2/2} \;.$$ Equation (\[d1\]) gives an upper boundary to the rate of ballistic spreading of a localized wave packet. Decreasing $F$ the rate of spreading also diminishes. At the same time, the spreading becomes asymmetric, a fact especially evident for $F<F_{cr}$. In this regime a large part of the packet moves in the positive direction with the drift velocity $v^*$, while a smaller part moves in the negative direction with velocity $|v|>v^*$. Note that this asymmetric spreading does not imply a preferable transport in either direction, since the first moment of the position of the packet is null. Fig. \[fig9\] below provides a numerical confirmation of this fact. It is obtained by averaging over the random phases of the initial wave packet.
Next we study the effect of on-site disorder, which we mimic by adding to the 1D Hamiltonian in eq. (\[8\]) random on-site energies $\epsilon_n$, $|\epsilon_n| \le \epsilon/2$. The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig8a\] show $\sigma(t)$ versus $t$ for increasing values of the disorder, at fixed $F=3$. Here, and in the following, we also perform an average over disorder realizations. As expected, the ballistic spreading is suppressed by the disorder. Moreover, for large times the spreading is completely stopped by the Anderson localization. In this case the spatial distribution of the average packet, $P(l,t)=\langle |\psi_l(t)|^2 \rangle$ approaches the exponential distribution, $$\label{d2}
P(l,t) \sim \exp(-|l|/{\cal L}) \;,$$ which is a hallmark of Anderson localization. Let us also note that the value $F=3$ chosen in Fig. \[fig8a\] is large enough to approach the free expansion regime, eq. (\[d1\]), for $\epsilon=0$. Thus we expect that for $\epsilon\ne0$ the functional dependence of the localization length ${\cal L}={\cal L}(\epsilon)$ in eq. (\[d2\]) might coincide with that of the standard Anderson model.
![(color online). Wave-packet width as a function of time for $J_x=J_y=1$, $\alpha=1/10$, $F=3$ and increasing strength of the disorder $\epsilon=0,0.1,0.2,03,0.4,0.5,1$, (color labelled as blue, red, magenta, green, blue, red, magenta, respectively) from top to bottom. The continuous lines correspond to the 2D model, while the dashed lines to the one–dimensional model.[]{data-label="fig8a"}](fig8a.eps){width="11.5cm"}
The case $F<F_{cr}$, shown in Fig. \[fig8b\] (dashed lines), appears to be more complicated. Here the regime of ballistic spreading changes to the regime of Anderson localization through an intermediate regime of diffusive spreading, where the spatial distribution function of the wave packet grows approximately like the diffusion law, $
P(l,t) \sim \exp(-l^2/Dt). \;
$At $F=0.3$ this regime is clearly observed in the numerical simulations for disorder strengths around $\epsilon \sim 0.5$. To see that this is actually an intermediate regime, ([*i.e.*]{} to see a sign of saturation) we will perform a more sophisticated analysis, in the next section.
![(color online). The same as in the previous figure, now for $F=0.3$.[]{data-label="fig8b"}](fig8b.eps){width="11.5cm"}
Two-dimensional system {#sec4b}
----------------------
As in the 1D case we consider a Gaussian incoherent packet as initial condition for the motion, of width $\sigma_0^x$ and $\sigma_0^y$ in the two directions; the former is chosen to coincide with the width of the initial condition in the one–dimensional model. For vanishing disorder the packet spreads ballistically in the $x$ direction but remains localized in the $y$ direction. The Landau-Stark localization length ${\cal L}_y$ in the $y$ direction is in fact: $$\label{d4}
{\cal L}_y \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\max (1,2J_y/F) &,& F>F_{cr}\\
1/\alpha &,& F<F_{cr}
\end{array} \right.$$ The estimate (\[d4\]) is obtained on the basis of the 1D Wannier-Stark problem (\[c4\]) and assumes $\alpha\ll 1$ and $J_x=J_y$ (note however [@remark2]). It follows from eq. (\[d4\]) that the localization length increases from unity to one magnetic period when $F$ is decreased. We also mention that in the under-critical regime, $F<F_{cr}$, the estimate ${\cal L}_y\approx1/\alpha$ gives the maximal localization length, while the minimal localization length scales as ${\cal L}_y\sim1/\sqrt{\alpha}$. Thus in this regime different Landau-States have different localization lengths ${\cal L}_y$, in the interval $1/\sqrt{\alpha}<{\cal L}_y<1/\alpha$.
We can now show the results of the analysis of the full, two-dimensional system (\[c2\]). The upper panel in Fig. \[fig9\] depicts the averaged 2D wave-packet $\langle |\psi_{l,m}(t)|^2 \rangle$ at $t=2000$ for the parameters of Fig. \[fig3\](b) (note the different scale of the $y$ and $x$ axis). It is seen that the packets splits in several sub-packets, of which the rightmost moves with the drift velocity. This sub-packet is associated with the straight lines in the energy spectrum, i.e., with the transporting states. At the opposite end, the leftmost sub-packet is associated with the part of the spectrum where the energy bands have minimal negative derivative. Intermediate packets are also observed, so that one can easily predict speed and position of wave-packets by analyzing the energy spectrum.
![(color online). Upper panel: Population of the lattice sites at the end of numerical simulation. Lower panel compares integrated population of the lattice sites along the $x$ direction (solid line) with prediction of the 1D model (\[7\]), dashed line.[]{data-label="fig9"}](fig9.eps){width="11.5cm"}
The lower panel in Fig. \[fig9\] compares the projected wave-packet in the $x$ direction, $\sum_m |\psi_{l,m}|^2$, with the corresponding distribution predicted by the 1D model (\[7a\]). A reasonable correspondence is noticed, which strengthen the physical significance of the one–dimensional reduction. This correspondence is even more precise if one compares integrated characteristics like the wave-packet widths, which we define as $$\sigma(t)= (\sum_{l} l^2 |c_{l}(t)|^2 )^{\frac{1}{2}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\sigma(t)=\ (\sum_{l,m} l^2 |\psi_{l,m}|^2 )^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ in the 1D and 2D cases, respectively. This comparison is done in Fig. \[fig8a\] and Fig. \[fig8b\] for $F=3$ and $F=0.3$, respectively. It is seen that the values for $\epsilon=0$ practically coincide. To the contrary, for non-zero amplitude of the disorder, the data of the one–dimensional model are consistently smaller than the other, supporting the almost obvious observation that in the 2D model Anderson localization is “less effective”. To turn this observation into rigorous theory is the goal of further investigation.
Here, we only perform a simple analysis. From the data of Fig. \[fig8a\] and Fig. \[fig8b\] one might think that anomalous diffusion is taking place in the dynamics of the wave–packet, as in well known examples of quantum intermittency (see [@gio] and references therein). Indeed, this is not the case. In fact, if we compute the local exponent $\nu(t)$ as the slope of the curve $\log(\sigma^2(t))$ versus $\log t$: $$\nu(t)= \frac{d \log( \sigma_x^2(t) )}{d \log t} \; ,$$ we obtain Fig. \[figslop\], that sums up the data for $F=0.3$ and $F=3.0$. While slopes for $\epsilon=0$ tend clearly to the value $\nu = 2$, indicating linear motion, the other curves, after reaching a maximum, show a clear tendency to decrease. (The initial increase can be easily explained as an effect of the wide amplitude of the initial wave-packet.) The successive decrease of the local exponent $\nu(t)$ is the signature of Anderson localization. In turn, this can be justified by noting that Stark localization in the $y$ direction, eq. (\[d4\]), renders the system quasi one-dimensional, effectively bounding the motion to a strip, the larger the value of the electric field amplitude $F$, the narrower this strip.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the wave-packet dynamics of a quantum particle in a square lattice in the presence of (real or artificial) electric and magnetic fields, in the tight-binding approximation. In this approximation the Hamiltonian of this system contains five physical parameters: the hopping matrix elements $J_{x,y}$, the components of the electric field vector $F_{x,y}$, and the magnetic field flux quanta through a unit cell $\alpha$, (with $|\alpha|\le 1/2$). In this paper we have considered mainly the case $J_y=J_x\equiv J$, but we do not expect significant differences to appear in the more general situation. More importantly, we have assumed that the electric field is parallel to one of the lattice axes which, in fact, is a rather specific situation. In spite of this limitation the system is found to display very rich dynamics, varying from ballistic spreading to directed transport. A laboratory application of this model can consist of cold atoms in a 2D optical lattice, subject to artificial electric and magnetic fields. In this experiment, typical initial conditions correspond to a coherent (a BEC of atoms) or incoherent (a thermal cloud of atoms) 2D wave packet, localized over several lattice sites. Our findings apply directly to this experimental situation.
We have discovered two main regimes for wave-packet dynamics under these geometric conditions. These regimes are determined by the relation between two dimensionless parameters – the parameter $\alpha$, which is proportional to magnetic field magnitude and the parameter $\beta$, which is proportional to the electric field magnitude and is defined as the ratio of the Stark energy to the hopping matrix element.
For vanishing magnetic field, $\alpha=0$, the electric field induces Bloch oscillations of the wave packet in the field direction, while in the orthogonal direction the wave packet spreads ballistically with a rate defined by $J$. Under the condition of Stark localization, $\beta \gg 1$, this regime is also valid if $\alpha\ne0$. Note that the condition $\beta\gg 1$ implies that the amplitude of Bloch oscillations is smaller than one lattice site.
In the weak field regime, $\beta \ll 1$, the dynamics are richer and depend on the relative size between the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Namely, if $\beta>2\pi\alpha$ the wave-packet still spreads ballistically, although the spreading becomes asymmetric. A qualitative change happens if $\beta<2\pi\alpha$. Note that in dimensional units this condition reads $\omega_B<\omega_c$, where $\omega_B$ and $\omega_c$ are the Bloch and cyclotron frequencies, respectively. Here, the wave packets splits into several sub–packets, of which the right–most moves with the drift velocity $v^*$. This sub-packet is supported by the transporting states, the explicit form of which is given in Sec. \[sec3b\].
We have explained the observed dynamical regimes by analyzing the energy spectrum of the system, which can be easily calculated numerically. This spectrum has a band structure with specific band patterns, sensitive to the system parameters. Analyzing these patterns one can make predictions about the wave-packet dynamics even before performing the demanding simulation of the 2D Schrödinger equation.
In this work we have also derived and tested a 1D approximation to the original 2D Schrödinger equation, which leads to the driven Harper Hamiltonian (\[8\]). This latter is interesting in its own, because the driven Harper system is more easly realized in the lab than 2D lattices with artificial electric and magnetic fields [@Roat08]. We have shown that the 1D model is capable to capture some important features of the 2D wave-packet dynamics.
Finally we have studied the effect of on-site disorder on the dynamics [@Bill08]. It is found that disorder changes both the ballistic and transporting regimes into the regime of Anderson localization, which can be preceded by a diffusive regime. The observed diffusive spreading of the wave packet together with asymptotic Anderson localization indicates that on-site disorder converts the extended Landau-Stark states (which are the system eigenstates for vanishing disorder) into localized states with a non–trivial scaling law. This scaling law is a problem open to further investigation.
An additional open problem, which we reserve for future studies, is the case of an arbitrary direction of the electric field. It is known that Bloch oscillations of a quantum particle on a 2D lattice changes drastically if the field vector is misaligned with respect the lattice axis [@58]. Thus one may expect the quantum transport in the presence of a magnetic field to be also different.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}\
A.K. acknowledges the generous support of the Cariplo Foundation of the Landau Network-Centro Volta, Italy, supporting his stay at Center for Nonlinear and Complex Systems of the University of Insubria at Como, where part of this work has been performed. G.M. acknowledges the support of MIUR-PRIN project “Nonlinearity and disorder in classical and quantum transport processes”. The calculations in this paper have been produced on the CINECA parallel processor cluster SP6 thanks to the grant “Open quantum systems: quantum entropy and decoherence” for Progetti di Supercalcolo in Fisica della Materia, Project Key : giorgiomantica376572968172.
[10]{} M. Ben Dahan, E. Peik, J. Reichel, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, [*Bloch oscillations of atoms in an optical potential*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4508 (1996).
O. Morsch, J. H. Müller, M.Cristani, D. Ciampini, and E. Arimondo, [*Bloch oscillations and mean-field effects of Bose-Einstein condensates in 1D optical lattices*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 140402 (2001).
A.R.Kolovsky, H.J.Korsch, and E.M.Graefe, [*Bloch oscillations of Bose-Einstein condensates: Quantum counterpart of dynamical instability*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 023617 (2009).
E. Haller, R. Hart, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, L. Reichsöllner, and H.-Ch. Nägerl, [*Inducing transport in a dissipation-free lattice with super Bloch oscillations*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 200403 (2010).
H. Ott, E. de Mirandes, F. Ferlaino, G. Roati, G. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, [*Collisionally induced transport in the periodic potentials*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 160601 (2004).
A.V.Ponomarev, J.Mandroñero, A.R.Kolovsky and A.Buchleitner, [*Atomic current across an optical lattice*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 050404 (2006).
A.R.Kolovsky, [*Conductivity with cold atoms in optical lattices*]{}, Journal of Statistical Mechanics -Theory and Experiments, doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2009/02/P02018 (2009).
D. Jaksch and P. Zoller, [*Creation of effective magnetic fields in optical lattices: the Hofstadter butterfly for cold neutral atoms*]{}, New J. Phys. [**5**]{}, 56 (2003).
K. Osterloh, M. Baig, L. Santos, P. Zoller, and M. Lewenstein, [*Cold atoms in non-Abelian gauge potentials: from the Hofstadter “moth” to lattice gauge theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 010403 (2005).
A. S. Sorensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, [*Fractional quantum Hall states of atoms in optical lattices*]{}, Phys. Rev. Let. [**94**]{}, 086803 (2005).
A. R. Kolovsky, [*Cyclotron dynamics of cold atoms in 2D optical lattices*]{}, arXiv:1006.5270 (2010).
N.Goldman and P.Gaspard, [*Quantum Hall-like effect for cold atoms in non-Abelian gauge potentials*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**78**]{}, 60001 (2007).
The problem of Bloch oscillations in the presence of a magnetic field was addressed earlier with respect to semiconductor superlattices (see [@Cana96; @Orli08], for example). However, semiconductor superlattices are quasi one-dimensional lattices. Thus, in spite of similarities in terminology, we consider a completely different problem.
L. Canali, M. Lazzarino, L. Sorba, and F. Beltram, [*Stark-cyclotron resonance in a semiconductor superlattice*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3618 (1996).
M. Orlita, N. A. Goncharuk, R. Grill, and L. Smryčka, [*Electron dynamics in superlattices subject to crossed magnetic and electric fields*]{}, Microelectronics Journal [**39**]{}, 628 (2008).
P. G. Harper, [*Single band motion of conduction electrons in a uniform magnetic field*]{}, Proc. Phys. Soc. A [**68**]{}, 874 (1955).
A.R.Kolovsky, [*Interplay between Anderson and Stark localization in 2D lattices*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 190602 (2008).
T. Geisel, R. Ketzmerick and G. Petschel, [*Metamorphosis of a Cantor spectrum due to classical chaos*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**67**]{}, 3635 (1991). A. R. Kolovsky, [*Spectral statistics for the evolution operator of a quantum particle showing chaotic diffusion of the coordinate*]{} Phys. Rev. E. [**56**]{}, 2261 (1997).
S. Aubry and G. André, [*Analyticity breaking and Anderson localization in incommensurate lattices*]{}, Ann. Israel. Phys. Soc. [**3**]{}, 133 (1980).
For $J_y\ll J_x$ the estimate ${\cal L}_y=1/\alpha$ for the maximal localization length should be substituted by ${\cal L}_y=2(J_y/J_x)^{1/2}/\pi\alpha$ and, hence, ${\cal L}_y$ is smaller than one magnetic period. In the opposite limit $J_y\gg J_x$ the maximal localization length is larger than one magnetic period. However, it cannot exceed ${\cal L}_y=2J_y/F$, which is the localization length of the Wannier-Stark states.
For a laboratory realization of the Harper Hamiltonian or, more precisely, the Aubry-André model see G. Roati, C. D’ Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, [*Anderson localization of a non-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, Nature [**453**]{}, 891 (2008).
In experiments with cold atoms on-site disorder is introduced by superimposing the light speckle over the optical lattices, see J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Clement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, Ph. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, [*Direct observation of Anderson localization of matter-waves in a controlled disorder*]{}, Nature [**453**]{}, 893 (2008)
A. R. Kolovsky and H. J. Korsch, [*Bloch oscillations of cold atoms in 2D optical lattices*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 063601 (2003).
G. Mantica, [*Fourier–Bessel functions of singular continuous measures and their many asymptotics*]{}, Elec. Trans. Num. An. (ETNA) [**25**]{}, 409 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $C$ be an algebraic smooth complex curve of genus $g>1$. The object of this paper is the study of the birational structure of certain moduli spaces of vector bundles and of coherent systems on $C$ and the comparison of different type of notions of stability arising in moduli theory. Notably we show that in certain cases these moduli spaces are birationally equivalent to fibrations over simple projective varieties, whose fibers are GIT quotients $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$, where $r$ is the rank of the considered vector bundles. This allows us to compare different definitions of (semi-)stability (slope stability, $\alpha$-stability, GIT stability) for vector bundles, coherent systems and point sets, and derive relations between them. In certain cases of vector bundles of low rank when $C$ has small genus, our construction produces families of classical modular varieties contained in the Coble hypersurfaces.'
address:
- |
IRMAR\
263 Av. du Général Leclerc\
35042 Rennes\
France
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica “F.Casorati”\
Università di Pavia\
Via Ferrata 1\
27100\
Italy
author:
- Michele Bolognesi
- Sonia Brivio
title: 'Coherent systems and modular subvarieties of $\mathcal{SU}_C(r)$.'
---
Introduction
============
Let $C$ be a genus $g>1$ smooth complex algebraic curve, if $g\neq 2$ we will also assume that $C$ is non-hyperelliptic.
Let ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$ be the moduli space of rank $r$ semi-stable vector bundles on $C$ with degree zero determinant and let us denote as usual by ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ the moduli subspace given by vector bundles with trivial determinant. These moduli spaces appeared first in the second half of the last century thanks to the foundational works of Narashiman-Ramanan [@ramanara] and Mumford-Newstead [@MumNews] and very often their study has gone along the study of the famous theta-map
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta:{\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}& \dashrightarrow & |r\Theta|;\\
E & \mapsto & \Theta_E:=\{L\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}|h^0(C,E\otimes L)\neq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$
While we know quite a good deal about $\theta$ for low genera and ranks, as the rank or the genus grows our knowledge decreases dramatically, see Sect. 2 for a complete picture of known results. The question of the rational type of these varieties is even more daunting. When rank and degree are coprime the situation is completely settled [@daking] but when the degree is zero (or degree and rank are not coprime) the open problems are still quite numerous. It is known that all the spaces ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ are unirational but the rationality is clear only for $r=2,\ g=2$, when in fact the moduli space is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}^3$, [@ramanara]. Some first good ideas about the birational structure for $g=2$ were developed in [@ang]. Then the $r=2$ case was analyzed in any genus by the first named author and A.Alzati in [@albol] with the help of polynomial maps classifying extensions in the spirit of [@ab:rk2]. In this paper we give a description for the higher rank cases via a new construction.
Our approach consists in studying the birational structure of ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$ and ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ via a study of similar moduli spaces of augmented vector bundles, notably the moduli space of coherent systems. By a coherent system on a curve we mean a vector bundle together with a linear subspace of given dimension of its space of global sections. Coherent systems come with a notion of stability that depends on a real parameter $\alpha$, that leads to a finite family of moduli spaces depending on the value of $\alpha$. Hence typically one will write $G_{\alpha}(r,d,k)$ for a moduli space of coherent systems, where $\alpha$ is the real parameter, $r$ is the rank of vector bundles, $d$ their degree and $k$ the prescribed dimension of the space of sections (see Section 4 for details). It turns out that for $\alpha >g(r-1)$ the moduli space $G_{\alpha}(r,rg,r)$ has a natural structure of a fibration and, moreover it is birational to ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$. The first main theorem of this paper is then the following.
\[global\] Let $C$ be a smooth complex curve of genus $g>1$, non-hyperelliptic if $g>2$, and let $\alpha >g(r-1)$. Then $G_{\alpha}(r,rg,r)$ is birational to a fibration over $C^{(rg)}$ whose fibers are GIT quotients $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$.
Of course, since if $\alpha >g(r-1)$, $G_{\alpha}(r,rg,r)$ is birationally equivalent to ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$, a corresponding result holds also for ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$. Notably, if we consider the moduli subspace ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\subset{\mathcal{U}_C(r,0)}$ of vector bundles with fixed trivial determinant we get the following.
\[globalsu\] The moduli space ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^{(r-1)g}$ whose fibers are GIT quotients $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$.
Theorem \[globalsu\] allows us to give a more precise explicit description of the projective geometry of the fibration of ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ in the case $r=3,g=2$. In fact $\mathcal{SU}_C(3)$ is a double covering of ${\mathbb{P}}^8$ branched along a hypersurface of degree six ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ called the *Coble-Dolgachev sextic* [@ivolocale]. Our result is the following.
The Coble-Dolgachev sextic ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ whose fibers are Igusa quartics. More precisely, ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ contains a 4-dimensional family of Igusa quartics parametrized by an open subset of ${\mathbb{P}}^4$.
We recall that an Igusa quartic is a modular quartic hypersurface in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ that is related to some classical GIT quotients (see e.g. [@do:pstf]) and moduli spaces. Its dual variety is a cubic 3-fold called the *Segre cubic*, that is isomorphic to the GIT quotient $({\mathbb{P}}^1)^6//PGL(2)$.
If $r=2$ and $g=3$, then ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2)$ is embedded by $\theta$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^7$ as a remarkable quartic hypersurface ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ called the *Coble quartic* [@ramanara]. Our methods also allow us to give a quick proof of the following fact.
The Coble quartic ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ whose fibers are Segre cubics. There exists a 3-dimensional family of Segre cubics contained in ${\mathcal{C}}_4$.
We underline that the cases of ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ are particularly interesting because one can interpret explicitly the beautiful projective geometry of the Igusa quartic and the Segre cubic in terms of vector bundles on $C$ (see Sect. 6). We hope that these results could help to shed some new light on the question of rationality of ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ and on the properties of the theta map.
On the other hand, a side result of Thm. \[global\] and of its proof is that we get a bijection between the general vector bundle (or coherent system) and a set of $rg$ points in ${\mathbb{P}}^{r-1}$. It then makes perfect sense to compare the GIT stability of a set of points in $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$ with the slope stability of vector bundles and the $\alpha$-stability of coherent systems. This is discussed in Section 6.
A little caution: in some points of the paper it is important to distinguish a vector bundle $E$ from its S-equivalence class $[E]$. We have tried to keep the two distinguished notations when it is necessary, using just the vector bundle one when it has no importance, even if this sometimes may offend the good taste of the reader.
*Acknowledgments:* The inspiration of this work came from a conversation that the first named author had with Norbert Hoffmann. This work also benefitted from remarks and discussions with Christian Pauly, Alessandro Verra and Angela Ortega. Arnaud Beauville brought to our attention some existing literature. Quang Minh and Cristian Anghel kindly let us have copies of their papers. Finally Duco Van Straten and Edoardo Sernesi gave us good advice about the deformation theory of singular projective hypersurfaces.
**Description of contents.**
In section 2 we collect a few results on the theta map. In section 3 we outline the relation between theta maps and theta-linear systems by introducing the theta divisor of a vector bundle with integral slope. In section 4 we introduce generically generated coherent systems and their moduli spaces plus some properties of the evaluation and the determinant map for a coherent system of any rank. In Section 5 we introduce the *fundamental divisor* of a coherent system. This definition allows us to define the *fundamental map* in Section 6, the fibers of this map give us the fibration we look for. Then we prove Theorem \[global\] and discuss briefly the relation between $\alpha-$stability of coherent systems, slope stability of vector bundles and GIT stability of point sets in the projective space. Finally, in Section 7 we restrict our analysis to moduli of vector bundles. Notably we apply our results to the cases $g=2,\ r=3$ and $g=3,\ r=2$ and construct explicit families of invariant hypersurfaces contained in the moduli spaces.
The Theta map. {#thetas}
==============
Let $C$ be a smooth complex algebraic curve of genus $g \geq 2$, we assume that it is non-hyperelliptic if $g>2$. Let ${\operatorname{Pic}}^d(C)$ be the Picard variety parametrizing line bundles of degree $d$ on $C$, ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$ will often be denoted by $J(C)$. Let $\Theta \subset {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C)$ be the canonical theta divisor
$$\Theta:=\{L\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C)| \ h^0(C,L)\neq 0 \}.$$
For $r \geq 2$, let ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ denote the coarse moduli space of semi-stable vector bundles of rank $r$ and trivial determinant on $C$. It is a normal, projective variety of dimension $(r^2-1)(g-1)$. It is well known that ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ is locally factorial and that ${\operatorname{Pic}}({\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}) = {\mathbb{Z}}$ [@dn:pfv], generated by a line bundle ${\mathcal{L}}$ called the *determinant bundle*. On the other hand, for $E\in {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ we define
$$\Theta_E:=\{L\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C) | \ \ \ h^0(C,E\otimes L)\neq 0 \ \ \}.$$ This is either a divisor in the linear system $|r\Theta|$ or the whole ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C)$. For $E$ a general bundle $\Theta_E$ is a divisor, [*the theta divisor*]{} of $E$. This means that one can define the rational [*theta map*]{} of ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta: {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\dashrightarrow |r\Theta|\end{aligned}$$
sending $E $ to its theta divisor $\Theta_E$. The relation between the theta map and the determinant bundle is given by the following fundamental result:
[@bnr] There is a canonical isomorphism $|r\Theta| \stackrel{\sim}{{\longrightarrow}} |{\mathcal{L}}|^*$ which identifies $\theta$ with the rational map ${\varphi}_{{\mathcal{L}}} \colon
{\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\dashrightarrow |{\mathcal{L}}|^*$ associated to the determinant line bundle.
The cases when $\theta$ is a morphism or finite are of course very appealing. Notably, $\theta$ is an embedding for $r=2$ [@ramanara], [@BVtheta],[@vgiz] and it is a morphism when $r=3$ for $g \leq 3$ and for a general curve of genus $g > 3$, [@bove23], [@raysect]. Finally, $\theta$ is generically finite for $g=2$ [@bove23], [@briverraBN] and we know its degree for $r \leq 4$, [@ivolocale], [@deg16]. There are also good descriptions of the image of $\theta$ for $r=2 \quad g=2,3$ [@rana:cra] [@paulydual], $r=3,\ g=2$ [@orte:cob] [@Quang], $r=2,\ g=4$ [@oxpau:heis]. Moreover, it has recently been shown in [@briverraPL] that if $C$ is general and $ g >> r$ then $\theta$ is generically injective.
Vector bundles and theta linear systems {#thetasystems}
=======================================
The notion of theta divisor can be extended to vector bundles with integral slope, in this paper we will consider bundles with slope $g = g(C)$. Let ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ be the moduli space of semi-stable vector bundles as above. The tensor product defines a natural map:
$$\begin{aligned}
t \colon {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\times {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g}(C) & {\rightarrow}& {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)};\\
(E, {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)) & \mapsto & E \otimes {{\mathcal{O}}}_C(D), \end{aligned}$$
which is étale, Galois, with Galois group $J(C)[r]$, the group of $r$-torsion points of the Jacobian of $C$.
Moreover, if one restricts $t$ to ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\times {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)$ this yields an isomorphism $t_{D} \colon {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\to \mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD)),$ where the latter is the moduli space of rank $r$ semi-stable vector bundles with determinant ${\mathcal{O}}_C(rD)$.
\[supertheta\] Let $F \in {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$, then we define the [*theta divisor* ]{} of $F$ as follows:
$$\Theta_F:=\{L \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C) | \ h^0(C,F \otimes L^{-1} )\neq 0\}.$$
Let $E \in {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$. If $F = E \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C(D)$, then we have that $\Theta_F = {\mathcal{O}}_C(D) - {\Theta}_E$, thus $\Theta_F$ is a divisor if and only ${\Theta}_E$ is a divisor. We define
$${\Theta}_D \colon = \{ L \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C) \vert \ \ h^0({\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \otimes L^{-1}) \geq 1 \ \}.$$
Then, for any $r \geq 1$, we have a natural isomorphism $\sigma_D:|r\Theta| {\rightarrow}|r\Theta_D|$ given by the translation $M \mapsto {\mathcal{O}}_C(D) - M$; moreover, if ${\mathcal{O}}_C(rD_1) \simeq {\mathcal{O}}_C(rD_2)$, then $|r\Theta_{D_1}| = |r\Theta_{D_2}|$. So we conclude that if $F \in {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ admits a theta divisor, then ${\Theta}_F \in \vert r {\Theta}_D \vert$, for any line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$ which is a $r^{\mathrm{th}}$-root of $\det F$. In this way we obtain a family of theta linear systems over the Picard variety ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C)$, as the following shows.
There exists a projective bundle ${\mathcal T}$ over ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C)$: $$p \colon {\mathcal T} \to {\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C),$$ whose fiber over ${\mathcal{O}}_C(M)\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C)$ is the linear system $ \vert r {\Theta}_D \vert$, where ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D)\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g}(C) $ is any $r^{\mathrm{th}}$-root of ${\mathcal{O}}_C(M)$.
Remark first that the linear system $|r\Theta_D|$ is well-defined since it does not depend on which $r^{\mathrm{th}}$-root ${\mathcal{O}_C}(D)$ of ${\mathcal{O}_C}(M)$ we choose. Let us now consider the following map:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta \colon {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C) \times {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C) & \to & {\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C);\\
({\mathcal{O}}_C(D), L) & \mapsto & {\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \otimes L^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
For any ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$, we have: ${\delta}^* {r\Theta}_{|{\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \times {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C)} \simeq {\mathcal{O}}_{{\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C)} ({r\Theta}_D).$ Let $p_1 \colon {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C) \times {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C) \to {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$ be the projection onto the first factor. Consider the sheaf $ {\mathcal{F}}:={p_1}_{*} {\mathcal{O}}_{{\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C) \times {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C)}( {\delta}^*(r\Theta)).$ It is locally free and its fiber at ${\mathcal{O}}_C(D) \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$ is canonically identified with the following vector space $$H^0( {\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C), {\mathcal{O}}_{{\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C)} (r{\Theta}_D)).$$ Let $\widetilde{{\mathcal T}}$ be the projective bundle ${\mathbb{P}}({\mathcal{F}})$ on ${\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$.
Moreover the vector bundle ${\mathcal{F}}$ is $J[r](C)$-equivariant, hence by easy descent theory (see [@stacchi] Thm. 4.46) it passes to the quotient by $J[r](C)$, i.e. the image of the cover $\rho \colon {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C) \to {\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C)$ given by taking the $r^{th}$ power of each $L\in {\operatorname{Pic}}^g(C)$. The projectivization of the obtained bundle is the projective bundle ${\mathcal{T}}$ we are looking for. We denote by $p:{\mathcal{T}}{\rightarrow}{\operatorname{Pic}}^{rg}(C)$ the natural projection on the base of the projective bundle.
The previous arguments allow us to define the rational [*theta map*]{} of ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta}
\theta_{rg} \colon {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}& \dashrightarrow & {\mathcal T};\\
F & \mapsto & \Theta_F.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, let us denote by $\theta_D$ the restriction of $\theta_{rg}$ to $\mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD))$. Then we have the following commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{ {\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}\ar[r]^(.4){t_{D}} \ar@{-->}[d]_{\theta} & \mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD)) \ar@{-->}[d]^{{\theta}_D} \\
\vert r \Theta \vert \ar[r]^{{\sigma}_{D}} & \vert r {\Theta}_{D} \vert \\}$$
since $t_{D}$ and ${\sigma}_{D}$ are isomorphisms, we can identify the two theta maps. Finally remark that the composed map $p \circ \theta_{rg}$ is precisely the natural map which associates to each vector bundle $F$ its determinant line bundle $det (F)$.
Generically generated coherent systems
======================================
A pair $(F,V)$ is a [ *coherent system*]{} of type $(r,d,k)$ on the curve $C$ if $F$ is a vector bundle of rank $r$ and degree $d$ on $C$ and $V \subseteq H^0(F)$ is a linear subspace of dimension $k$. A coherent system $(F,V)$ is [*generically generated*]{} if the evaluation map $$ev_{F,V} \colon V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \to F, \quad (s,x) \to s(x)$$ has torsion cokernel. A proper coherent subsystem of $(F,V)$ is a pair $(G,W)$ where $G $ is a non-zero sub-bundle of $F$ and $W \subseteq V \cap H^0(F)$, with $(G,W) \not= (F,V)$.
For any real number $\alpha$, we define the $\alpha$-slope of a coherent system $(F,V)$ of type $(r,d,k)$ as follows: $$\mu_{\alpha}(F,V) = \frac{d}{r} + \alpha \frac{k}{r}.$$
\[alfa\] A coherent system $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$*stable* (resp. $\alpha-$*semi-stable*) if for any proper coherent subsystem $(G,W)$ of $(F,V)$ we have: $$\mu_{\alpha}(G,W) < \mu_{\alpha}(F,V) \ \ ( \text{resp.} \leq ).$$
Every $\alpha-$semi-stable coherent system $(F,V)$ admits a Jordan-Hölder fibration:
$$0= (F_0,V_0) \subset (F_1, V_1) \subset .... \subset (F_n, V_n) = (F,V),$$
with $ \mu_{\alpha}(F_j,V_j) = \mu_{\alpha}(F,V)$, $\forall j=1,..,n$ and s.t. each coherent quotient system
$$(G_j,W_j) = {{(F_j,V_j)} \over {(F_{j-1},V_{j-1})}}$$
is $\alpha-$stable. This defines the graded coherent system:
$${\mathrm{gr}}(F,V) = {\bigoplus}_{j=1}^{n} (G_j,W_j).$$
Finally, we say that two $\alpha-$semi-stable coherent systems are $S-equivalent$ if and only if their graded coherent systems are isomorphic.
Let $G_{\alpha}(r,d,k)$ be the moduli space parametrizing $\alpha-$stable coherent systems of type $(r,d,k)$, its compactification $\bar{G}_{\alpha}(r,d,k)$ is a projective scheme parametrizing S-equivalence classes of $\alpha-$semi-stable coherent systems of type $(r,d,k)$, see [@kingnew] for details. For $k\geq 1$, it follows easily from the definitions that, if $\widetilde{G}_{\alpha}(r,d,k)\neq \emptyset$, then $\alpha\geq 0$ and $d\geq 0$; if $G_{\alpha}(r,d,k)\neq \emptyset$, then $\alpha>0$.
\[critic\] A positive real number $\alpha$ is said to be a [ *virtual critical value*]{} for coherent systems of type $(r,d,k)$ if it is numerically possible for a system $(F,V)$ to have a proper subsystem $(G,W)$ of type $(r',d',k')$ such that $\mu_{\alpha}(F,V) = \mu_{\alpha}(G,W)$ with $\frac{k}{r} \not= \frac{k'}{r'}$. If there is a coherent system $(F,V)$ and a subsystem $(F',V')$ such that this actually holds, we say that $\alpha$ is an *actual critical value*.
It is well known ([@BGPMN], Sect. 2.1 and 4) that, for coherent systems of type $(r,d,k)$, the actual critical values form a finite set:
$$0 = {\alpha}_0 < {\alpha}_1 <... < {\alpha}_L,$$
and that within the interval $({\alpha}_i, {\alpha}_{i+1})$ the property of $\alpha-$stability of a pair is independent of $\alpha$. This means that $G_{\alpha}(r,d,k)$ is isomorphic to $G_{\alpha'}(r,d,k)$ whenever $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ are contained in the same open interval $(\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1})$. The same isomorphism holds for the respective compactifications. It is customary to call $G_L(r,d,k)$ the *terminal* moduli space, i.e. the one that comes within the range $(\alpha_L, +\infty)$.
In this paper we will consider coherent systems of type $(r,rg,r)$. The following properties hold, thanks to [@BGPMN], Thms. 4.4, 4.6 and 5.6.
\[terminal\] Let $r \geq 2$. For $\alpha > g(r-1)$ the moduli spaces $G_{\alpha}(r,rg,r)$ stabilize, i.e. we have: $$G_{\alpha}(r,rg,r)= G_{L}(r,rg,r), \quad {\text if} \ \ \alpha > g(r-1).$$ The moduli space $G_L(r,rg,r)$ is a smooth quasi-projective variety of dimension $r^2(g-1) + 1$ and its compactification $\bar{G}_{L}(r,rg,r)$ is irreducible. Moreover, after $g(r-1)$, each $\alpha-$semi-stable $(F,V) $ is generically generated.
One relation between the stability of a coherent system and that of the underlying vector bundle is given by the following:
\[props\] Let $(F,V)$ be a coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$, which is generically generated. Then we have the following properties:
1. If $F$ is semi-stable, then $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable for any $\alpha\geq 0$;
2. if $F$ is stable, then $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$stable for any $\alpha > 0$;
3. if $\alpha > g(r-1)$, then either $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable or there exists a subsystem $(G,W)$ of type $(s,d,k)$ with $s=k$ and $\frac{d}{s} > g$.
Let $(G,W)$ be a proper coherent subsystem of $(F,V)$ of type $(s,d,k)$: $$1 \leq s \leq r, \quad 0 \leq k \leq r, \quad (G,W) \not= (F,V).$$ We show that $(F,V)$ generically generated implies $\frac{k}{s} \leq 1$. We can consider the map ${ev_{F,W}} \colon W \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \to F$, its image is a subsheaf $Im (ev_{F,W})$ of $F$. The inclusion $W \subset V$ implies $Im(ev_{F,W})$ has generically rank $k$. Finally, $W \subset H^0(G)$ so $Im (ev_{F,W})$ is a subsheaf of $G$, which implies $k \leq s$.
(1)-(2) Suppose that $F$ is semi-stable. Since for any proper coherent subystem $(G,W)$ of type $(s,d,k)$ we have $\frac{k}{s} \leq 1$ then for any $\alpha$ we have: $\mu_{\alpha}(G,W) \leq \mu_{\alpha}(F,V)$. In particular, if $F$ is stable, then it is easy to see that $(F,V)$ is $\alpha$-stable if $\alpha > 0$.
\(3) Let $(G,W)$ be a coherent subsystem of type $(s,d,k)$ which contradicts the $\alpha-$semi-stability of $(F,V)$. As we have seen, $\frac{k}{s} \leq 1$. If $\frac{k}{s} = 1$, then $\frac{d}{s} > g$. If $F$ is not semi-stable and $(F,V)$ is not $\alpha-$semi-stable. If $\frac{k}{s} < 1$, then $\frac{F}{G}$ is generically generated too, hence $deg(\frac{F}{G}) \geq 0$. This implies $d \leq rg$. So we have:
$$g + \alpha < \frac{d}{s} + \alpha \frac{k}{s} \leq \frac{rg}{s} + \alpha \frac{k}{s},$$
which implies:
$$\alpha < \frac{g(r-s)}{s-k} \leq g(r-1).$$
There is a natural birational map $b \colon {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}\dashrightarrow {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r).$
Let $U_{r,rg} \subset {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ be the subset of stable points $[F]$ satisfying the following properties:
1. $ h^0( F) = r$;
2. the determinant map $d_{F} \colon {\wedge}^r H^0(F) \to H^0(det F)$ is not the zero map.
The conditions that define the set $U_{r,rg}\subset {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ are clearly open; we prove that $U_{r,rg}$ is not empty. Let $F_0 = L_1 \oplus L_2 \oplus .. \oplus L_r$, with $L_i$ a line bundle of degree $g$ and $h^0(L_i) = 1$ for any $i =1,.,r$. Then $F_0$ satisfies (1) and (2). Let $F_t$ be a stable deformation of $F_0$ along a one parameter family $T$. For a generic $\bar{t}\in T$, $F_{\bar{t}}$ satisfies (2). Moreover, by semicontinuity $h^0(F_{\bar{t}}) \leq r$ and by Riemann-Roch $h^0(F_{\bar{t}}) \geq r$, so $F_{\bar{t}}$ satisfies (1) too, hence $[F_{\bar{t}}] \in U_{r,rg}$.
Let $[F] \in U_{r,rg}$. The pair $(F, H^0(F))$ is a coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$, by Property (2) it is generically generated and by Lemma \[props\] (2) it is $\alpha-$stable. So we have a morphism $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bi}
b \colon & U_{r,rg} \to & {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r);\\
{[F]} & \to & {[(F,H^0(F))]}, \end{aligned}$$
it is easy to see that it is an isomorphism onto the image. Since $\dim {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}= \dim {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$ and ${\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$ is irreducible, we conclude that $b$ induces a birational map between the moduli spaces ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ and ${\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$.
The fundamental divisor of a coherent system
============================================
Let $(F,V)$ be an $\alpha-$stable coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$ on the curve $C$. Assume that it is generically generated, then the map $ev_{F,V} \colon V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \to F$ is a generically surjective map between two vector bundles of the same rank, so its degeneracy locus is an effective divisor on the curve $C$:
$${\mathbb D}_{(F,V)} \in \vert \det F \vert .$$
Moreover, let us consider the restriction to $\wedge^rV$ of the determinant map of $F$
$$\begin{aligned}
d_{F,V} \colon {\wedge}^rV & {\longrightarrow}& H^0(C,\det F);\\
s_1 \wedge s_2 ... \wedge s_r & \mapsto & ( x \mapsto s_1(x) \wedge s_2(x) \wedge... \wedge s_r(x) ).\end{aligned}$$
This is not zero so its image is a line generated by a non-zero global section $\sigma$ of $H^0(\det F)$:
$$d_{F,V}({\wedge}^r V)= \text{Span} (\sigma), \quad \sigma \in H^0(C,det F).$$ It is easy to see that ${\mathbb D}_{(F,V)} = \text{Zeros} (\sigma).$
We call ${\mathbb D}_{(F,V)}$ the [*fundamental divisor*]{} of $(F,V)$.
Let $(F,V) = (F_1,V_1) \oplus (F_2,V_2)$, assume that for $i=1,2$, the pair $(F_i,V_i)$ is an $\alpha-$stable coherent system, which is generically generated too. Then we have $ {\mathbb D}_{(F,V)}= {\mathbb D}_{(F_1,V_1)} + {\mathbb D}_{(F_2,V_2)}.$
Let $[F,V]$ be the S-equivalence class of an $\alpha-$semi-stable coherent system $(F,V)$. We define the *fundamental divisor of* $[F,V]$ as
$${\mathbb D}_{[F,V]}:= {\mathbb D}_{{\mathrm{gr}}(F,V)}.$$
Note that if $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$stable, then ${\mathrm{gr}}(F,V) = (F,V)$, so that $ {\mathbb D}_{[F,V]}= {\mathbb D}_{(F,V)}$.
Every coherent system $(F,L)\in {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$ is generically generated (see Prop. \[terminal\]), hence we can define the following map.
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi \colon {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r) & {\rightarrow}& C^{(rg)}\\
{[F,V]} & \mapsto & \mathbb{D}_{{\mathrm{gr}}(F,V)}.\end{aligned}$$
We call $ \Phi$ the [*fundamental map*]{} of generically generated coherent systems of type $(r,rg,r)$.
The fundamental map and its fibers {#secdet}
==================================
The aim of this section is the description of the fibers of $\Phi$. We start by showing some basic properties of the map $\Phi$ itself.
\[domino\] For any $r \geq 2$, $\Phi \colon {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r) \to C^{(rg)}$ is a surjective morphism.
Let $({\mathcal F}, {\mathcal V})$ be a flat family of $\alpha$-semi-stable generically generated coherent systems of type $(r,rg,r)$ over a scheme $S$. Then ${\mathcal F}$ is a rank $r$ vector bundle on $C \times S$, ${\mathcal F}_{\vert C \times s} = F_s$ is a vector bundle of rank $r$ and degree $rg$ on $C$. Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be the natural projections of $C \times S$ onto its factors, ${\mathcal V} \subset (p_2)_*{\mathcal F}$ is a vector bundle of rank $r$ on $S$, with fiber $V_s$ at the point $s$. Finally, $(F_s, V_s)$ is a generically generated coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$ on the curve $C$, which is $\alpha-$semi-stable, for any $s \in S$. Let $\mu \colon S \to {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$ be the morphism defined by the family, sending $s \to (F_s, V_s)$.
Let $E_{v} \colon (p_1)^* {\mathcal V} \to {\mathcal F}$ be the natural evaluation map, note that it is a map between two vector bundles of the same rank, moreover for any $s \in S$ we have: ${E_{v}}_{\vert C \times s}= ev_{F_s,V_s}$. This implies that the degeneracy locus of $E_v$ is a relative divisor ${\mathcal D}$ on $C$ over $S$ of relative degree $rg$. For any $s \in S$ we have ${\mathcal D}_{\vert C \times s} = {\mathbb D}_{F_s,V_s}$. This induces a morphism ${\Phi}_S \colon S \to C^{(rg)}$, sending $s \to {\mathbb D}_{F_s,V_s}$, such that ${\Phi}_S = {\Phi} \circ \mu$. This proves that $\Phi$ is a morphism.
Let us come to surjectivity. Let $G$ be a point set in $C^{(rg)}$, note that $G$ can be written as the sum of $r$ effective divisors of degree $g$:
$$G= G_1 + G_2 +... + G_r.$$
For any $i =1,..,r$, let ${\sigma}_i \in H^0({\mathcal{O}}_C(G_i))$ be a non-zero global section such that $G_i = \text{Zeros}({\sigma}_i)$ and let $V_i = \text{span} ({\sigma}_i ) \subset H^0({\mathcal{O}}_C(G_i))$. Now let us define the following pair:
$$F \colon = \bigoplus_{i=1}^r {\mathcal{O}}_C(G_i) \quad V \colon = \bigoplus_{i=1}^r V_i.$$ Then $(F,V)$ is a generically generated coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$ on $C$ and $F$ is semi-stable. By Lemma \[props\] (1), $(F,V)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable and $\mathbb D_{F,V} = G$. This implies that $\Phi([F,V]) = G$ and proves the surjectivity.
Let $({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg} // PGL(r)$ denote the GIT quotient of $({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg}$ with respect to the diagonal action of $PGL(r)$. We recall that the notion of GIT stability of a point set $ v \in ({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg}$ has a nice geometric formulation in terms of the dimension of the linear span in ${\mathbb{P}}^{r-1}$ of subsets of $v$ ( see [@do:pstf] Thm. 1 p. 23).
The point set $v= (v_1,\dots,v_{rg}) \in ({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg}$ is GIT semi-stable( resp. stable ) if and only if for any subset $\{v_1,\dots,v_k\}$ of $v$ we have
$$\dim( Span(v_1,\dots,v_k )) \geq \frac{k}{g} \ \ ( \text{resp.} > ).$$
The first important feature of the map $\Phi$ is the following.
\[genfib\] The general fiber of $\Phi$ is isomorphic to $({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg} // PGL(r)$.
Let $B \in C^{(rg)}$, we assume that $B$ is not contained in the big diagonal $\Delta$, that is
$$B = \sum_{i=1}^{rg}{x_i}, \quad x_i \not= x_j, \quad \forall i \not= j, \quad x_i\in C, \forall i.$$ Then the fiber of $\Phi$ at $B$ is the following:
$${\Phi}^{-1}(B) = \{ [(F,V)] \in {\bar G}_{L}(r,rg,r) \ \vert \ {\mathbb D}_{{\mathrm{gr}}(F,V)} = B \ \}.$$ Let $[F,V] \in {\Phi}^{-1}(B)$, from now on we will write for simplicity ${\mathrm{gr}}(F,V) := (F_g, V_g)$. Since $B$ is the degeneracy locus of the evaluation map $ev_{ F_g, V_g}$, by dualizing we find the following exact sequence:
$$\label{sequa2}
0 \to F_g^* \to V_g^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \to {\mathcal{O}}_B \to 0.$$
Hence, up to the choice of a basis of $V_g$, $F_g^*$ is the kernel of a surjective morphism $v_{F_g,V_g} \in \mathrm{Hom}(V_g^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_B):$
$$v_{F_g,V_g}= (v_1, \dots , v_{rg}), \quad v_i \not= 0, \quad v_i \in \mathrm{Hom}(V_g^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C,{\mathcal{O}}_{x_i}) \simeq V_g.$$ This means that $(F_g,V_g)$ defines a point (that we will still denote by $v_{F_g,V_g}$) in the product space $({{\mathbb{P}}(V_g)})^{rg}\cong({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg}$, and $PGL(r)$ acts diagonally on this space via the choice of the basis of $V_g$.
[*Claim 1: $v_{F_g,V_g} \in ({{\mathbb{P}}}^{r-1})^{rg}$ is GIT semi-stable with respect to the diagonal action of $PGL(r)$. If $(F_g,V_g)$ is $\alpha-$stable then $v_{F_g,V_g}$ is GIT stable*]{}
Let $w=\{v_1,\dots,v_d\}$ be a subset of $v_{F_g,V_g}$, set $W \colon =Span(v_1,\dots,v_d)$. Let $x_i$ be the point of $B$ that corresponds to $v_i$, for $i =1,..,d$. Then $W \subset V_g$, so we get a commutative diagram as follows:
$$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & F_g^* \ar[d] \ar[r] & V_g^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[d] \ar[r]^{v_{F_g,V_g}} & {\mathcal{O}}_B \ar[d] \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & G^* \ar[r] & W^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r]^{w} & \oplus_{i=1}^d{\mathcal{O}}_{x_i} \ar[r] & 0 \\ }$$
for some vector bundle $G^*$ with $rk(G^*)=dim (W) = s$. Note that the pair $(G,W)$ is a coherent system of type $(s,d,s)$, which is a proper subsystem of $(F_g,V_g)$. Since this is $\alpha-$semi-stable, we have:
$$\mu_{\alpha}(G,W) = \frac{d}{s} + \alpha \leq \mu_{\alpha}(F_g,V_g) = g + \alpha,$$
which implies $s \geq \frac{d}{g}$, which gives the GIT semi-stability of $v_{F_g,V_g}$. The stable case is described in the same way but with strict inequalities.
Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $r$ and ${\mathbb{P}}(V)$ the associated projective space. By mimicking sequence (\[sequa2\]), we can construct a flat family of coherent systems of type $(r,rg,r)$ on $C$ over $({\mathbb{P}}(V))^{rg}$. Let $v=(v_1,\dots,v_{rg}) \in {\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$, $v$ defines a surjective morphism of sheaves $V^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_B$ as follows: it is the zero map out of the support of $B$ and it is obtained by taking one lift of $v_i$ to $V^*$ and applying it on the fiber of $V ^*\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C$ over $x_i \in B$. The morphism depends on the choice of the lift but the kernel of the sequence
$$\label{univ}
0{\longrightarrow}\ker(v) {\longrightarrow}V^*\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \stackrel{v}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal{O}}_B \to 0,$$
is well defined over ${\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$. This implies that $F_v:=\ker(v)^*$, for $v \in {{\mathbb{P}}(V)}^{rg}$, is a family of rank $r$ vector bundles on $C$ with determinant ${\mathcal{O}}_C(B)$. Note that $F_v$ is generically generated by a linear subspace of $H^0(C,F_v)$ of dimension $r$: we will denote it by $V_v$. The pair $(F_v, V_v)$ is a coherent system of type $(r,rg,r)$, generically generated and $\mathbb D_{F_v,V_v} = B$. Moreover the family $(F_v, V_v)$ is invariant under the diagonal action of $PGL(r)$ on ${{\mathbb{P}}(V)}^{rg}$
[*Claim 2: let $v \in {\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$ be GIT semi-stable (resp. stable), then the pair $(F_v,V_v)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable (resp. stable) for $\alpha > g(r-1)$, hence $[F_v,V_v] \in {\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$*]{}.
Let $\alpha > g(r-1)$. Since $(F_v,V_v)$ is generically generated, we can apply Lemma \[props\] (3): either $(F_v,V_v)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable, or there exists a proper subsystem $(G,W)$ of type $(s,d,k)$ with $s = k$ and $\frac{d}{s} > g$. Then $(G,W)$ is generically generated too, and we have a commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & W \otimes O_C \ar[d] \ar[r] & G \ar[d] \ar[r]^{{v_{G,W}}} & \oplus_{i=1}^d{\mathcal{O}}_{x_i} \ar[d] \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \ar[r] & F_v \ar[r]^{{v = v_{F_v,V}}} & \c O_B \ar[r] & 0 \\
}$$
Let $v_{G,W}=(v_1,.,v_d)$ and $Span (v_1,..,v_d ) \subset W \subset V$ with $\dim W = s$. Since $v \in {\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$ is GIT semi-stable then we have that $\dim W \geq \frac{d}{g}$, which contradicts the hypothesis. This proves that $(F_v,V_v)$ is $\alpha-$semi-stable.\
Suppose now that we have a stable point set $v$, and that there exists a proper coherent subsystem $(G,W)\subset (F_v,V_v)$ of type $(s,d,k)$ s.t. $\mu_{\alpha}(G,W)=\mu_{\alpha}(F_v,V_v)$. Since $\alpha$ is not a critical value, $\frac{k}{s}=1$, and thus $s=\frac{d}{g}$ (see Def. \[critic\]). But, keeping the same notation of the first part of the proof, if $v$ is stable, then $dim(W)=s>\frac{d}{g}$. Hence $(F_v,V_v)$ is $\alpha$-stable.
If $\alpha>g(r-1)$, Claim 2 and the fact that the family of coherent systems over ${\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$ is $PGL(r)$-invariant allow us to define a morphism
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}//PGL(r) & \rightarrow & {\Phi}^{-1}(B).\\ \nonumber
$$
Indeed, the family over ${\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}$ induces a morphism from the semi-stable locus to ${\bar G}_L(r,rg,r)$. This morphism is $PGL(r)$-invariant hence it factors through ${\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}//PGL(r)$. Furthermore, by construction its inverse is the map sending each system $[F,V] \mapsto [v_{F_g,V_g}]$ (see Claim 1). Hence we conclude that the general fiber of $\Phi$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}(V)^{rg}//PGL(r)$.
Let us denote $\alpha_1>0$ the smaller positive critical value for coherent systems of a given type $(n,d,k)$. The stability condition induced by values of $\alpha$ s.t. $0 < \alpha < \alpha_1$ is called $0^+$-stability (see [@hidalgos] page 4-5). It is well known that if a coherent system $(F,V)$ is $0^+$-stable then the underlying vector bundle $F$ is slope-semistable. On the other hand, if the underlying vector bundle $F$ is stable, then $(F,V)$ is $0^+$-stable. In the following example, we suppose $r=2$ and $g(C)>3$. We produce a coherent system on $C$ of type $(2,2g,2)$ which comes from a GIT stable point and is $\alpha$-semi-stable for any $\alpha \geq 1$, but the underlying vector bundle is unstable, i.e. the coherent system is not $0^+$-semi-stable.
\[destable\] Let $C$ be a smooth curve of genus $g >3$. Let $L_1$ be a special line bundle of degree $g-1$ with $h^0(C,L_1)=2$. Let $ \{ t_1, t_2 \}$ be a basis of $H^0(C,L_1)$. We can assume that the zeros of $t_1$ are all simple and distinct. By definition, given a scalar $\lambda$, one may find at most a finite set (possibly empty) of points $x \in C$ such that $t_1(x)=\lambda t_2(x)$. Hence we are allowed to choose a set of $g+1$ distinct points $z_1,\dots, z_{g+1}$ such that: $t_1(z_i) \neq 0$, $t_1(z_i)= \lambda_i t_2(z_i)$, with $\lambda_i \neq \lambda_j$ for $1 \leq i \neq j \leq g+1$ and $\lambda_i \neq 0$. Let $M:= z_1 + \dots + z_{g+1}$, $L_2:={\mathcal{O}}_C(M)$ and let $s$ be a non-zero global section of $H^0(C,L_2)$ such that $M = Zeros(s)$. Now let us consider the coherent system $(F,V)$ of type $(2,2g,2)$ defined as follows:
$$F \colon = L_1 \oplus L_2 \quad V:= \langle t_1, t_2 + s \rangle.$$ Note that the evaluation map
$$ev_{F,V} \colon V \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \longrightarrow F,$$ is generically surjective, degenerating on the divisor $B:=Zeros(t_1) + Zeros(s)$.
We show that $(F,V) \in {\bar G}_{L}(r,rg,r)$, hence $(F,V) \in {\Phi}^{-1}(B)$, but the underlying vector bundle is not semi-stable: in fact $L_2 \subset F$ is a destabilizing sub-bundle. Notably, we prove that $(F,V)$ is $\alpha$-semi-stable for any $\alpha \geq 1$. Let $(G,W)$ be a coherent subsystem of type $(s,d,k)$. It is easy to see that $\mu_{\alpha}(G,W) > \mu_{\alpha}(F,V)$ implies that $s =1$, $d = g+1$, $k= 0$ and $\alpha < 1$. Note that $\alpha = 1$ is a critical value for coherent systems of type $(2,2g,2)$.
Finally, let $v = (v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{2g}) \in {\mathbb{P}}(V)^{2g}$ be the point set defined by the pair $(F,V)$, as in the proof of Thm. \[genfib\]. By the assumptions we made choosing $M$ and the sections $t_i$ and $s$, the point set $v$ has the following shape: for $i = 1,\dots,g-1$, $x_i \in Zeros(t_1)$, so $[ v_i] = [1:0]$; for $i = g,\dots,2g$, $x_i \in Zeros(s)$, so we have: $[v_i] = [\lambda_i : 1]$, with $\lambda_i \neq 0$. Such a point set $v \in {\mathbb{P}}(V)^{2g}$ is clearly stable.
As the reader may expect, given the birationality result between the moduli space ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ and $G_L(r,rg,r)$, the fundamental map gives information also on the geometry of ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ and of the theta map.
\[thetabirat\] Let $b$ be the birational map defined in (\[bi\]):
$$b \colon {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}\dashrightarrow \bar{G}_L(r,rg,r), \quad [F] \to [
(F,H^0(F))].$$ Let $b_{D}$ be its restriction to $\mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD))$ and let $\theta_{rg}$ be the theta map of ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ defined in (\[theta\]): and ${\theta}_D$ its restriction to $\mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD))$, then we have the following commutative diagrams of rational maps
$$\xymatrix{ {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}\ar@{-->}[r]^{b} \ar@{-->}[d]_{{\theta}_{rg}} & \bar{G}_L(r,rg,r) \ar[d]^{\Phi} \\
\mathcal T \ar@{-->}[r]^{a^*} & C^{(rg)} \\} \quad
\xymatrix{ \mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD)) \ar@{-->}[r]^{b_D} \ar@{-->}[d]_{{\theta}_{D}} & b_D(\mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD))) \ar[d]^{\Phi} \\
\vert r \Theta_D \vert \ar@{-->}[r]^{a^*} & \vert {\mathcal{O}}_C(rD) \vert \\}$$
where $a^* $ is the pull-back of theta divisors via the Abel map $a \colon C \to {\operatorname{Pic}}^{(1)}(C)$. Notably, the restricted map
$${\pi}_e = {a^*}_{ | \vert r \Theta_D \vert} \colon \vert r \Theta_D \vert \to \vert{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD) \vert$$
is a linear projection with center $L_e := \{ M \in \vert r \Theta_D \vert \ \colon \ a(C) \subset M \ \}$.
Let $[F] \in {\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$. Then $[F]$ is contained in the regular locus of $\theta_{rg}$ if and only if $[F]$ admits a theta divisor
$$\Theta_{F} = \{ L \in {\operatorname{Pic}}^{(1)}(C) \vert \ h^0(C,F \otimes L^{-1}) \geq 1 \}.$$ Furthermore, the divisor $\Theta_F$ lies in the regular locus of $a^*$ if it does not contain the image of $C$ via $a$. Remark in fact that in this case, the pull back of $\Theta_F$ via $a^*$ is an effective divisor of degree $rg$. We have:
$$a^*(\Theta_F) = \{ x \in C \vert \ h^0(C,F \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C(-x)) \geq 1 \}.$$
This implies that $h^0(F) = r$ and the evaluation map $ev_{F,H^0(F)} \colon H^0(F) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C \to F$ is generically surjective, hence $b([F])$ is defined. In order to show that the two diagrams commute it is enough to remark that if $x\in \mathbb D_{(F,H^0(F))}$ then there exist at least one non-zero section in $h^0(C,F \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C(-x))$, hence $\mathbb D_{(F,H^0(F))}$ and $a^*(\Theta_F)$ coincide.
As a corollary of the results of this section we have the following:
For any $r \geq 2$ and $g \geq 2$, the moduli space ${\mathcal{U}_C(r,rg)}$ is birational to a fibration over $C^{(rg)}$ whose fibers are $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$ and the moduli space $\mathcal{SU}_C(r,{\mathcal{O}}_C(rD))$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb P}^{(r-1)g}= \vert {\mathcal{O}}_C(rD) \vert $ whose fibers are $({\mathbb{P}}^{r-1})^{rg}//PGL(r)$.
Application to the Coble hypersurfaces
=======================================
As Example \[destable\] showed, in the case of vector bundles we cannot expect any isomorphism betweem the fibers of $\Phi$ and GIT quotients. Nevertheless, for low rank and genus, the geometry of moduli spaces of vector bundles is simple enough that, by taking the closure of the fibers, we still find, at least as projective varieties, families of GIT quotients contained in moduli spaces of vector bundles. This section is devoted to the construction and study of such families of projective varieties.
When the genus of $C$ is 2 or 3 and the rank is small enough, the moduli spaces ${\mathcal{SU}_C(r)}$ have very nice explicit descriptions related to certain hypersurfaces, called the [*Coble hypersurfaces*]{}. The main theorems of this section show how these hypersurfaces contain large families of projective classical modular varieties related to invariant theory, namely the [*Segre cubic*]{} and the [*Igusa quartic*]{}.
We know a purely vector bundle-theoretic construction (i.e. without the use of the theta map) of such families, but it is rather involved and, in our opinion, less instructive. For this reason and for the beauty of the objects of study, we have preferred to give a construction that relies on the theta map and the projective geometry of the Coble hypersurfaces.
The Coble Sextic {#sextic}
----------------
In this subsection we assume that $C$ is a curve of genus $2$ and we consider the moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(3)$ of semi-stable vector bundles on $C$ with rank $3$ and trivial determinant. The theta map
$$\theta:{\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(3) {\rightarrow}|3\Theta| \simeq {\mathbb{P}}^8$$
is a finite morphism of degree $2$ and the branch locus is a sextic hypersurface ${\mathcal{C}}_6$, called the Coble-Dolgachev sextic [@ivolocale]. The Jacobian variety $J(C)$ is embedded in $|3\Theta|^*$ as a degree 18 surface, and there exists a unique cubic hypersurface ${\mathcal{C}}_3\subset |3\Theta|^*$ whose singular locus coincides with $J(C)$: [*the Coble cubic*]{}, [@coble]. It was conjectured by Dolgachev, and subsequently proved in [@orte:cob] and independently in [@Quang], that ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ is the dual variety of ${\mathcal{C}}_3$.
Let us consider the moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3K_C)$ and let
$$\Phi_{K_C}: {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3K_C) \dashrightarrow |3K_C|,$$
be the rational map sending $[F]$ to ${\mathbb D}_{{\mathrm{gr}}(F), H^0({\mathrm{gr}}(F))}$. It is the composition of $b_{K_c}$ with the fundamental map $\Phi$. By Thm. \[thetabirat\], we have the following result:
\[pitre\] The map $\Phi_{K_C}$ is the composition of the theta map $$\theta_{K_C}: {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3K_C){\rightarrow}|3{\Theta}_{K_C}|$$ with the linear projection ${\pi}_e \colon \vert 3 \Theta_{K_C} \vert \dashrightarrow \vert 3K_C \vert$, whose center $L_e \simeq {\mathbb P}^3$, is the linear subsystem of theta divisors corresponding to decomposable bundles of type $E \oplus K_C$, with $E\in {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2,2K_C)$.
Since $dim \ |3K_C| \ =4$, the center of the projection ${\pi}_e$ is a 3 dimensional linear subspace $L_e$, which is the image by the theta map of the indeterminacy locus of $\Phi_{K_C}$. Let us consider the subset ${\mathcal I} \subset {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3K_C)$ of semi-stable bundles $[F] = [E \oplus K_C]$, $[E ] \in {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2,2K_C)$. Note that ${\mathcal I} \simeq {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2,2K_C) \simeq {\mathbb P}^3$ [@rana:cra]. Moreover, since $h^0({\mathrm{gr}}(E \oplus K_C) \geq 4$, then ${\mathcal I}$ is contained in the indeterminacy locus of ${\Phi}_{K_C}$. Finally, let $h$ be the hyperelliptic involution on $C$, it defines the involution
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma: {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3{\mathcal{K}}_C) & {\rightarrow}& {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,3{\mathcal{K}}_C);\\
F & \mapsto & h^*F^*;\end{aligned}$$
which is associated to the 2:1 covering given by $\theta_{K_c}$. Then ${\mathcal I}$ is contained in the fixed locus of $\sigma$, [@Quang] (Sect. 3 and 4). The image via $\theta_{K_C}$ of this locus is $L_e \simeq {{\mathbb{P}}^3}$ and it is actually the center of the projection.
By Thm. \[thetabirat\], a general fiber of $\Phi_{K_C}$ is birational to the quotient $({\mathbb{P}}^2)^6 // PGL(3)$. This is a degree two covering of ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ branched along a $\Sigma_6$-invariant quartic hypersurface ${\mathcal{I}}_4 \subset {\mathbb{P}}^4$. ${\mathcal{I}}_4$ is known as the [*Igusa quartic*]{}, it is the Satake compactification of the moduli space ${\mathcal{A}}_2(2)$ of principally polarized abelian surfaces with a level two structure [@ig:tc1], embedded in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ by fourth powers of theta-constants. The involution that defines the covering is the Gale transform (also called association, for details see [@do:pstf], [@eis:pop]), which is defined as follows.
([@eis:pop], Def. 1.1) Let $r,s \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Set $\gamma=r+s+2$, and let $\Gamma \subset {\mathbb{P}}^r,$ $\Gamma' \subset {\mathbb{P}}^s$ be ordered nondegenerate sets of $\gamma$ points represented by $\gamma \times (r+1)$ and $\gamma \times (s+1)$ matrices $G$ and $G'$, respectively. We say that $\Gamma'$ is the Gale transform of $\Gamma$ if there exists a nonsingular diagonal $\gamma \times \gamma$ matrix $D$ s.t. $G^T\cdot D \cdot G'=0$, where $G^T$ is the transposed matrix of $G$.
The Gale transform acts trivially on the sets of 6 points in ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ that lie on a smooth conic. The branch locus of the double covering is then, roughly speaking, the moduli space of 6 points on a conic and henceforth a birational model of the moduli space of 6 points on a line. One can say even more, in fact the GIT compactification of the moduli space of 6 points on a line is a cubic 3-fold in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$, called the Segre cubic, and its projectively dual variety is the Igusa quartic (see [@koike], [@hu:gsq] for details). From the projective geometry point of view the singular locus of ${\mathcal{I}}_4$ is an abstract configuration of lines and points that make up a $15_3$ *configuration*. This means the following: there are 15 distinguished lines and 15 distinguished points. Each line contains 3 of the points and through each point pass 3 lines (see [@dolgabstract] Sect. 9 for more). Moreover ${\mathcal{I}}_4$ is the only hypersurface with such a singular locus in the pencil of $\Sigma_6$-invariant quartics in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ ([@huntnice], Example 7).
Now let us recall some results from the literature about ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$. Of course the twist by $K_C$ is an isomorphism and it is easy to understand the analogous result for ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(3,3K_C)$. Since ${\mathbb{P}}^8$ is smooth, the image of the singular locus of ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ and the singular locus of the branch locus coincide, i.e. $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)=\theta(Sing({\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3)))$. On ${\operatorname{Pic}}^1(C)$ we have the involution $\lambda: L \mapsto K_C \otimes L^{-1}$ that leaves $\Theta$ invariant. Hence $\lambda$ induces an action on all the powers of $\Theta$ and in particular, on $|3\Theta|$. The linear system $|3\Theta|$ decomposes in two eigenspaces, respectively 4 and 3 dimensional. We call ${\mathbb{P}}^4_e$ the 4-dimensional eigenspace. It turns out that it cuts out on ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ a reducible variety given by a double ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ (which is indeed contained in $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$) and a quartic hypersurface $I \subset {\mathbb{P}}^4$. After the twist by $K_C$, the first component is precisely $L_e$, whereas the quartic 3-fold is an Igusa quartic.
The intersection of the closure of the general fiber of $\pi_e$ with $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$ is a $15_3$ configuration of lines and points.
Recall that $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$ is the locus of theta divisors corresponding to decomposable bundles, we will prove the claim by constructing explicitly these bundles. Let us denote by $\Delta_{3K_C}$ the closed subset of $|3K_C|$ given by the intersection with the big diagonal of $C^{(6)}$. Let us take $G=q_1+ \dots +q_6\in |3K_C| - \Delta_{3K_C}$, and let us consider the fiber of $\Phi_{K_C}$ over $G$. In order to guarantee the semi-stability of the vector bundles, the only totally decomposable bundles in the fiber of $G$ are all the 15 obtained by permuting the $q_i$’s in ${\mathcal{O}}_C(q_1 + q_2)\oplus {\mathcal{O}}_C(q_3+q_4)\oplus {\mathcal{O}}_C(q_5+q_6)$. Let us now consider the bundles that decompose as the direct sum of a line bundle $L$ and a rank two indecomposable bundle. By the previous argument of semi-stability then $L$ must be of the type ${\mathcal{O}}_C(q_i+q_j)$ for some $i,j \in \{1,\dots,6\}$ and $E$ should have fundamental divisor ${\mathbb{D}}_E=\sum_{k\neq i,j} q_k$. Call $F$ the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_C(\sum_{k\neq i,j} q_k) \equiv 3K_C -q_i-q_j$. It is easy to see that ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2, F)\cong {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C)\cong {\mathbb{P}}^3$, the isomorphism being given by the tensor product by a square root $F'$ of $F$. Now we recall from [@bol:kumwed] the following description of the fundamental map $\Phi_{F'}:{\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2, F) \dashrightarrow |F|$. The linear system $|F|$ is a ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ and the fibers of $\Phi_{F'}$ are just lines passing through $D\in |F|$ and the origin $[{\mathcal{O}}_C\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_C]$. Now the composition of the following embedding
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta: {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2, F) & \hookrightarrow & {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(3,3K),\\
\left[ E \right] & \mapsto & \left[ {\mathcal{O}}_C(q_i+q_j) \oplus E \right],\end{aligned}$$
with the theta map is linear. In fact $\zeta({\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}_C(2, F))$ is contained in the branch locus and the associated $3\Theta$ divisors form a three dimensional linear subsystem isomorphic to $|2\Theta|$. Then the image of $\zeta$ intersects the closure $\overline{\Phi^{-1}_{K_C}(G)}$ of the fiber over $G$ exactly along the fiber of $\Phi_{F'}$ over the divisor $\sum_{k\neq i,j} q_k \in |F|$. By [@bol:kumwed] we know that this is a line and it is not difficult to see that it contains 3 of the 15 totally decomposable bundles. On the other hand each totally decomposable bundle with fundamental divisor $G$ is contained in three lines of this kind.
\[15dege\] When the divisor $G$ is taken in $\Delta_{3K_C}$ then the $15_3$ configuration degenerates because some of the points and some of the lines coincide.
\[fibrusa\] The closure of the general fiber of ${\Phi}_{K_C}$ is the GIT quotient\
$({\mathbb{P}}^2)^6//PGL(3)$.
We recall that $L_e$ is contained in $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$ and in particular scheme-theoretically it is contained twice in ${\mathcal{C}}_6$. Since ${\Phi}_{K_C} $ factors through the projection with center $L_e$, then $\overline{\Phi_{K_C}^{-1}(G)}$, for $G \in |3K_C| - \Delta_{3K_C}$, is a degree two cover of ${\mathbb{P}}^4_G:= \overline{\pi_e^{-1}(G)}$ ramified along the intersection of ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ with ${\mathbb{P}}^4_G$ which is residual to $2L_e$. This intersection is then a quartic hypersurface in ${\mathbb{P}}^4_G$. Notably, since $L_e \subset {\mathbb{P}}_e^4$, there exist a point $T \in |3K_C|$ s.t. $\overline{\pi_e^{-1}(T)} \cap {\mathcal{C}}_6 $ is an Igusa quartic (see Prop. 5.2 of [@oxpa:prv] or [@minhigusa] Sect. 4).
Let us now blow up $|3\Theta|$ along $L_e$ and call the resulting variety $\widetilde{{\mathbb{P}}}^8$. This contains canonically the blown up Coble sextic, which we denote by $\widetilde{C}_6$. Then the rational map $\pi_e$ resolves in a proper, flat map $\widetilde{\pi}_e$ as in the following diagram.
$\xymatrix{ \widetilde{{\mathbb{P}}}^8 \ar[d] \ar[dr]^{\widetilde{\pi}_e} & \\
|3\Theta| \ar@{-->}[r]^{{\pi}_e}& |3K_C| }$
This says that the restriction of $\widetilde{\pi}_e$ to $\widetilde{C}_6$ is a flat family of quartic 3-folds over $|3K_C|$ and for any $B\in |3K_C|$ we have an isomorphism $\overline{\pi^{-1}_e(B)}\cap {\mathcal{C}}_6 \cong \widetilde{\pi}^{-1}_e(B)\cap \tilde{C}_6$. Hence also one fiber of $\widetilde{\pi}_{e|\widetilde{C}_6}$ is an Igusa quartic. Since the ideal of the singular locus of ${\mathcal{I}}_4$ is generated by the four polar cubics ([@hu:gsq], Lemma 3.3.13) then the Igusa quartic has no infinitesimal deformations, i.e. it is rigid. This implies that the generic member of the flat family of quartics over $|3K_C|$ is an Igusa quartic. This in turn implies that the closure of the generic fiber of $\Phi_{K_C}$ is $({\mathbb{P}}^2)^6//PGL(3)$.
The Coble sextic ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ whose fibers are Igusa quartics.
Along the generic fiber of $\Phi_{K_C}$, the involution of the degree two covering ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(3,{\mathcal{O}}_C){\rightarrow}|3\Theta|$ coincides with the involution given by the association isomorphism on $({\mathbb{P}}^2)^6//PGL(3)$.
The fact that the intersection of $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$ with the fibers over the open set $|3K_C| - \Delta_{3K_C}$ is precisely a $15_3$ configuration makes us argue that $|3K_C| - \Delta_{3K_C}$ should be the open locus where by rigidity the family of quartic three-folds is isotrivially isomorphic to the Igusa quartic. As already seen in Remark \[15dege\], if $B$ is an effective divisor out of this locus, then $\overline{\pi_e^{-1}(B)}\cap Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$ is a *degenerate* $15_3$ configuration, in the sense that some of the 15 points and lines coincide. We are not able to prove the following, but it is tempting to say that this is all the singular locus of the special quartic three-folds over $\Delta_{3K}$. These would give very interesting examples of *degenerate Igusa quartics*. It would be interesting to study projective properties of these fibers such as the relation with the Segre cubics or with the Mumford-Knudsen compactification $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,6}$ of the moduli space of 6 points on a line. For instance, do they come from linear systems on $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,6}$? If it is so, what linear systems on $\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,6}$ do they come from?
The rational dual map of the Coble sextic has been thoroughly studied and described in [@orte:cob] and [@Quang]. Let us denote by $X_0,\dots ,X_8$ the coordinates on ${\mathbb{P}}^8\cong |3\Theta|$ and by $F(X_0:\dots:X_8)$ the degree six poynomial defining ${\mathcal{C}}_6$. Then the dual map is defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{D}}_6:{\mathcal{C}}_6 & \dashrightarrow & {\mathcal{C}}_3;\\
x & \mapsto & \left[\frac{\partial F}{\partial X_0}: \dots : \frac{\partial F}{\partial X_8}\right].\end{aligned}$$
The polar linear system is given by quintics that vanish along $Sing({\mathcal{C}}_6)$. Now fix a general divisor $B\in |3K|$ and let ${\mathcal{I}}_B$ be the Igusa quartic defined by $({\mathcal{C}}_6\cap \overline{\pi_e^{-1}(B)}) - 2L_e$. Let us consider the restriction of ${\mathcal{D}}_6$ to ${\mathcal{I}}_B\subset \overline{{\pi}_e^{-1}(B)} =: {\mathbb{P}}^4_B$ and denote by $A$ the $15_3$ configuration of points and lines in ${\mathbb{P}}^4_B$. Now let $H$ be the class of $L_e$ in ${\operatorname{Pic}}({\mathbb{P}}^4_B)$ and consider the $4$- dimensional linear system $|{\mathcal{I}}_A(3)+2H|$ on ${\mathcal{I}}_B$. We can show the following.
\[igudual\] The restricted dual map ${\mathcal{D}}_{6|{\mathcal{I}}_B}$ is given by a linear system $|{\mathcal{D}}_{{\mathcal{I}}_B}|$ that contains $|{\mathcal{I}}_A(3)+2H|$ as a linear subsystem.
Remark that this means that for the general fiber ${\mathcal{I}}_B$, there exists a canonical way to project the image ${\mathcal{D}}({\mathcal{I}}_B)\subset {\mathcal{C}}_3$ to a ${\mathbb{P}}^4_B$ where the image of ${\mathcal{I}}_B$ is a Segre cubic. This is summarized in the following.
The Coble cubic is birational to a fibration in Segre cubics over ${\mathbb{P}}^4$.
The birationality in itself is trivial, since ${\mathcal{C}}_3$ is birational to ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ which is birational to a fibration in Igusa quartics (which are in turn all birational to the Segre cubic) over ${\mathbb{P}}^4$. The projections on the linear systems $|{\mathcal{I}}_A(3)+2H|$ give a constructive canonical way to realize it.
The Coble quartic
-----------------
In this subsection we assume that $C$ is a curve of genus $3$ and we consider the moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$. We recall that the Kummer variety $Kum(C):=J(C)/\pm Id$ of $C$ is contained naturally in the $2\Theta$-linear series, whereas the moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ is embedded by $\theta$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^7\cong |2\Theta|$ as the unique quartic hypersurface ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ singular along $Kum(C)$. This hypersurface is called the *Coble quartic*. It is also known [@paulydual] that the Coble quartic is projectively self dual.
Now we recall some properties of the *Segre cubic*. This is a nodal (and hence rational) cubic three-fold $S_3$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ whose singular locus is given by ten double points. There is a natural action of $\Sigma_6$ on this projective space and $S_3$ is invariant with respect to this action. $S_3$ is in fact the GIT quotient $({\mathbb{P}}^1)^6//PGL(2)$ [@do:pstf]. Moreover, $S_3$ realizes the so-called *Varchenko bound*, that is, it has the maximum number of double points (ten) that a cubic threefold with isolated singularities may have and this property identifies the Segre cubic in a unique way, up to projective equivalence. As already stated it is the projective dual variety of the Igusa quartic.
Our construction allows us to give a simple proof of the following result from [@albol].
\[quartic\] The moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C)$ is birational to a fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ whose fibers are Segre cubics.
First of all we twist all vector bundles by a degree 3 divisor $D$, thus obtaining the isomorphic moduli space ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C(2D))$. Let ${\Phi}_D \colon {\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C(2D)) \to \vert {\mathcal{O}}_C(2D) \vert\cong {\mathbb{P}}^3$ be the composition of $b_D$ and the fundamental map $\Phi$. By Thm. \[thetabirat\], since $\theta_D$ is an embedding, we can identify ${\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{U}}(2,{\mathcal{O}}_C(2D))$ with its image ${\mathcal{C}}_4\subset {\mathbb{P}}^7$ and ${\Phi}_D$ with the linear projection onto $|2D|$. The center of the projection is the linear span of the locus of vector bundles $E$ s.t. $h^0(C,E\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_C(D))>2$. Suppose $E$ is stable. Since it has rank 2 and trivial determinant, then $E\cong E^*$ and by an easy Riemann-Roch computation we find that $h^0(C,E\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_C(D))>2$ if and only if $h^0(C,E\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_C(K-D)) > 0$. This is equivalent to the fact the $E$ lies in the ${\mathbb{P}}^3\cong|3K-2D|^*\subset {\mathcal{C}}_4$ that parametrizes vector bundles $E$ that can be written as an extension of the following type
$$0{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_C(D-K) {\rightarrow}E {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}_C(K-D){\rightarrow}0.$$
Let us denote by ${\mathbb{P}}^3_c$ this projective space. ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ contains ${\mathbb{P}}^3_c$ with multiplicity one. This implies that the closure of any fiber of the projection ${\Phi}_D :{\mathcal{C}}_4 \dashrightarrow \vert 2 D \vert$ is a cubic 3-fold contained in the ${\mathbb{P}}^4$ spanned by ${\mathbb{P}}^3_c$ and a point of $\vert 2 D \vert $. Let us denote as usual by $\Delta_D$ the intersection of the large diagonal with the linear system $|2D|\subset C^{(6)}$. Then suppose we fix a $B\in |2D| - \Delta_D$. Let us consider the intersection of the fiber of $\Phi_D$ over $B$ with the strictly semi-stable locus. By semi-stability it is easy to see that these points correspond to the partitions of the 6 points of $B$ in complementary subsets of 3 elements each. We have ten of them. As stated above, a cubic 3-fold cannot have more than ten ordinary double points and the Segre cubic is uniquely defined by this singular locus up to projective equivalence.
Also in this case, if $B\in \Delta_D$ then the intersection $\overline{\Phi_D^{-1}(B)}\cap Kum(C)$ is set-theoretically a finite set of points of cardinality strictly smaller then 10: the singular locus seems to degenerate. It is tempting, as in the case of Igusa quartics, to say that some of these points have multiplicity bigger than one and we obtain *degenerate Segre cubics* over $\Delta_D$.
As we have already remarked, in the case of ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ the polar map is also well known and described. Let $Y_i$ be the coordinates on ${\mathbb{P}}^7\cong |2\Theta|$ and $G(Y_0:\dots:Y_7)$ the quartic equation defining ${\mathcal{C}}_4$, then the (self) polar rational map of ${\mathcal{C}}_4$ is defined in the following way.
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{D}}_4:{\mathcal{C}}_4 & \dashrightarrow & {\mathcal{C}}_4;\\
x & \mapsto & \left[\frac{\partial G}{\partial Y_0}: \dots : \frac{\partial G}{\partial Y_7}\right].\end{aligned}$$
Let $B\in |2D| - \Delta_D$ and let ${\mathbb{P}}^4_B$ be the linear span of the point corresponding to $B$ and of ${\mathbb{P}}^3_c$ It turns out that the restriction of ${\mathcal{D}}_4$ to ${\mathbb{P}}^4_B$ beahaves in a way very similar to the case of the sextic (see Prop. \[igudual\]).. Let $S_{3B}\subset {\mathbb{P}}^4_B$ be the Segre cubic such that ${\mathcal{C}}_4 \cap {\mathbb{P}}^4_B = S_{3B} \cup {\mathbb{P}}^3_c$. We denote by $J$ the set of 10 nodes of $S_{3B}$. Then the linear series $|{\mathcal{I}}_J(2)|$ on $S_{3B}$ is the polar system of the Segre cubic.
\[segdual\] The restricted dual map ${\mathcal{D}}_{4|S_{3B}}$ is given by a linear system $|{\mathcal{D}}_{S_3}|$ that contains $|{\mathcal{I}}_J(2)+H|$ as a linear subsystem.
As in the case of ${\mathcal{C}}_6$ this implies that we have a canonical way to construct the birational map of the following corollary via the polar map ${\mathcal{D}}_4$.
The Coble quartic is birational to a fibration in Igusa quartics over ${\mathbb{P}}^3$.
[30]{}
Alberto Alzati, and Michele Bolognesi, [*A structure theorem for $\mathcal{SU}_C(2)$ and the moduli of pointed genus zero curves*]{}, Preprint, hyyp://arxiv.org/0903.5515, 1–20.
Christian Anghel, [*Fibrés vectoriels semi-stables sur une courbe de genre deux et association des points dans l’espace projectif*]{}, Serdica Math J. [**30**]{} (2004), no.2-3, 103–110.
E.Arbarello, M.Cornalba,P.A. Griffiths, and J.Harris, [*Geometry of algebraic curves. Vol. I*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 267, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
A. Beauville, [*Vector bundles and theta functions on curves of genus 2 and 3*]{}, Amer. J. Math [**128**]{} (2006), no.3, 607–618.
A.Beauville, M.S.Narasimhan, and S.Ramanan, [*Spectral curves and the generalized theta divisor*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math [**398**]{} (1989), 169–179.
A.Bertram, [*Moduli of rank-2 vector bundles, theta divisors, and the geometry of curves in the projective space*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**35**]{} (1992), no.2, 429-469.
M. Bolognesi, [*A conic bundle degenerationg on the Kummer surface*]{}, Math. Zeit. [**261**]{}, (2009), no.1, 149–168.
S.B. Bradlow, O. Garcia-Prada, V. Mu[ñ]{}oz., and P.E. Newstead [*Coherent systems and Brill-Noether theory*]{}, Internat. J. Math., [**14**]{} (2003), no.7, 683–733.
S.B. Bradlow, O. Garcia-Prada, V. Mercat, V. Mu[ñ]{}oz., and P.E. Newstead [*Moduli spaces of coherent systems of small slope on algebraic curves*]{}, Commun. in Algebra, Vol. [**37**]{}, no. 8, pp. 2649-2678, (2009).
S.Brivio, and A.Verra, [*The theta divisor of $SU_C(2,2d)^s$ is very ample if $C$ is not hyperelliptic*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**82**]{} (1996), 503-552.
S.Brivio, and A.Verra, [*The Brill-Noether curve of a stable vector bundle on a genus two curve*]{} Algebraic cycles and motives, Vol.2, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol.344, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007, 73–93.
S.Brivio, and A.Verra, [*Plucker forms and the theta map*]{}, Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5630, to appear on American J. of Math., 1–20.
A.B.Coble, [*Algebraic Geometry and theta functions*]{}, American Math. Society Colloquium Pubblications, vol. 10, AMS, Providence, R.I., 1982, Reprint of the 1929 edition.
I.Dolgachev, [*Abstract configurations in algebraic geometry*]{}, The Fano conference, Univ. Torino, Turin, 2004, 423–462.
I. Dolgachev, and D.Ortland, [*Point sets in the projective spaces and theta functions*]{}, Asterisque, vol.165, Soc. Math. France, 1988.
J-M. Drezet, and M.S. Narasimhan, [*Groupe de Picard des variétés de modules de fibrés semi-stables sur les courbes algébriques*]{}, Invent. Math. [**97**]{} (1989), no.1, 53–94.
D.Eisenbud, and S.Popescu, [*The projective geometry of the Gale transform*]{}, J.Algebra, [**230**]{}, (2000), no.1, 127–173.
B.Hunt, [*Nice modular varieties*]{}, Experiment. Math. [**9**]{}, (2000), no.4, 613–622.
B.Hunt, [*The geometry of some special arithmetic quotients*]{}, LNM, vol. 1637, Springer, Berlin, 1996.
J.-I.Igusa, [*On the graded ring of theta-constants.*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**86**]{} (1964), 219–246.
E.Izadi, and L. Van Geemen [*The tangent space to the moduli space of vector bundles on a curve and the singular locus of the theta divisor of the Jacobian*]{}, J. Alg. Geom. [**10**]{} (2001), no.1, 133-177.
A. D. King, and P.E. Newstead, [*Moduli of Brill-Noether pairs on algebraic curves*]{}, Internat. J. Math. [**6**]{} (1995), no. 5, 733–748.
A.King, and A.Schofield, [*Rationality of moduli of vector bundles on curves*]{}, Indag. Math. (N.S.) [**10**]{} (1999), no.4, 519–535.
K.Koike, [*Remarks on the Segre cubic.*]{}, Arch. Math. (Basel) [**81**]{} (2003), no.2, 155–160.
Y.Laszlo, [*Local structure of the moduli space of vector bundles over curves*]{} Comment. Math. Helv [**71**]{} (1996), no.3, 373–401.
D.Mumford, and P.Newstead, [*Periods of a moduli space of vector bundles over curves*]{} Amer. J. Math. [**90**]{} (1968), 1200-1208.
M.S. Narasimhan, and S.Ramanan, [*Moduli of vector bundles on a compact Riemann surface*]{} Ann. of Math (2) [**89**]{} (1969), 14–51.
M.S. Narasimhan, and S.Ramanan, [*Vector bundles on curves*]{}, Algebraic Geometry (internat. Colloq., Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Bombay, 1968), Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1969, 335-346.
Q.M.Nguyen, [*Vector bundles, dualities and classical geometry on a curve of genus two*]{}, Internat. J. Math [**18**]{} (2007), no.5, 535–558.
Q.M.Nguyen, and S.Rams, [*On the geometry of the Coble-Dolgachev sextic*]{} Le Matematiche (Catania) [**58**]{} (2003), no.2, 257–275 (2005).
A.Ortega, [*On the moduli space of rank 3 vector bundles on a genus 2 curve and the Coble cubic*]{}, J. Alg. Geom. [**14**]{} (2005), no.2, 327–356.
W.Oxbury, and C.Pauly, [*$SU_C(2)$-Verlinde spaces as theta spaces on Pryms.*]{}, Internat. J. Math. [**7**]{} (1996), no.3, 393-410.
W.Oxbury, and C.Pauly, [*Heisenberg invariant quartics and $SU_C(2)$ for a curve of genus four*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**125**]{} (1999), no.2, 295–319.
C.Pauly, [*Self-duality of Coble’s quartic hypersurface and applications*]{}, Mich. Math. Journ. [**50**]{} (2002), no.3, 551-574.
C.Pauly, [*Rank four vector bundles without theta divisor over a curve of genus two*]{}, To appear on Adv. in Geom., 1–8, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3001
M.Raynaud, [*Sections des fibrés vectoriels sur une courbe*]{}, Bull. SMF [**110**]{} (1982), no.1, 103–125.
A.Vistoli, [*Grothendieck topologies, fibered categories and descent theory*]{}, Fundamental algebraic geometry, Math.Surveys Monogr., vol 123, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005, 1–104.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'If, on one hand, the inverse seesaw is the paradigm of TeV scale seesaw mechanism, on the other it is a challenge to find scenarios capable of realizing it. In this work we propose a scenario, based on the framework of R-parity violation, that realizes minimally the supersymmetric inverse seesaw mechanism. In it the energy scale parameters involved in the mechanism are recognized as the vacuum expectation values of the scalars that compose the singlet superfields $\hat N^C$ and $\hat S$. We develop also the scalar sector of the model and show that the Higgs mass receives a new tree-level contribution that, when combined with the standard contribution plus loop correction, is capable of attaining $125$GeV without resort to heavy stops.'
author:
- 'C. A. de S. Pires, J. G. Rodrigues, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva'
title: ' Realizing the supersymmetric inverse seesaw model in the framework of R-parity violation. '
---
Introduction
============
A current exciting challenge in particle physics is the explanation of the smallness of the neutrino masses through new physics at TeV scale. In this regard, the inverse seesaw mechanism(ISS) [@ISS] became the paradigm of successful TeV scale seesaw mechanism. Its minimal implementation requires the introduction to the electroweak standard model (SM) of two sets of three neutral fermion singlets , $N=(N_1\,,\,N_2\,,\,N_3) $ and $S=(S_1\,,\,S_2\,,\,S_3)$, composing the following mass terms in the flavor basis, $${\cal L}_{mass} \supset \bar \nu M_D N + \bar N M_N S + \frac{1}{2} \bar S^C \mu_N S + h.c,
\label{masstermsoriginal}$$ where $\nu=(\nu_1\,,\,\nu_2\,,\,\nu_3)$ is the set of standard neutrinos. In the basis $(\nu\,,\,N^C\,,\,S)$ the neutrino mass may be put in the following $9 \times 9$ matrix form, $$M_\nu=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & M_D & 0 \\
M^T_D & 0 & M_N\\
0 & M^T_N & \mu_N
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{ISSmatrix}$$ In the regime $\mu_N << M_D < M_N$, the mechanism provides $m_\nu = M_D^T M_N^{-1}\mu_N (M_N^T)^{-1} M_D$ for the mass matrix of the standard neutrinos. Taking $M_D$ at electroweak scale, $M_N$ at TeV and $\mu_N$ at keV scale, the mechanism provides standard neutrinos at eV scale. The new set of fermion singlets $(N\,,\,S)$ develop mass at $M_N$ scale and may be probed at the LHC.
The challenge concerning the ISS mechanism is to find scenarios that realize it. This means to propose models that generate the mass terms in Eq. (\[masstermsoriginal\]). In this regard, as the ISS mechanism works in the TeV scale, it seems to be natural to look for realization of the ISS mechanism in the framework of theories that we expect will manifest at TeV scale[@ISSnonsusy1; @ISSnonsusy2], which is the case of supersymmetry ( SUSY). Thus it seems to be interesting to look for scenarios that realize the ISS mechanism in the context of SUSY[@ISSSUSY1; @ISSSUSY2; @ISSSUSYR].
We know already that a natural way of obtaining small neutrino mass in the context of the MSSM is to consider that R-parity, $R \equiv (-1)^{2S+3(B-L)}$, is violated through bilinear terms like $\mu_i \hat L_i \hat H_u$ in the superpotential[@standardRPV]. Thus we wonder if R-parity violation (RPV) is an interesting framework for the realization of the SUSYISS mechanism. For this, we implement the SUSYISS mechanism in a framework where R-parity and lepton number are violated explicitly but baryon number is conserved in a way that we call the minimal realization of the SUSYISS mechanism once the necessary set of superfields required to realize it is the original one, $\hat N^C_i$ and $ \hat S_i$, only.
Moreover, it has been extensively discussed that the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) faces difficulties in accommodating a Higgs of mass of 125 GeV, as discovered by ATLAS and CMS[@atlasCMS] while keeping the principle of naturalness[@higgsmassanalysis]. This is so because, at tree level, the MSSM predicts a Higgs with a mass whose value cannot exceed $91$ GeV. Thus robust loop corrections are necessary in order to lift this value to $125$ GeV. Consequently stops with mass far above $1$TeV are required. To accept this is to put the naturalness principle aside. We show that the SUSYISS mechanism developed here accommodates a $125$ GeV Higgs mass without resort to robust loop corrections.
The mechanism
=============
The supersymmetric version of the ISS (SUSYISS) mechanism[@ISSSUSY1] requires the assumption of two sets of three singlet superfields $\hat N^C_i\,,\, \hat S_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) composing, with the MSSM superfields, $\hat L^T_ i =(\hat \nu_i\,,\,\hat e_i)^T\,,\, \hat H_d^T=(\hat H^-_d \,,\,\hat H^0_d )^T\,,\, \hat H_u^T=(\hat H^+_u \,,\,\hat H^0_u)^T $, the following extra terms in the superpotential, $W \supset \hat L \hat H_u \hat N^C + \hat S M_N \hat N^C + \frac{1}{2} \hat S \mu_N \hat S$. A successful extension of the MSSM that realizes the SUSYISS mechanism must generate these terms. This would be an interesting result in particle physics since we would be providing an origin for the energy scales $M_N$ and $\mu_N$[@ISSSUSY2].
The mechanism we propose here is minimal in the sense that it requires the addition to the MSSM of the two canonical singlet superfields $\hat N^C_i $ and $ \hat S_i$, only. Moreover, we impose that the superpotential be invariant under the following set of discrete symmetries, $Z_3 \otimes Z_2$, according to the following transformation: under $Z_3$ the transformations are, $$(\hat S_i \,,\, \hat N^C_i\,,\, \hat e^C_i)\,\, \rightarrow \,\,w(\hat S_i \,,\, N^C_i\,,\, \hat e^C_i), \,\,\,\,\hat L_i \,\,\rightarrow \,\, w^2 \hat L_i,
\label{z3}$$ with $w=\exp^{i2\pi/3}$. Under $Z_2$ we have, $\hat S_i \rightarrow - \hat S_i$, with all the remaining superfields transforming trivially by $Z_3\otimes Z_2$.
Thus the superpotential of the SUSYISS mechanism we propose here involves the following terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{W}&=&\mu \hat{H}^{a}_{u}\hat{H}_{da} +
Y^{ij}_{u}\epsilon_{ab}\hat{Q}^{a}_{i}\hat{H}^{b}_{u}\hat{u}^{c}_{j} +
Y^{ij}_{d}\hat{Q}^{a}_{i}\hat{H}^{b}_{d}\hat{d}^{c}_{j} +
Y^{ij}_{e}\hat{L}^{a}_{i}\hat{H}^{b}_{d}\hat{e}^{c}_{j} \nonumber \\
&+&
Y^{ij}_{\nu}\epsilon_{ab}\hat{L}^{a}_i\hat{H}^{b}_{u}\hat{N}^{c}_{i} + \frac{1}{2}\lambda^{ijk}_{s}\hat{N}^{c}_{i}\hat{S}_{j}\hat{S}_{k} + \frac{1}{3}\lambda^{ijk}_{v}\hat{N}^{c}_{i}\hat{N}^{c}_{j}\hat{N}^{c}_{k},
\label{superpotential}\end{aligned}$$ where $a \,,\,b$ are $SU(2)$ indices and $i$ and $j$ are generation indices. $\hat{Q}_{i}$, $\hat{u}^{c}_i$, $\hat{d}^{c}_{i}$ and $\hat{e}^{c}_{i}$ are the standard superfields of the MSSM. Perceive that the $Z_3 \otimes Z_2$ symmetry permits that lepton number as well as R-parity be explicitly violated in this model by terms in the superpotential that involve the singlet superfields $\hat N^C_i $ and $ \hat S_i$, only .
Now we make an important assumption. We assume that the scalars that compose the superfields $\hat N^C_i $ and $\hat S_i$ develop nonzero vacuum expectation value (VEV), $\langle \tilde S \rangle = v_{S_i}$ and $ \langle \tilde N^C_i \rangle =v_{N_i}$, respectively. This assumption provides the source of the canonical mass terms $M_N$ and $\mu_N$ of the SUSYISS mechanism. Note that, from the last two terms in the superpotential above, we have that the VEV of the scalar $ \tilde S$ becomes the source of the mass scale $M_N$ while the VEV of the scalar $ \tilde N^C$ becomes the source of the mass scale $\mu_N$ . In other words, the superpotential above together with the assumption that the scalars $\hat N^C_i $ and $\hat S_i $ develop non zero VEVs has the required ingredients to realize the SUSYISS mechanism.
Another important point of the model is to discuss the possible values $v_{S_i}$ and $v_{N_i}$ may take. For this we have to obtain the potential of the model. The soft breaking sector will play an important role in the form of the potential.
The most general soft breaking sector of our interest involves the following terms, $$\begin{aligned}
-\cal{ L}_{\mbox{soft}} &=& M^{2}_{Q_{ij}}\tilde{Q^a_i}^{*}\tilde{Q^a_j}
+ M^{2}_{u^{c}_{ij}}\tilde{u^c_i}^{*}\tilde{u^c_j} +
M^{2}_{d^{c}_{ij}}\tilde{d^c_i}^{*}\tilde{d^c_j} \nonumber \\
&+&
M^{2}_{L_{ij}}\tilde{L^a_i}^{*}\tilde{L^a_j} +
M^{2}_{e^{c}_{ij}}\tilde{e^c_i}^{*}\tilde{e^c_j} +
M^{2}_{h_{u}}H^{a*}_u H^{a}_u \nonumber \\
&+& M^{2}_{h_{d}}H^{a*}_d H^{a}_d + M^{2}_{\tilde N_i}
\tilde{N_i}^{*C}
\tilde{N}^{C}_i + M^{2}_{\tilde S_i}
\tilde{S^*_i} \tilde{S_i}
\nonumber \\
&-&
[\left(A_{u}Y_{u}\right)_{ij}\epsilon_{ab}\tilde{Q}^{a}_{i}H^{b}_{u}\tilde{u}^{c}_{j}
+ \left(A_{d}Y_{d}\right)_{ij}\tilde{Q}^{a}_{i}H^{a}_{d}\tilde{d}^{c}_{j}
\nonumber \\
&+&
\left(A_{e}Y_{e}\right)_{ij}\tilde{L}^{a}_{i}H^{a}_{d}\tilde{e}^{c}_{j} +
h.c.] - [B\mu H^{a}_u H^{a}_d + h.c.] \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{2}
\left(M_{3}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}\tilde{\lambda}_{3}
+ M_{2}\tilde{\lambda}_{2}\tilde{\lambda}_{2} +
M_{1}\tilde{\lambda}_{1}\tilde{\lambda}_{1} + h.c.\right) \nonumber \\
&+& (A_{y}Y_{\nu})^{ij}
\epsilon_{ab}\tilde{L}^{a}_i H^{b}_{u}\tilde{N}^{*C}_j \nonumber \\
&+& [\frac{1}{2}
(A_{s}\lambda_{s})^{ijk}\tilde{N}^{*C}_i\tilde{S_j}\tilde{S_k} +
\frac{1}{3}(A_{v}\lambda_{v})^{ijk}\tilde{N}^{* C}_i\tilde{N}^{*C}_j
\tilde{N}^{*C}_k \nonumber \\ &+& h.c.].
\label{softterms}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the last two trilinear terms violate explicitly lepton number and the energy scale parameters $A_s$ and $A_v$ characterize such violation.
A common assumption in developing ISS mechanisms it to assume that the new neutral singlet fermions are degenerated in masses and self-couplings. However, for our case here, it seems to be more convenient, instead of considering the degenerated case, to consider the case of only one generation of superfields. The extension for the case of three generations is straightforward and the results are practically the same.
The potential of the model is composed by the terms $V=V_{soft} + V_D + V_F$. The soft term, $V_F$, is given above in Eq. (\[softterms\]). The relevant contributions to $V_D$ are, $$V_{D}= \frac{1}{8}(g^{2}+g^{\prime 2})(\tilde{\nu}\tilde{\nu}^* + H^0_d H^{0*}_d -
H^0_u H^{0*}_u)^2.
\label{Dterm}$$
In what concerns the F-term, the relevant contributions are given by the following terms,
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{F} &=& \left|\frac{\partial \hat{W}}{\partial \hat{H^{0}_{u}}
}\right|^{2}_{H_{u}} + \left|\frac{\partial \hat{W}}{\partial
\hat{H^{0}_{d}} }\right|^{2}_{H_{d}} + \left|\frac{\partial \hat{W}}{\partial
\hat{\nu}} \right|^{2}_{\tilde{\nu}} + \left|\frac{\partial \hat{W}}{\partial
\hat{N^{C}} }\right|^{2}_{\tilde{N}} + \left|\frac{\partial
\hat{W}}{\partial \hat{S}_{L}}\right|^{2}_{\tilde{S}} \nonumber \\
&=& \mu^{2}\left|H^{0}_{u}\right|^{2} + \mu^{2}\left|H^{0}_{d}\right|^{2} +
Y^{2}_{\nu}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{2}\left|\tilde{\nu}\right|^{2} + Y_{v}\mu
H^{0*}_{d}\tilde{N}^{C*}\tilde{\nu}
\nonumber \\
&+& Y^{2}_{\nu}\left|H^{0}_{u}\right|^{2}\left|\tilde{\nu}\right|^{2}
+ \frac{1}{4}\lambda^{2}_{s}\left|\tilde{S}\right|^{4} + 4
\lambda^{2}_{v}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{4} +
\lambda^{2}_{s}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{2}\left|\tilde{S}\right|^{2}\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{Y_{\nu}\lambda_{s}H^{0}_{u}\tilde{\nu}\tilde{S}^{* 2}}{2} +
2Y_{\nu}\lambda_{v}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{2}H^{0}_{u}\tilde{\nu} +
Y^{2}_{\nu}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{2}\left|H^{0}_{u}\right|^{2} \nonumber \\
&+&
\lambda_{s}\lambda_{v}\left|\tilde{N}^{C}\right|^{2}\tilde{S}^{2} + h.c.
\label{Fterm}\end{aligned}$$
With the potential of the model in hand, we are ready to obtain the set of constraint equations for the neutral scalars $H^0_u\,,\, H^0_d\,,\,\tilde \nu\,,\, \tilde S\,,\,\tilde N^C$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& v_u\left( M^{2}_{h_u} + \mu^{2} +
\frac{1}{4}(g^{2}+g^{\prime 2})(v^{2}_{u}-v^{2}_{d}-v^2_\nu) +Y^2_\nu v^2_N +Y^2_\nu v^2_\nu \right) +\nonumber \\
&& -B\mu v_d+ \frac{1}{2}Y_{\nu}\lambda_{s}v_\nu v^{2}_{S}+Y_\nu A_y v_\nu v_N + 2Y_\nu\lambda_v v_\nu v^2_N =0,\nonumber
\\
&& v_d\left(M^{2}_{h_d} + \mu^{2} -
\frac{1}{4}(g^{2}+g^{\prime 2})(v^{2}_{u}-v^{2}_{d}-v^2_\nu) \right) -B\mu v_u+
Y_\nu \mu v_\nu v_N=0,\nonumber
\\
&& v_\nu \left(M^{2}_{\tilde \nu} +
\frac{1}{4}(g^{2}+g^{\prime 2})(v^2_\nu + v^{2}_{d}-v^{2}_{u})+Y^{2}_{\nu}v^{2}_{u} +
Y^{2}_{\nu}v^{2}_{N}\right) + \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2}\lambda_{s}Y_{\nu}v_{u}v^{2}_{S} + Y_\nu A_y v_u v_N + 2Y_\nu
\lambda_v v_u v^2_N + Y_\nu \mu v_d v_N =0, \nonumber \\
&& M^{2}_{\tilde S} + \lambda_{s}Y_{\nu}v_{u}v_\nu + \frac{1}{2}
\lambda^{2}_{s} v^{2}_{S} +\lambda_s A_s v_N + \lambda^2_s v^2_N +
2\lambda_s\lambda_v v^2_N=0,\nonumber
\\
&&v_{N}\left( M^{2}_{\tilde N} + Y^{2}_{\nu}v^{2}_{u} + \lambda^{2}_{s}v^{2}_{S} +
3\lambda_v A_v v_N + 8\lambda^2_v v^2_N + 4\lambda_{v}Y_{\nu} v_{u} v_\nu
+ 2\lambda_{v}\lambda_{s}
v^{2}_{S} + Y^{2}_{\nu}v^2_\nu \right) +\nonumber \\
&&+ Y_\nu v_\nu (A_{y}v_{u} + \mu v_{d})+\frac{1}{2} A_{s} \lambda_{s} v^{2}_{S}=0.
\label{constraints}\end{aligned}$$
Let us first focus on the third relation in the equation above. Observe that the dominant term inside the parenthesis is $M^{2}_{\tilde \nu} $. Outside the parenthesis, on considering for while that $v_N < v_S$, the dominant term is $\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{s}Y_{\nu}v_{u}v^{2}_{S} $. In view of this, from the third relation above we have that, $$v_\nu \approx -\frac{1}{2}
\frac{\lambda_{s}Y_{\nu}v_{u}v^{2}_{S}}{M^2_{\tilde \nu}}.
\label{vnu}$$ For $M_{\tilde \nu} > v_S$, we have $v_\nu < v_{u , d, S} $, as expected.
Let us now focus on the fifth relation of the Eq. (\[constraints\]). The dominant term inside the parenthesis is $M^{2}_{\tilde N}$, while outside the parenthesis the dominant term is $\frac{1}{2} A_{s} \lambda_{s} v^{2}_{S}$. Thus the fifth relation provides, $$v_N \approx -\frac{1}{2}\frac{ A_{s} \lambda_{s} v^{2}_{S}}{M^2_{\tilde N}} .
\label{smallseesaw}$$ This expression for $v_N$ is similar to the $v_\nu $ case and suggests that $v_N$ is also small.
Let us now focus on the forth relation. Taking $v_\nu\,,\,v_N \ll v_S$, we have that the dominant terms in that relation are, $$M^{2}_{\tilde S} + \frac{1}{2}
\lambda^{2}_{s} v^{2}_{S} =0.
\label{vS}$$ Perceive that $M_S$ dictates the value of $v_S$. As the neutral singlet scalar $\tilde S$ belongs to an extension of the MSSM, then it is reasonable to expect that its soft mass term $M_S$ lies at TeV scale. Consequently $v_S$ must assume values around TeV. In regard to the first and second relations they control the standard VEVs $v_u$ and $v_d$.
Let us return to the expression to $v_N$ in Eq. (\[smallseesaw\]). As the neutral singlet scalar $\tilde N$ also belongs to an extension of the MSSM, then it is reasonable to expect that its soft mass term $M_{\tilde N}$ lies at TeV scale, too. In this case perceive that the value of $v_N$ get dictated by the soft trilinear term $A_s$. Thus a small $v_N$ means a tiny $A_s$. As $A_s$ is a trilinear soft breaking term, then it must be generated by some spontaneous SUSY breaking scheme. The problem is that we do not know how SUSY is spontaneously broken. Thus there is no way to infer exactly the value of $A_s$. Moreover, note that $A_s$ is a soft trilinear term involving only neutral scalar singlets by MSSM which turns its estimation even more complex. We argue here that it is somehow natural to expect that such terms be small.
For this we have to think in terms of spontaneous SUSY breaking schemes. For example, in the framework of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) all soft trilinear terms are naturally suppressed once they arise from loops. In our case the new singlets are sterile by the standard gauge group. The minimal scenario where such soft trilinear terms could arise would be one that involve the GMSM of the B-L gauge extension of the MSSM. To build such extension and evaluate $A_s$ in such a scenario is out of the scope of this paper. However, whatever be the case, in the framework of GMSB scheme $A_s$ must be naturally small and consequently $v_N$, too. In this point we call the attention to the fact that the idea behind the ISS mechanism is that lepton number is explicitly violated at low energy scale. This suggests that the GMSB seems to be the adequate spontaneous SUSY breaking scheme to be adopted in realizing SUSYISS mechanism.
Let us discuss the case of gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking. As in the ISS mechanism lepton number is assumed to be explicitly violated at low energy scale, it is expected that $v_N\,,\,v_S\,,\, v_\nu \, ,\, A_s \,,\,A_v$ are all null at GUT scale. Considering this, the authors of Ref. [@SUSYISSvalle] evaluated the running of soft trilinear terms involving scalar singlets from GUT to down scales in a different realization of the SUSYISS model. As a result they obtained that these terms develop small values at electroweak scale. Our case is somehow similar to the case of Ref. [@SUSYISSvalle] and it seems reasonable to expect that, in the general case of three generations, on doing such evaluation of the running of the soft trilinear terms, our mechanism recover the result of Ref. [@SUSYISSvalle]. As we are just presenting the idea by means of only one generation, such evaluation of the running of $A_s$ is out of the scope of this work.
Thus it seems to be reasonable to expect that, whatever be the spontaneous SUSY breaking scheme adopted, the soft trilinear terms that violate explicitly lepton number involving neutral singlet fields as $\tilde S$ and $\tilde N$ have the tendency to develop small values. In what follow we assume that $A_s$ and $A_v$ lies at keV scale.
There is still an issue to consider in respect to the scalar potential. As can be easily verified, the value of the potential at origin of the fields is zero. In order to guarantee that electroweak symmetry will be broken, we need the potential in the minimum to be negative. Taking the constraints in Eq. (\[constraints\]) to eliminate the soft masses in the scalar potential, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle V \rangle_{mim} = &-&\frac{1}{8}\left(g^{2}+g'^{2}\right)\left(v^{2}_{\nu} + v^{2}_{d} -
v^{2}_{u}\right)^2 - Y^{2}_{\nu}\left( v^{2}_{\nu}v^{2}_{N} +
v^{2}_{\nu}v^{2}_{u} + v^{2}_{u}v^{2}_{N}\right) -
\lambda^{2}_{s}v^{2}_{S}v^{2}_{N} - \frac{1}{4}\lambda^{2}_{s}v^{4}_{S} - A_{y}Y_{\nu}v_{\nu}v_{N}v_{u} \nonumber
\\ &-&
\frac{1}{2}A_{s}\lambda_{s}v_{N}v^{2}_{S} - A_{v}\lambda_{v}v^{3}_{N}
-Y_{\nu}\lambda_{s}v_{\nu}v_{u}v^{2}_{S} -
4Y_{\nu}\lambda_{v}v_{\nu}v_{u}v^{2}_{N} -
2\lambda_{s}\lambda_{v}v^{2}_{N}v^{2}_{S} - 4\lambda^{2}_{v}v^{4}_{N} \nonumber
\\ &-& Y_{\nu}\mu v_{\nu}v_{N}v_{d}.\end{aligned}$$ For the magnitudes of VEVs discussed above, the dominant term is $-
\frac{1}{4}\lambda^{2}_{s}v^{4}_{S}$, which is negative. For the case of one generation considered here this is a strong evidence of the stability of the potential.
After all these considerations, we are ready to go to the central part of this work that is to develop the neutrino sector. For this we have, first, to obtain the mass matrix that involves the neutrinos. Due to the RPV the gauginos and Higgsinos mix with the neutrinos $\nu$, $N$ and $S$. Considering the basis $(\lambda_{0},\lambda_{3},\psi_{h^{0}_{u}}, \psi_{h^{0}_{d}},\nu,N^{c},S)$, we obtain the following mass matrix for these neutral fermions, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc} M_{1} &
0 & \frac{g' v_{u}}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g' v_{d}}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g'
v_\nu}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & M_{2} & -\frac{g v_{u}}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g v_{d}}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g v_\nu}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & 0\\
\frac{g' v_{u}}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g v_{u}}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \mu & Y_{\nu} v_{N} & Y_{\nu} v_\nu & 0 \\
-\frac{g' v_{d}}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g v_{d}}{\sqrt{2}} & \mu & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-\frac{g' v_\nu}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g v_\nu}{\sqrt{2}} & Y_\nu v_N & 0 & 0 & Y_{\nu} v_{u} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & Y_\nu v_\nu & 0 & Y_{\nu} v_{u} & 6 \lambda_{v} v_{N} & \lambda_{s} v_{S} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda_{s} v_{S} & \lambda_{s} v_{N}
\end{array}\right),
\label{generalneutrinomassmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{1}$ e $M_{2}$ are the standard soft breaking terms of the gauginos. We remark that on considering the hierarchy $v_N< v_\nu < v_d< v_u<v_S$ the bottom right $3 \times 3$ block of this matrix, which involves only the neutrinos, decouples from the gauginos and Higgsinos sector leaving the neutrinos with the following mass matrix in the basis $(\nu,N^{c},S)$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_\nu \approx \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & Y_{\nu} v_{u} & 0 \\
Y_{\nu} v_{u} & 2 \lambda_{v} v_{N} & \lambda_{s} v_{S} \\
0 & \lambda_{s} v_{S} & \lambda_{s} v_{N}
\end{array}\right).
\label{neutrinomassmatrix}\end{aligned}$$
For this decoupling to be effective we must have $v_\nu$ of order MeV or less. Diagonalization of this mass matrix implies that the lightest neutrino, which is predominantly the standard one, $\nu$, get the following mass expression, $$m_\nu \approx \frac{Y_{\nu}^2}{\lambda_s}\frac{ v_{u}^2}{ v_{S}^2} v_{N} .
\label{ISSmass}$$
This is exactly the mass expression of the ISS mechanism. For $v_S$ around TeV and $v_N$ around keV we obtain neutrinos at eV scale for $v_u$ at electroweak scale. In the case of three generations the pattern of the neutrino masses will be determined by $Y^{ij}_\nu$ .
To demonstrate the validity of these aproximations we can compute the mass eigenvalues from the full matrix in (\[generalneutrinomassmatrix\]). For typical values of the supersymmetric parameters and $v_S \sim 10$ TeV, $v_N \sim 10$ keV, $v_\nu \sim 1$ MeV and $Y_\nu \sim \lambda_s=0.21$, we have the following order of magnitude for the mass eigenvalues ($\sim$ TeV, $\sim$ TeV, $\sim 10^2$ GeV, $\sim 10^2$ GeV, $\sim 10^{-1}$ eV, $\sim$ TeV, $\sim$ TeV), where the lightest particle is exclusively the standard neutrino. This result is encouraging and indicates that RPV is an interesting framework to realize the SUSYISS mechanism.
We end this section making a comparison of the SUSYISS developed here with the $\mu\nu$SSM in Ref. [[@munucase]]{}. This model resorts to R-parity violation to solve the $\mu$ problem. However neutrino masses at sub-eV scale require considerable amount of fine tuning of the Yukawa couplings. We stress that, in spite of the fact that the SUSYISS model contains the particle content of the $\mu\nu$SSM, unfortunately it does not realize the $\mu\nu$SSM. This is so because if we allow a term like $\hat S \hat H_u \hat H_d$ in the superpotential in Eq. (\[superpotential\]), as consequence the entries $\psi_{h^{0}_{d}} S$ and $\psi_{h^{0}_{u}} S$ in the mass matrix in Eq. (\[generalneutrinomassmatrix\]) would develop robust values which jeopardize the realization of the ISS mechanism.
The mass of the Higgs
=====================
Now, let us focus on the scalar sector of the model. We restrict our interest in checking if the model may accommodates a $125$ GeV Higgs mass without resorting to tight loop contributions. For the case of one generation the model involves five neutral scalars whose mass terms compose a $5\times 5 $ mass matrix that we consider in the basis $(H_u\,,\,H_d\,, \tilde \nu \,,\, \tilde N \,,\, \tilde S)$. We do not show such a mass matrix here because of the complexity of their entries. Instead of dealing with a $5 \times 5$ mass matrix, which is very difficult to handle analytically, we make use of a result that says that an upper bound on the mass of the lightest scalar, which we consider as the Higgs, can be obtained by computing the eigenvalues of the $2 \times 2$ submatrix in the upper left corner of this $5 \times 5$ mass matrix[@upperbound]. This is a common procedure adopted in such cases which give us an idea of the potential of the model to generate the 125 GeV Higgs mass.
The dominant terms of this $2 \times 2$ submatrix are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
M^{2}_{2\times 2}\approx \left(\begin{array}{cc} B\mu\cot(\beta)+
M^{2}_{Z}\sin^{2}(\beta)-\frac{Y_{\nu}\lambda_{s}v_\nu}{2v_u}
v^2_{S} & -B\mu-M^{2}_{Z}\sin(\beta)\cos(\beta)\\
-B\mu-M^{2}_{Z}\sin(\beta)\cos(\beta) & B\mu \tan(\beta) + M^{2}_{Z}\cos^{2}(\beta) \end{array}\right).
\label{2x2massmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ We made use of the hierarchy among the VEVs, as discussed above, to obtain such a $2 \times 2$ submatrix. On diagonalizing this $2 \times 2$ submatrix we obtain the following upper bound on the mass of the Higgs, $$m^{2}_{h}\leq
M^{2}_{Z}\cos^2(2\beta)-\frac{Y_{\nu}\lambda_{s}v_\nu}{2v_u}v^2_{S}.
\label{upperbound}$$ Note also that Eq. ([\[vS\]]{}) imposes that either $M^2_{\tilde
S}$ or $v^2_{S}$ is negative. In order to the second term in Eq. (\[upperbound\]) gives a positive contribution to the Higgs mass we take $M^2_S$ negative and $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$ with opposite sign.
What is remarkable in the mass expression in Eq. (\[upperbound\]) is that the second term provides a robust correction to the Higgs mass even involving the parameters that dictate the neutrino masses as the couplings $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$ and the VEV $v_S$. This suggest an interesting connection between neutrino and Higgs mass. For illustrative proposals, perceive that for $Y_\nu$ of the same order of $\lambda_s$, $v_\nu$ around MeV, $v_u$ around $10^2$ GeV and $v_{S}$ of order tens of TeV, the second term provides a contribution of tens of GeV to the Higgs mass. This contribution is enough to alleviate the pressure on the stop masses and their mixing in order to keep valid the principle of naturalness.
In order to check the range of values the stop mass and the $A_t$ term may develop in this model, we add to $m^{2}_{h}$ given above the leading 1-$\textit{loop}$ corrections coming from the MSSM stop terms[@loopcorrection], $$\Delta m^{2}_{h}=
\frac{3m^{4}_{t}}{4\pi^{2}v^{2}}\left(log\left(\frac{m^{2}_{s}}{m^{2}_{t}}\right)
+
\frac{X^{2}_{t}}{m^{2}_{s}}\left(1-\frac{X^{2}_{t}}{12m^{2}_{s}}\right)\right),
\label{Limh2}$$ where $m_{t}=173.2$ GeV is the top mass, $v=\sqrt{v^2_u + v^2_d}=174$ GeV is the VEV of the standard model, $X_{t}\equiv A_t-\mu cot (\beta)$ is the stop mixing parameter and $m_{s} \equiv
(m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}m_{\tilde{t}_{2}})^{1/2}$ is the SUSY scale (scale of superpartners masses) where $m_{\tilde t}$ is the stop mass. In the analysis done below, we work with degenerated stops and, in all plots, we take $v_\nu=1$ MeV and $v_{S}=4 \times 10^4$ GeV.
Figure 1 shows possible values for the magnitude of $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$ that provide a Higgs with a mass of $125$ GeV. Note that the plot tells us that such a mass requires $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$ around $10^{-1}$. This range of values for $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$ provides, through Eq.(\[ISSmass\]), $m_\nu \approx 0.1$ eV for $v_S=10$ TeV and $v_N=10$ keV. Thus neutrino at sub-eV scale is compatible with $m_h=125$ GeV effortlessly.
Figure 2 tell us that the model yields the desired Higgs mass for stop mass and mixing parameters below the TeV scale. Finally, Figure 3 shows that a Higgs of mass of $125$ GeV is obtained for a broad range of values of $tan (\beta)$.
Let us discuss a little some phenomenological aspects of the SUSYISS mechanism developed here. First of all, observe that the aspects of RPV concerning the mixing among neutralinos and neutrinos, as well as charginos and charged leptons, are dictated by the VEVs $v_\nu$ and $v_{N}$ and the couplings $Y_\nu$ and $\lambda_s$, which are both small. The squarks sector is practically unaffected. Thus, with relation to these sectors, the phenomenology of the SUSYISS mechanism is practically similar to the case of the supersymmetric version of the ISS mechanism[@ISSSUSY1; @ISSpheno]. The signature of the SUSYISS mechanism developed here should manifest mainly in the scalar sector of the model due to the mixing of the neutral scalars with the sneutrinos which will generate Higgs decay channel with lepton flavor violation $h \rightarrow
l_i l_j$.
In general, as far as we know, this is the first time the ISS mechanism is developed in the framework of RPV. Thus many theoretical, as well phenomenological aspects of the model proposed here must be addressed such as experimental constraints from RPV, accelerator physics, analysis of the renormalization group equation, spontaneously SUSY breaking schemas, etc., which we postpone to a future paper[@future]. Moreover, needless to say that in SUSY models with RPV the lightest supersymmetric particle is not stable which means that neither the neutralino nor sneutrino are candidates for dark matter[@DMcandidate] any longer. We would like to remark that because of the $Z_3$ symmetry used in the superpotential above cosmological domain wall problems are expected[@DWproblem]. However, the solution of this problem in the NMSSM as well in the $\mu\nu$SSM[@munucase] cases may be applied to our case, too[@DWsolution].
Finally, concerning the stability of the vacuum, we have to impose that the potential be bounded from below when the scalar fields become large in any direction of the space fields and that the potential does not present charge and color breaking minima. Concerning the latter condition, we do not have to worry about this condition here because the new scalar fields associated to the superfield singlets, $\hat S$ and $\hat N^C$, are neutrals under electric and color charges. Concerning the former issue, the worry arises because at large values of the fields the quartic terms dominate the potential. Thus we have to guarantee that at large values of the fields the potential be positive. Thus we have to worry with the quartic couplings, only. The negative value of $\lambda_s$ leads to two negative quartic terms. Considering this, on analyzing the potential above, we did not find any direction in the field space in which $\lambda_s$ negative leads to a negative potential. All direction we find involves a set of condition where it is always possible to guarantee that the potential be positive at large value of the fields[@casas]. Moreover, we took $\lambda_s$ negative for convenience. We may arrange the things such that all couplings be positive. For example, on taking $\lambda_s$ positive, $v_\nu$ in Eq. (\[vnu\]) get negative, which guarantee a positive contribution to the Higgs masses and that all quartic couplings be positive. However, a complete analysis of the stability of the potential is necessary. This will be done in [@future].
Conclusions
============
In this work we proposed the realization of the SUSYISS model in the framework of RPV. The main advantage of such framework is that it allows the realization of the SUSYISS model with a minimal set of superfield content where the superfields $\hat S$ and $\hat N^C$ of the minimal implementation are sufficient to realize the model. To grasp the important features of the SUSYISS, we restricted our work to the case of one generation of superfields. As nice result, the canonical mass parameters $M_N$ and $\mu_N$ of the SUSYISS mechanism are recognized as the VEVs of the scalars $\tilde S$ and $\tilde N$ that compose the superfields $\hat S$ and $\hat N^C$. There is no way to fix the values of the VEVs $v_S$ and $v_N$. However, it seems plausible that $v_S$ and $v_N$ develop values around TeV and keV scale, respectively. Thus, we conclude that RPV seems to be an interesting framework for the realization of the SUSYISS mechanism. We recognize that in order to establish the model a lot of work have to be done, yet. For example, we have to find the spontaneous SUSY breaking scheme that better accommodates the mechanism, develop the phenomenology of the model and its embedding in GUT schemes. We end by saying that the main results of this work are that the model proposed here realizes minimally the SUSYISS mechanism and provides a 125 GeV Higgs mass respecting the naturalness principle.
This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico- CNPq (C.A.S.P and P.S.R.S ) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES (J.G.R).
[99]{} R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{} (1986), 561; R. N. Mohapatra, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D[**34**]{} (1986), 1642. For realization of the ISS mechanism in non supersymmetric scenarios, see: A. G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, Phys. Rev. D[**84**]{} (2011), 053011; A. G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, A. Sampieri, Phys. Rev. D[**86**]{} (2012), 035007 ; S. M. Boucenna, Jose W. F. Valle, A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D[**92**]{} (2015) 5, 053001. For the development of ISS mechanism in non supersymmetric scenarios, see: A. Das, N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{} (2016), 033003; A. Das, P. S. Bhupal Dev, N. Okada, Phys. Lett. B [**735**]{} (2014), 364; A. Das and N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013), 113001;
For the minimal implementation of the ISS mechanism in SUSY, see: F. Deppisch, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D[**72**]{} (2005), 036001; M. Hirsch , T. Kernreiter, J.C. Romao, A. Villanova del Moral, JHEP [**1001**]{} (2010), 103. For the development of the ISS mechanism in SUSY, see: M. E. Krauss, W. Porod, F. Staub, A. Abada, A. Vicente, C. Weiland, Phys.Rev. D[**90**]{} (2014) 1, 013008; A. Abada, M. E. Krauss, W. Porod, F. Staub, A. Vicente, C. Weiland, JHEP [**1411**]{} (2014), 048; E. Arganda, M.J. Herrero, X. Marcano, C. Weiland, arXiv:1508.04623.
For realization of the ISS in SUSY, see: F. Bazzocchi, D. G. Cerdeno, C. Munoz, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D[**81**]{} (2010), 051701; P. S. Bhupal Dev and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010), 013001. A. Santamaria, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B[**195**]{} (1987), 423; A. Masiero, J . W .F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B[**251**]{} (1990), 273; R. Barbiere, C. Berat, M. Besancon, M. Chemtob, A. De andrea, E. Dudas, P. Fayet, S. Lavignac, G. Moreau, E. Perez, Y. Sirois, R. Barbier, Phys. Rept.[**420**]{} (2005), 1-202 . ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{} (2012), 1-29; CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{} (2012), 121801. P. Draper, P. Meade, M. Reece, and D. Shih, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 095007.
F. Bazzocchi, D. G. Cerdeno, C. Munoz, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D[**81**]{} (2010), 051701. D. E. López-Fogliani and C. Munõz, Phys. Rev. Letter[**97**]{} (2006),041801. M. Drees, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A[**4**]{} (1989), 3635; J. Ellis, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. D[**39**]{} (1989), 844. H. E. Haber, R. Hempfling, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**66**]{} (1991), 1815; R. Barbieri, M. Frigeni, F. Caravaglios, Phys. Lett. B[**258**]{} (1991), 167, J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B [**436**]{},(1995),3 \[Erratum-ibid. B[**439**]{}(1995),466\]; M. Carena, J. Espinosa, M. Quiros and C. Wagner, Phys. Lett. B [**355**]{} (1995), 209; S. Ambrosanio [*et al*]{}., Nucl. Phys. B [**624**]{} (2002), 3; For a review, see: M. S. Carena and H. E. Haber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**50**]{}(2003),63. A. Abada, D. Das, C. Weiland, JHEP [**1203**]{} (2012), 100; S. Mondal, S. Biswas, P. Ghosh, S. Roy, JHEP [**1205**]{} (2012), 134. J. G. Rodrigues, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva(paper in preparation). For analyses and review of dark matter in the framework of RPV, see: M. Hirsch, W. Porod, and D. Restrepo, J. High Energy Phys. [**03**]{}(2005), 062; C. Munõz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**19**]{} (2004), 3093; F. Takayama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}(2000), 388. J. R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, M. Quiros, and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B [**176**]{} (1986), 403; B. Ray and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D[**49**]{} (1994), 2729; S. A. Abel, S. Sarkar, and P. L. White, Nucl. Phys. B[**454**]{}(1995), 663. S. A. Abel, Nucl. Phys. B[**480**]{} (1996),55; C. Panagiotakopoulos and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B[**446**]{} (1999), 224.
For a nice review of charge and color breaking and bounded from below, see, J. A Casas, rXiv: hep-ph/9707475 and references therein. For a paper treating these points in the MSSM, see: J. A. Casas, A. Lleyda, C. Munoz, Phys. Lett. B[**389**]{} (1996), 305.
![Contour plot of $m_h=125$GeV in the $Y_\nu \, \mbox{versus} \,
\lambda_s$ plane for $m_s=800$GeV and $X_t=400$GeV where (blue dotted $tan (\beta) =5$), ( red dashed $tan (\beta)=7$) and (red solid $tan (\beta) =10$).[]{data-label="fig1"}](PlotYvxlambdas2.pdf)
![Contour plot of $m_h=125$GeV in the $X_t \,\mbox {versus} \, m_s$ plane with $\lambda_s =-0.21$, $Y_\nu=0.21$ (blue dotted $tan (\beta) =5$), (red dashed $tan (\beta)=7$) and (red solid $tan (\beta) =10$).[]{data-label="fig2"}](PlotMsxXt2.pdf)
![Contour plot of $m_h=125$ GeV in the $tan (\beta) \, \mbox {versus} \,
m_s$ plane with $\lambda_s =-0.21$, $Y_\nu=0.21$ (blue dotted $X_t=600$GeV), (red dashed $X_t=700$GeV) and (red solid $X_t=800$GeV). []{data-label="fig3"}](PlottgbetaxMs2.pdf)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a dedicated effort to measure the spin-down rate of the nearby isolated neutron star [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}. Comparing arrival times of the 8.39-sec pulsations for data from [*Chandra*]{} we derive an unambiguous timing solution for [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} that is accurate to $<0.1$ cycles over $>5$ years. Adding data from [*XMM*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{}, the final solution yields $\dot P={\ensuremath{(6.98\pm0.02) \times 10^{-14}}}\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{s s}^{-1}}}$; for dipole spin-down, this implies a characteristic age of 2 Myr and a magnetic field strength of ${\ensuremath{2.4 \times 10^{13}}}$ G. The phase residuals are somewhat larger than those for purely regular spin-down, but do not show conclusive evidence for higher-order terms or a glitch. From our timing solution as well as recent X-ray spectroscopy, we concur with recent suggestions that [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} is most likely an off-beam radio pulsar with a moderately high magnetic field.'
author:
- 'D. L. Kaplan and M. H. van Kerkwijk'
title: 'A Coherent Timing Solution for the Nearby Isolated Neutron Star RX J0720.4$-$3125'
---
Introduction
============
One of the interesting results from [*ROSAT*]{} All-Sky Survey [@rbs] was the discovery of seven objects that appear to be nearby, thermally-emitting neutron stars that have little if any magnetospheric emission (see @haberl04 for a review). These objects, known most commonly as “isolated neutron stars,” are distinguished by their long periods (${\gtrsim}3$ s, when measured), largely thermal spectra with cool temperatures ($kT
{\lesssim}100$ eV), faint optical counterparts (when detected), and lack of radio emission.
It is not yet clear what sets the isolated neutron stars apart from the nearby, relatively young rotation-powered pulsars that also have cool thermal emission — sources like PSR B0656+14 and PSR B1055$-$52— which tend to have short ($<1$ s) spin periods, $\sim 10^{12}$-G magnetic fields, non-thermal (i.e. power-law) components in their X-ray spectra, and radio pulsations [e.g., @pz03; @kaplan04]. The isolated neutron stars are known to have longer periods, but their spin-down rates (and hence magnetic fields ) are unknown, largely because it has not yet been possible to determine a reliable, coherent timing solution (@kkvkm02, hereafter ; @zhc+02).
In this *Letter* we report a new analysis of the variations of the 8.39-s period of the second brightest source of the group, [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}[@hmb+97]. We describe our analysis of [*Chandra*]{} data obtained specifically for timing purposes, as well as archival [*ROSAT*]{}, [*Chandra*]{}, and [*XMM*]{} data, in § \[sec:obs\]. In § \[sec:timing\], we show that with the new data, we can avoid the pitfalls of the previous phase-coherent timing analyses and obtain a reliable timing solution. We discuss possible timing noise in § \[sec:noise\] and the implications of our result in § \[sec:discuss\]. \
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
Our primary data were eight observations with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer [ACIS; @gbf+03] aboard the *Chandra X-ray Observatory* [[*CXO*]{}; @wtvso00]. These were designed for timing accuracy, consisting of two sets of four exposures geometrically spaced over a period of about two weeks and separated by about half a year. We combined these with data from other [*Chandra*]{} observations, as well as from observations with *XMM-Newton* [@jla+01] and [*ROSAT*]{} [@trumper93]. A log of all observations is given in Table \[tab:obs\].
For the [*Chandra*]{} data, we processed the level-1 event lists to the level-2 stage following standard procedures and the latest calibration set (CALDB version 3.0.0). For the ACIS continuous-clocking data, this includes correcting the recorded event times for readout, dither, and spacecraft motion — corrections that used to require additional steps [@zpst00]. We extracted events within $1\arcsec$ of the source, and then applied a clock correction of $284.7\,\,\mu{\rm s}$ to the arrival times [@dhm03]; the arrival times should now be accurate to ${\lesssim}6\,\,\mu{\rm s}$. For the HRC-S/LETG data, we extracted zeroth-order events from a circle with radius 10 pixels ($1\farcs3$), and first-order events using the standard LETG spectral extraction windows, but limited to $10\leq\lambda\leq65\mbox{\AA}$. Finally, we used the `axbary` program to barycenter all of the events (using the optical position: $\alpha_{\rm
J2000}=07{\ensuremath{^{\rm h}}}20{\ensuremath{^{\rm m}}}24\fs96$, $\delta_{\rm
J2000}=-31\degr25\arcmin50\farcs2$; @kvkm+03)
[lrcrrc]{}\[t\] PSPC& 338 & 1993-09-27 & 3.2 & 5800&49257.2547031(25)\
HRI& 884 & 1996-11-03 & 33.7 & 12662&50391.3006530(16)\
HRI& 944 & 1998-04-20 & 8.1 & 3074&50925.6881172(36)\
HRC& 368 & 2000-02-01 & 5.4 & 3472&51575.3026910(46)\
HRC& 745 & 2000-02-02 & 26.1 & 15149&51576.2804856(27)\
HRC& 369 & 2000-02-04 & 6.1 & 3667&51578.7722735(65)\
PN/ff/thin& 78-S3& 2000-05-13 & 21.1 &144104&51677.2260789(5)\
MOS2/thin& 78-S2& 2000-05-13 & 43.9 & 73915&51677.4127431(7)\
PN/ff/med& 175-S3& 2000-11-21 & 25.7 &153037&51869.8413358(14)\
MOS1/open& 175-U2& 2000-11-21 & 6.8 & 17762&51869.8433759(14)\
MOS2/open& 175-U2& 2000-11-21 & 7.2 & 21084&51869.9571032(6)\
ACIS-CC&2774 & 2001-12-04 & 15.0 & 31831&52247.7881789(11)\
ACIS-CC&2773 & 2001-12-05 & 10.6 & 22847&52248.2835843(13)\
ACIS-CC&2772 & 2001-12-06 & 4.1 & 8790&52249.6286894(26)\
PN/ff/thin& 533-S3& 2002-11-06 & 28.3 &199841&52584.9260561(5)\
PN/ff/thin& 534-S3& 2002-11-08 & 30.2 &212177&52587.0013053(4)\
MOS1/open& 622-U2& 2003-05-02 & 7.6 & 17629&52761.6222174(14)\
MOS2/open& 622-U2& 2003-05-02 & 7.5 & 18788&52761.6226056(12)\
PN/sw/thick& 622-U2& 2003-05-02 & 72.8 &210160&52761.9950589(5)\
PN/sw/thin& 711-S7& 2003-10-27 & 18.1 &112876&52939.8228751(9)\
PN/sw/thick& 711-S8& 2003-10-27 & 25.0 &138689&52939.8228774(8)\
MOS1/open& 711-U2& 2003-10-27 & 13.8 & 33323&52939.8506513(5)\
MOS2/open& 711-U2& 2003-10-27 & 13.8 & 35636&52940.1162720(5)\
ACIS-CC&4666 & 2004-01-06 & 10.1 & 19048&53010.2635608(14)\
ACIS-CC&4667 & 2004-01-07 & 4.8 & 8938&53011.2639869(20)\
ACIS-CC&4668 & 2004-01-11 & 5.2 & 9334&53015.5407400(19)\
ACIS-CC&4669 & 2004-01-19 & 5.2 & 9391&53023.1274147(23)\
HRC&5305 & 2004-02-27 & 35.7 & 21597&53062.4142490(27)\
PN/ff/thin& 815-S1& 2004-05-22 & 31.6 &219855&53147.6811948(4)\
ACIS-CC&4670 & 2004-08-03 & 10.1 & 17432&53220.9975987(14)\
ACIS-CC&4671 & 2004-08-05 & 5.1 & 8051&53222.2171299(21)\
ACIS-CC&4672 & 2004-08-09 & 5.1 & 8556&53226.2443808(25)\
ACIS-CC&4673 & 2004-08-23 & 5.1 & 7133&53240.1824669(24)\
HRC&5581 & 2005-01-23 & 67.7 & 44801&53393.6657119(18)\
For the [*XMM*]{} data, we used the standard procedures `emchain` and `epchain` (XMMSAS version 6.1.0) to reprocess the observations. One additional step was necessary for the PN data set 622-U2, for which we found a small number of duplicate events (frames 963685–963719); we removed these before processing. Next, we extracted all single-pixel events within 375 of the source position, and used `barycen` to convert the arrival times to the solar-system barycenter[^1].
The reduction of the [*ROSAT*]{} data followed that in , except that we properly corrected the event times to the Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB) system instead of the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) system returned by the `FTOOLS` barycentering tasks (see @chzz04). We used the corrections supplied in @allen [p. 14].
\
Timing Analysis {#sec:timing}
===============
Our goal was to use times-of-arrival (TOAs) to infer a phase-coherent timing solution involving the spin period and its derivative, where each cycle of the source was counted. To measure TOAs we needed an initial reference period, something which we determined using a $Z_1^2$ test [Rayleigh statistic; @bbb+83] on the combined 2004 January ACIS and 2004 February HRC data. We find $P=8.3911159(10)$ s (here and below, numbers in parentheses indicate twice the formal 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties in the last digit unless otherwise indicated), which is consistent with our earlier value () but much more accurate because we could coherently connect observations over a much longer (52 day) time span.
Using this period, we constructed binned light curves (with 16 phase bins) and determined the TOAs by fitting a sinusoid (appropriate for the sinusoidal pulsations of [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}; @hmb+97); the uncertainties were calculated from the uncertainties in the phases of the fitted sinusoids (we verified that we obtain consistent results if we change the binning or measure TOAs using cross-correlation instead). Here, the TOA is defined as the time of maximum light closest to the middle of the observation, a choice which minimizes co-variance with small changes in period. We present TOAs for all of the data in Table \[tab:obs\].
We then determined a timing solution for only the [*Chandra*]{} data using an iterative procedure. We first used the reference period to determine cycle counts for the five above-mentioned observations, as well as the next observation closest in time. We fit these cycle counts to $$\phi(t) = \phi_0 + \nu (t-t_0) + \frac{1}{2} {\dot \nu}(t-t_0)^2 + \frac{1}{6}{\ddot \nu}(t-t_0)^3\ldots,
\label{eqn:phi}$$ where $\phi_0$ is the cycle count plus phase at reference time $t_0$, $\nu$ is the spin-frequency, $\dot \nu$ is its derivative, $\ddot \nu$ is the second derivative. We then iterated, using the improved solution to determine the cycle count for the next observation, etc. We started with ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}={\ensuremath{\ddot \nu}}=0$, but left ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}$ free once that significantly improved the fit; ${\ensuremath{\ddot \nu}}$ was not required (cf., § \[sec:noise\] below).
The final ephemeris listed in Table \[tab:ephem\] has small, $\leq0.1$ cycle, residuals, and fits the [*Chandra*]{} data well: $\chi^2_\nu\equiv\chi^2/N_{\rm dof}=1.06$ (with $N_{\rm dof}=13$ degrees of freedom). To test the uniqueness of our ephemeris, we tried changing the cycle counts (adding or subtracting one or more cycles) at the least unambiguous points, but found that the resulting solutions were very poor (e.g., altering the cycles between the 2001 ACIS and 2000 HRC observations gave $\chi^2_{\nu}=89.26$).
To improve and extend the ephemeris, we added the [*XMM*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{}data into the solution (see Table \[tab:ephem\]). As for the [*Chandra*]{} data alone, the cycle counts are unambiguous and, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:resid\], the residuals remain below $0.1$ cycles, lending additional credence to our results. For verification, we also examined the fit using just the [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM*]{} data, which avoids the large gaps between the [*ROSAT*]{} observations. We found the same cycle counts, but a statistically significant difference in the inferred parameters \[$\nu=0.11917366887(12)$ Hz and ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}=-{\ensuremath{9.69(4) \times 10^{-16}}}\,\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{Hz s}^{-1}}}$, while the fit to all data gave $\nu=0.1191736700(2)$ and ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}=-{\ensuremath{9.915(14) \times 10^{-16}}}\,\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{Hz s}^{-1}}}$\].
While we are confident in our fit in general, the above discrepancy is puzzling. Furthermore, the $\chi^2_\nu$ values for the fits including the [*XMM*]{} data are poor, with $\chi^2_\nu=6.16$ for [*Chandra*]{}$+$[*XMM*]{}($N_{\rm dof}=28$; ${\rm rms}=0.34$ s) and $\chi^2_{\nu}=10.25$ for all of the data ($N_{\rm dof}=31$; ${\rm rms}=0.36$ s), while the solution for [*Chandra*]{}$+$[*ROSAT*]{}, although somewhat ambiguous, is tolerable ($\chi^2_\nu=1.40$) and similar to the [*Chandra*]{}-only solution. The $\chi^2$ values for the full fits are dominated by the contribution of the [*XMM*]{} data, which have very small formal uncertainties (but are not always entirely consistent from one instrument to another for the same observation; see Tab. \[tab:obs\]). The [*XMM*]{} data also cause the values of ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}$ to differ by 3% and the [*Chandra*]{}$+$[*XMM*]{} ephemeris to be a poor match to the [*ROSAT*]{} points. We discuss these deviations in more detail below; here, we note that for the estimates of the values and uncertainties in Table \[tab:ephem\], we ensured $\chi^2_\nu\simeq1$ by adding in quadrature an additional uncertainty of 0.27 s to all TOAs. We stress, however, that our overall solution is robust, and the inferred spin-down rate should be reliable at the $<\!3$% level.
[l c c]{} Dates (MJD) & 51575–53394 & 49257–53394\
$t_{0}$ (MJD)& 53010.2635605(18) & 53010.2635637(24)\
$\nu$ (Hz) & 0.11917366926(46) & 0.11917366908(38)\
$\dot \nu$ ([$\mbox{Hz s}^{-1}$]{}) & ${\ensuremath{-9.97(11) \times 10^{-16}}}$ & $-{\ensuremath{9.918(30) \times 10^{-16}}}$\
TOA rms (s) & 0.18 & 0.31\
$\chi^2$/DOF & 13.8/13=1.06 & 30.7/31=0.99\
$P$ (s)& 8.391115305(32) & 8.391115532(26)\
$\dot P$ ([$\mbox{s s}^{-1}$]{})& ${\ensuremath{7.019(80) \times 10^{-14}}}$ & ${\ensuremath{6.983(22) \times 10^{-14}}}$\
$\dot E$ ($\mbox{erg s}^{-1}$)& ${\ensuremath{4.7 \times 10^{30}}}$ & ${\ensuremath{4.7 \times 10^{30}}}$\
$B_{\rm dip}$ (G) & ${\ensuremath{2.5 \times 10^{13}}}$ & ${\ensuremath{2.4 \times 10^{13}}}$\
$\tau_{\rm char}$ (yr)& ${\ensuremath{1.9 \times 10^{6}}}$ & ${\ensuremath{1.9 \times 10^{6}}}$\
Deviations from Regular Spin Down? {#sec:noise}
==================================
There could be several reasons for the relatively poor fit of the timing solutions to our full set of arrival times. First, [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} may show some rotational instabilities or “timing noise,” as seen in radio pulsars. We can estimate the magnitude of the long-term timing noise by fitting the phase residuals with a third-order (${\ensuremath{\ddot \nu}}\neq0$) solution like that shown in Fig. \[fig:resid\]. This does in fact improve the fit — giving $\chi^2_\nu=6.02$ for $N_{\rm dof}=30$ with an rms of 0.32 s — though it is still formally unacceptable. We find ${\ensuremath{\ddot \nu}}\approx {\ensuremath{2.4(4) \times 10^{-25}}}\mbox{ Hz
s}^{-2}$ (this also changes ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}$ by 3% from the value in Tab. \[tab:ephem\]), giving a timing noise measurement of $\Delta_8\equiv \log_{10}(|{\ddot \nu}|(10^8)^3/6\nu)= -0.5$. This value is on the high side of, but not outside the range expected from relations between $\dot P$ and $\Delta_8$ found for radio pulsars [@antt94] and magnetars [@wkf+00; @gk02]. We do not believe it is likely that the third-order solution represents a real long-term change in ${\ensuremath{\dot \nu}}$, since the value of ${\ensuremath{\ddot \nu}}$ changes significantly if one uses just the [*Chandra*]{}, [*Chandra*]{}$+$[*XMM*]{}, or all of the data[^2] \[8(6), 18(4), or ${\ensuremath{2.4(4) \times 10^{-25}}}$ $\mbox{Hz s}^{-2}$, with $\chi^2_\nu=0.64$, $2.81$, or $6.02$ respectively\].
A second possibility is a sudden change in rotation — a glitch, as proposed (and largely rejected) by @dvvmv04 to account for variations in spectral shape (differences of 10% in the inferred temperature) and pulse shape (changes of 50–100% in pulsed fraction) observed between 2000 and 2003. The systematic increase in the residuals after MJD 53000 in Figure \[fig:resid\] might indeed indicate a glitch. We tried fitting a simple glitch model, in which we assumed that only the frequency changed, that the recovery time was longer than the span of our observations, and that the glitch occurred on 2003 July 1 (MJD 52821), in between the two [*XMM*]{} observations that showed the largest spectral change [@dvvmv04]. We find a reasonable fit for a glitch with $\Delta
f={\ensuremath{1.3 \times 10^{-9}}}$ Hz and a recovery time $>3$ yr, giving $\chi^2_\nu=7.7$ (see Fig. \[fig:resid\]). This would be a small glitch, with $\Delta f/f={\ensuremath{1.1 \times 10^{-8}}}$ compared to values of $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-6}$ for radio pulsars [with smaller values more typical for larger magnetic fields; @lss00]. It also implies that energetically, the putative glitch would be insignificant: the change in kinetic energy of $\sim 10^{36}$ ergs [@vrem91] would only be noticeable if dissipated in $<1$ day given the bolometric luminosity of [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} of ${\ensuremath{2 \times 10^{32}}}d_{300}^2\mbox{ ergs
s}^{-1}$ (where $d=300d_{300}$ pc is the distance to [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}; @kvkm+03). In principle, however, it could still have altered the light curve and spectrum of [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} through realignment of the magnetic field relative to the spin axis.
Finally, a more mundane explanation for the relatively poor fit is that the data are from different instruments with different energy responses (even among a single instrument aboard [*XMM*]{}, the changing filters alter the response). The pulse profile of [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} is known to depend on energy (@czr+01; ; @hztb04) and to change over time [@dvvmv04]. While the changes to the shape are small, some systematic offsets are expected between the pulse profiles as measured by different instruments or at different times. We hope to investigate this in more detail in the near future.
At present, we cannot distinguish between the various possibilities for the relatively poor fits. The predicted future behavior is different, however, and thus further observations of [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} (some of which are in progress) should be able to distinguish between these models.
Discussion & Conclusions {#sec:discuss}
========================
From our timing solution, we infer a spin-down rate $\dot
P=6.98(2)\times10^{-14}~{\ensuremath{\mbox{s s}^{-1}}}$. This is consistent with the limits derived in and by @zhc+02, but inconsistent with the tentative solution of @chzz04, who found $\dot P={\ensuremath{(1.4\pm0.6) \times 10^{-13}}}\,\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{s s}^{-1}}}$ at 99% confidence (but who noted that elements of their solution were inconsistent with each other and that their analysis was subject to confusing aliases). In Table \[tab:ephem\], we list derived parameters — rotational energy loss rate, magnetic field, and characteristic age (the latter two under the assumption of magnetic dipole spin-down).
The values of $P$ and $\dot P$ place [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} well above above most of the radio-pulsar “death-lines” proposed so far [e.g., @ymj99] and in a region populated by radio pulsars in $P$-$\dot P$ diagrams like that in (its parameters are approximately between those of PSR J1830$-$1135, with $P=6.2$ s, $\dot P={\ensuremath{5 \times 10^{-14}}}\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{s s}^{-1}}}$, and PSR J1847$-$0130, with $P=6.7$ s, $\dot P={\ensuremath{1.3 \times 10^{-12}}}\,{\ensuremath{\mbox{s s}^{-1}}}$). Hence, [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} may well be a radio pulsar itself, but one whose radio beam(s) do not intersect our line of sight. Its inferred magnetic field, $B={\ensuremath{2.4 \times 10^{13}}}$ G, is not exceptional; the Parkes Multi-beam Survey [@mlc+01] in particular has discovered a fair number of radio pulsars with $B{\gtrsim}10^{13}$ G [e.g., @ckl+00; @mhl+02; @msk+03], and it is now clear the distribution of magnetic fields is flatter than previously assumed [@vml+04].
With $\dot E={\ensuremath{4.7 \times 10^{30}}}\mbox{ ergs s}^{-1}$, [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} is not expected to have much non-thermal X-ray emission: from the relation of @bt97, one estimates $L_{\rm X,\,non-th}\sim 10^{-3}\dot E
\simeq {\ensuremath{5 \times 10^{27}}}\mbox{ ergs s}^{-1}$, much smaller than the thermal emission, $L_{\rm X,\,therm}\simeq {\ensuremath{2 \times 10^{32}}}d_{300}\mbox{
ergs s}^{-1}$. This is consistent with limits from [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM*]{} (@pmm+01; @pzs02; @kvkm+03).
What is somewhat puzzling is the inferred age of 2 Myr. Tracing [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}back to OB associations where it might have been born put it close to the Trumpler 10 association $\sim\!0.7$ Myr ago (@mzh03; @kaplan04). Similarly, based on its estimated temperature and luminosity, most standard cooling models (modified URCA for $1.4~M_{\odot}$ neutron stars) put [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} at ${\lesssim}1$ Myr (@hh98; ; @chzz04).
It is of course possible that [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} was born with a long period and/or had significantly non-dipole braking, such that the spin-down age is not a good estimate of its true age. However, no case with as long a birth period as would be required for [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} is known among radio pulsars [cf. @klh+03; @gkr04].
Another possible explanation is that [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{} was ejected from a binary system with a massive companion $\sim 0.7$ Myr ago, either when the companion underwent a supernova or during a binary exchange interaction. In this case, a relatively long period is expected: if the neutron star accreted matter from its companion, its spin period would have tended toward the equilibrium period, $P_{\rm{}eq}\approx
5{\rm\,s}\,(B/10^{13}{\rm\,G})^{6/7}(\dot M/\dot M_{\rm Edd})^{-3/7}$ (where $\dot M$ is the accretion rate and $\dot M_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington rate). A relatively short cooling age would also be consistent with this model: the accretion and accompanying steady hydrogen burning could reheat the neutron star (or keep it hot). Of course, it remains to be seen that a suitable evolutionary scenario can be found. In any case, the prediction for the model with two supernovae is that there may well be another $\la\!1~$Myr old neutron star whose proper motion traces back to the same origin as [RX J0720.4$-$3125]{}[cf. @vcc04].
Finally, we can compare the magnetic field strength of ${\ensuremath{2.4 \times 10^{13}}}$ G with what is inferred from the broad absorption feature in the spectrum (observed to be at 0.3 keV, which corresponds to 0.39 keV at the surface for a gravitational redshift of 0.3; @hztb04 [@vdvmv04]). If due to a proton cyclotron line, one infers $B\simeq{\ensuremath{6 \times 10^{13}}}$ G [@hztb04], which is substantially larger than inferred from the spin-down. This may simply reflect the inadequacy of the dipole spin-down model, or the presence of higher order multipoles. On the other hand, based on a comparison with other sources, @vkkd+04 suggested that the absorption feature was due to the transition from the ground state to the second excited tightly bound state of neutral hydrogen, which would require $B\simeq{\ensuremath{2 \times 10^{13}}}$ G and matches the spin-down value nicely. If that is the case, higher signal-to-noise spectra should reveal the transition to the first excited state at $\sim\!0.15~$keV.
We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments, and Kaya Mori, George Pavlov, Saul Rappaport, Deepto Chakrabarty, and Peter Woods for helpful discussions. DLK was partially supported by a fellowship from the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation. We acknowledge support through Chandra grant GO4-5082X.
[10]{}
, Z., [Nice]{}, D. J., [Taylor]{}, J. H., & [Thorsett]{}, S. E. 1994, , 422, 671
, W. & [Trümper]{}, J. 1997, , 326, 682
, U. G. & [Pfeffermann]{}, E. 1995, , 2518, 120
, R., [et al.]{} 1983, , 128, 245
, F., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [Lyne]{}, A. G., [Manchester]{}, R. N., [Bell]{}, J. F., [D’Amico]{}, N., [McKay]{}, N. P. F., & [Crawford]{}, F. 2000, , 541, 367
, A. N. 2000, Allen’s [A]{}strophysical [Q]{}uantities, 4th edn. (New York: AIP Press/Springer)
, M., [Haberl]{}, F., [Zane]{}, S., & [Zavlin]{}, V. E. 2004, , 351, 1099
, M., [Zane]{}, S., [Ramsay]{}, G., [Haberl]{}, F., & [Motch]{}, C. 2001, , 365, L302
Davis, W., Holmes, J., & Myers, R. 2003, in The 2003 Chandra Calibration Workshop
, C. P., [Vink]{}, J., [M[' e]{}ndez]{}, M., & [Verbunt]{}, F. 2004, , 415, L31
, G. P., [Bautz]{}, M. W., [Ford]{}, P. G., [Nousek]{}, J. A., & [Ricker]{}, G. R. 2003, , 4851, 28
, F. P. & [Kaspi]{}, V. M. 2002, , 567, 1067
, F. P., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., & [Roberts]{}, M. S. E. 2004, Advances in Space Research, 33, 592
, F. 2004, in XMM-Newton EPIC Consortium meeting, Palermo, 2003 October 14-16 (astro-ph/0401075)
, F., [Motch]{}, C., [Buckley]{}, D. A. H., [Zickgraf]{}, F.-J., & [Pietsch]{}, W. 1997, , 326, 662
, F., [Zavlin]{}, V. E., [Tr[" u]{}mper]{}, J., & [Burwitz]{}, V. 2004, , 419, 1077
, J. S. & [Hernquist]{}, L. 1998, , 298, L17
, F., [et al.]{} 2001, , 365, L1
, D. L. 2004, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology
, D. L., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [van Kerkwijk]{}, M. H., & [Marshall]{}, H. L. 2002, , 570, L79
, D. L., [van Kerkwijk]{}, M. H., [Marshall]{}, H. L., [Jacoby]{}, B. A., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., & [Frail]{}, D. A. 2003, , 590, 1008
, R. P., [et al.]{} 1997, , 3114, 53
, M., [Lyne]{}, A. G., [Hobbs]{}, G., [L[" o]{}hmer]{}, O., [Carr]{}, P., [Jordan]{}, C., & [Wolszczan]{}, A. 2003, , 593, L31
, A. G., [Shemar]{}, S. L., & [Smith]{}, F. G. 2000, , 315, 534
, R. N., [et al.]{} 2001, , 328, 17
, M. A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 591, L135
, D. J., [et al.]{} 2002, , 335, 275
, C., [Zavlin]{}, V. E., & [Haberl]{}, F. 2003, , 408, 323
, F., [et al.]{} 2001, , 365, L298
, G. G. & [Zavlin]{}, V. E. 2003, in Texas in Tuscany. XXI Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, ed. R. Bandiera, R. Maiolino, & F. Mannucci (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing), 319–328 (astro-ph/0305435)
, G. G., [Zavlin]{}, V. E., & [Sanwal]{}, D. 2002, in Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants, ed. W. Becker, H. Lesch, & J. Trümper (Garching: MPE Rep. 278), 273 (astro-ph/0206024)
, L., [et al.]{} 2001, , 365, L18
, J. 1993, Science, 260, 1769
, M. J. L., [et al.]{} 2001, , 365, L27
, M. H., [Kaplan]{}, D. L., [Durant]{}, M., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., & [Paerels]{}, F. 2004, , 608, 432
, K. A., [Epstein]{}, R. I., & [Miller]{}, G. S. 1991, , 381, L47
, J., [de Vries]{}, C. P., [M[' e]{}ndez]{}, M., & [Verbunt]{}, F. 2004, , 609, L75
, W. H. T., [Cordes]{}, J. M., & [Chatterjee]{}, S. 2004, , 610, 402
, W., [et al.]{} 1996, , 6420, 2
, N., [et al.]{} 2004, , 617, L139
, M. C., [Tananbaum]{}, H. D., [Van Speybroeck]{}, L. P., & [O’Dell]{}, S. L. 2000, , 4012, 2
, P. M., [et al.]{} 2000, , 535, L55
, M. D., [Manchester]{}, R. N., & [Johnston]{}, S. 1999, , 400, 848
, S., [Haberl]{}, F., [Cropper]{}, M., [Zavlin]{}, V. E., [Lumb]{}, D., [Sembay]{}, S., & [Motch]{}, C. 2002, , 334, 345
, V. E., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [Sanwal]{}, D., & [Tr[ü]{}mper]{}, J. 2000, , 540, L25
, M. V., [David]{}, L. P., [Harnden]{}, F. R., & [Kearns]{}, K. 1995, , 2518, 304
[^1]: Some portions of the 2000 and 2002 [*XMM*]{}/PN observations were affected by a known processing problem that rejected significant portions of the observations; see <http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/sas/documentation/watchout/lost_events.shtml>. This should not introduce any systematic error, though it means that our TOAs for these observations are not as precise as possible with all events. However, since the present TOA uncertainties are smaller than the timing noise (§ \[sec:noise\]), we decided not to try to remedy this problem.
[^2]: From Fig. \[fig:resid\], it may appear that one could obtain a better fit by reducing the cycle count for the 1998 HRI point by one; however, doing that, the other [*ROSAT*]{} points cannot be reproduced any more.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'HD 61005, also known as “The Moth,” is one of only a handful of debris disks that exhibit swept-back “wings” thought to be caused by interaction with the ambient interstellar medium (ISM). We present 1.3mm Submillimeter Array (SMA) observations of the debris disk around HD 61005 at a spatial resolution of 19 that resolve the emission from large grains for the first time. The disk exhibits a double-peaked morphology at millimeter wavelengths, consistent with an optically thin ring viewed close to edge-on. To investigate the disk structure and the properties of the dust grains we simultaneously model the spatially resolved 1.3mm visibilities and the unresolved spectral energy distribution. The temperatures indicated by the SED are consistent with expected temperatures for grains close to the blowout size located at radii commensurate with the millimeter and scattered light data. We also perform a visibility-domain analysis of the spatial distribution of millimeter-wavelength flux, incorporating constraints on the disk geometry from scattered light imaging, and find suggestive evidence of wavelength-dependent structure. The millimeter-wavelength emission apparently originates predominantly from the thin ring component rather than tracing the “wings” observed in scattered light. The implied segregation of large dust grains in the ring is consistent with an ISM-driven origin for the scattered light wings.'
author:
- 'Angelo Ricarte, Noel Moldvai, A. Meredith Hughes, Gaspard Duchêne, Jonathan P. Williams, Sean M. Andrews, David J. Wilner'
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
title: Resolving The Moth at Millimeter Wavelengths
---
Introduction
============
{width="110.00000%"}
{width="135.00000%"}
{width="135.00000%"}
Debris disks around main sequence stars provide an indicator that planet formation has proceeded at least to the scale of planetesimals. All three directly imaged planetary systems to date [Fomalhaut, HR 8799, and $\beta$ Pictoris; @kal08; @mar08; @lag10] also host debris disks, and in two cases disk structure (eccentricity and warping) led to the prediction of at least one perturbing body in the system [e.g. @hea00; @bur95]. Investigations of debris disk structure are therefore an important facet in our understanding of extrasolar planetary systems. Millimeter-wavelength imaging plays an important role, since it provides access to a population of large dust grains that responds primarily to the gravitational dynamics of the system, rather than the radiation forces that sculpt the small grains that dominate optical and infrared observations [@wya06]. Multiwavelength observations of nearby systems have begun to reveal wavelength-dependent structure including extended haloes of small grains [e.g. @su09], often apparently generated by a much more radially confined ring of large parent bodies [@wil11; @wil12].
HD 61005 (also known as “The Moth”) is part of an intruiguing sample of debris disks with swept-back features believed to result from interactions with the ambient interstellar medium [the others are HD 32297 and HD 15115; @kal05; @deb08; @deb09; @rod12]. The disk has been imaged in scattered light both from the ground and in space, revealing a thin ring with a possible position offset from the central star and a symmetric pair of streamers originating from the ring ansae [@hin07; @man09; @bue10]. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the unusual morphology of these swept-back debris disks, including two distinct ISM-driven mechanisms that result in similar morphology despite the orthogonal directions they assume for stellar motion relative to the ambient medium [@man09; @deb09]. By contrast, @mar11 determine that the effects of the ISM are extremely sensitive to geometrical optical depth (which is directly proportional to the collision rate) and grain size, so that only the morphology of disks with low optical depths imaged at short wavelengths should be noticeably affected by interactions with the ISM. If the morphology persists for high optical depths or large grain sizes, then alternative mechanisms such as dynamical sculpting by an embedded planet should be considered. It is therefore desirable to image debris disks with swept-back structures at millimeter wavelengths, in order to determine the morphology of large grains in the system and thereby investigate the physical origins of the observed structure.
HD 61005 presents an attractive target for millimeter-wavelength imaging. Located in the local bubble [@fra90] at a distance of 34.5pc [@per97] and exhibiting a ring radius of 61AU [@hin07; @bue10], it spans spatial scales that are amenable to being resolved with an interferometer. It has the largest 24$\mu$m excess of all main sequence stars observed in the FEPS (Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems) legacy survey on the [ *Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope [@mey08], and a bright 350$\mu$m flux of 95$\pm$12mJy [@roc09], which predicts a substantial millimeter-wavelength flux for imaging. As a Solar analogue [spectral type G 3/5 V; @hil08] it is of particular interest for understanding the history of our own solar system at younger ages. Stellar age estimates have varied around 100Myr, but recent work suggests that it is likely a member of the Argus association [@des11]. Membership in the Argus association would lower its age to 40Myr, which is more consistent with its large 24$\mu$m excess.
Here we use interferometric millimeter-wavelength imaging with the Submillimeter Array (SMA) to investigate the wavelength-dependent structure of the disk around HD 61005. In Section \[sec:obs\], we present SMA observations at a wavelength of 1.3mm that resolve the structure of the large grain populations for the first time. We analyze the spectral energy distribution (SED) and interferometric visibilities simultaneously to study the spatial distribution and thermal properties of the grains in Section \[sec:analysis\]. In Section \[sec:discussion\] we discuss the implications of our observations in the context of proposed mechanisms for creating swept-back structures. In Section \[sec:conclusions\] we summarize the main results of our investigation and emphasize the value of future observations for providing insight into the underlying physical processes shaping the system.
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
HD 61005 was observed with the SMA for four nights between 2008 December and 2012 January. The basic observational parameters are listed in Table \[tab:obs\]. The first three nights of observation were carried out in the SMA’s compact configuration, while the final night was conducted in the extended configuration (see table for baseline lengths). Due to the southern declination of the source, the spatial resolution was generally finer in the east-west direction than the north-south direction. The weather was generally very good, with low 225GHz opacity, indicating high atmospheric transparency to millimeter-wavelength radiation, and stable atmospheric phase. The quasar J0747-331, located only 2.6$^\circ$ away from HD 61005, was used as the gain calibrator for all four tracks to correct for atmospheric and instrumental variations in amplitude and phase; the derived flux for the quasar is listed in the final column of Table \[tab:obs\]. Observations of the gain calibrator and source were interleaved with the quasar J0826-225, which was used to test the efficacy of the phase transfer. Bandpass calibration was carried out using a bright quasar (3c84, 3c273, or 3c454.3). The absolute flux scale was set using solar system objects (specified for each track in Table \[tab:obs\]); we assume a standard (but conservative) 20% systematic flux uncertainty due to uncertainties in the flux models for these objects. The correlator was configured to maximize continuum sensitivity by utilizing the largest available bandwidth. The total bandwidth in the 2008 track is 2GHz per sideband, with a sideband separation of $\pm$5GHz from the local oscillator (LO) frequency listed in the table. The bandwidth was upgraded to 4GHz per sideband for the three subsequent tracks. Routine calibration tasks were carried out using the MIR software package[^1], and imaging and deconvolution were accomplished with MIRIAD.
\[tab:obs\]
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We detect the disk around HD 61005 independently on all four nights. The combined map and visibilities are displayed in Figure \[plot:Image\]. The disk is strongly detected, with a peak signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$8 in two separate beams. An appropriate shift to the visibilities has been applied to each data set to account for the proper motion of the star [-56 and 75masyr$^{-1}$ in $\alpha$ and $\delta$, respectively; @lee07]. The centroid of the millimeter-wavelength emission is consistent to within the uncertainties with the expected J2000 position of the star ($\alpha$ = $7^{h}35^{m}47.462^{s}$, $\delta$ = $-32^{\circ}12^{\prime}14.043^{\prime\prime}$).
The IR excess from the literature suggests that the disk is optically thin, and the double-peaked structure we observe is consistent with the expected morphology for a highly-inclined disk with a central cavity. While the structure is clearly not well described by a Gaussian, we estimate some basic structural parameters by fitting an elliptical Gaussian to the visibilities using the MIRIAD task `uvfit`. The fit yields a major axis of 44$\pm$06 (150$\pm$20AU) and a minor axis of 003$\pm$06 (0.1$\pm$20AU), implying that the disk is spatially resolved along the major axis but not along the minor axis. The position angle is $71^\circ \pm 5^\circ$, consistent with the value obtained from scattered light imaging, $70.3^\circ$ with a $\sim$$1^{\circ}$ uncertainty [@bue10]. The integrated flux estimated from the elliptical Gaussian fit is 7.9$\pm$0.7mJy, although a far more reliable value will be obtained in the MCMC analysis in Section \[sec:MCMC\]. @bue10 also report that the center of the ring is offset from the star along the major axis by 2.75$\pm$0.85 AU toward the SW peak. We measure the offset of the center of the Gaussian compared to the star’s position, corrected for proper motion. The centroid of the Gaussian is consistent with the star position to within $\pm$7AU; the uncertainties are too large to confirm the offset observed in scattered light by @bue10.
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
To determine both the geometric properties of the disk and thermal properties of the constituent dust we simultaneously model the Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) and the resolved 1.3mm visibilities (Section \[sec:sed\]). The best fit models are obtained from Markov Chain Monte Carlo fitting (Section \[sec:MCMC\]). We begin by fitting a geometrically thin ring, motivated by the observed scattered light morphology. To place the results of MCMC fitting in context, we then investigate the effects of the assumed dust properties (Section \[sec:temp\]) and ring width (Section \[Sec:Width\]). We also conduct a visibility-domain comparison of the millimeter-wavelength emission with the known scattered light morphology to investigate the relative spatial distribution of small and large grains (Section \[sec:wings\]).
Disk Model {#sec:sed}
----------
As shown in Figure \[plot:SED\_mcmc1119\], we model the SED with three components: (1) a Kurucz-Lejeune model photosphere with surface gravity log $g$ = 4.5, effective temperature $T_{eff}$ = 5500 K, and solar metallicity Z = 0.01 [@des11], (2) a cold, spatially-resolved outer debris disk, and (3) a warm inner dust belt modeled as a single-temperature blackbody. The addition of the belt is necessary to increase the flux around 20 microns, where neither the star nor the disk contribute enough flux to account for observations. The short-wavelength excess that we attribute to the presence of an inner belt could equally arise from hot emission from a population of grains smaller than the characteristic grain size in our model; however, the data at this point are insufficient to distinguish between the two scenarios. Accordingly, the properties of the warm belt are not well constrained, since it only produces a substantial contribution to the total flux over very small portion of the observed range of wavelengths, so for simplicity we allow only the mass of the belt to vary, and parameterize it as a narrow ring of 100K dust (we also demonstrate below that our results are not sensitive to the assumed temperature). The cold disk, which we model as a spatially extended component, contributes essentially all of the flux at 1.3mm; in our best fit, the warm dust belt contributes only 0.36 mJy to the total flux at this wavelength, a factor of 20 less than that of the extended component. This modeling procedure is similar to that presented in @hug11, with the primary difference being the use of astrosilicate opacities to determine grain temperatures. We briefly describe the salient features of the model below.
Each disk model is determined by 6 free parameters: the inner radius of the disk ($R_{in}$), the characteristic grain size ($a$), the disk mass ($M_D$), the grain emissivity parameter ($\beta$), the belt mass ($M_B$), and the width of the disk ($w$). In our initial fitting efforts, we fix the width of the disk $w$ to a small, constant fraction of 5% of $R_{in}$ to match the scattered light morphology (although this assumption is relaxed in Section \[Sec:Width\] below). $R_{in}$ is mostly constrained by the visibilities, but it also has an effect on the equilibrium temperature of the dust grains, which directly affects the peak flux and wavelength of the SED. The grain size, $a$, determines the temperature of the grains. In reality the disk most likely has a broad distribution of grain sizes, however assumption of a single characteristic grain size is sufficient to reproduce the observed SED while minimizing computational requirements. $M_D$ is essentially a luminosity scaling factor for the disk SED, just as $M_B$ scales the flux of the belt. Finally, $\beta$ determines the slope of the Rayleigh-Jeans tail. In accordance with @wil04, we assume a dust grain emission efficiency $Q_\lambda = 1 - \exp[-(\lambda/\lambda_0)^{-\beta}]$, where $\lambda_0 = 2 \pi a$ is the critical wavelength. This function has the desired asymptotic properties that $Q_\lambda \approx (\lambda
/ \lambda_0)^{-\beta}$ when $ \lambda >> \lambda_0$, and $Q_\lambda
\approx 1$ when $\lambda << \lambda_0$. This parametrization of $Q$ does [*not*]{} factor into our calculation of the grains’ temperature, however. It is required to ensure smooth long-wavelength emission in the SED by mimicking the effect of a grain size distribution, since grains at the characteristic grain size are extremely inefficient emitters at $\lambda >> a$.
In order to determine the temperature of a grain of a given size and distance from the star, we assume that the dust composition is compact astrosilicates [@dra03] and obtain the grains’ opacity, $\kappa_{tot} (a,\lambda)$, and albedo, $\omega (a,\lambda)$, using Mie theory [see, e.g. @boh83] as implemented in the radiative transfer code MCFOST [@pin06; @pin09]. We then derive the appropriate grain temperature from energy balance. As written in @tie05, the energy emitted per unit time from the grain can be expressed: $$\Gamma_{out} = 4 \pi \cdot \pi a^2 \cdot \int_{0}^{\infty} Q(a,\lambda) B(T,\lambda) d\lambda$$ where $Q(a,\lambda)$ represents the fraction of emission at wavelength $\lambda$, and $B(T,\lambda)$ is the grains’ Planck function. Similarly, the power absorbed from the star can be written: $$\Gamma_{in} = \pi a^2 \cdot \int_0^{\infty} Q(a,\lambda)F_{\lambda}(r,\lambda) d\lambda$$ where $F_{\lambda}$ is determined from our Kurucz-Lejeune model of the stellar photosphere, $a$ is the grain size, and $r$ is the distance from the star to the grain. Rather than using the simplistic parametrization of $Q$ mentioned above to determine the flux density of the Rayleigh-Jeans tail, we obtain $Q(a,\lambda)$ from $\kappa_{tot} (a,\lambda)$ and $\omega (a,\lambda)$. Assuming spherical grains, the absorption efficiency is: $$Q(a,\lambda) = \frac{4}{3} \kappa_{tot}(a,\lambda) \rho a (1-\omega(a,\lambda))$$ where $\rho$ is the mass density of a single grain.Setting $\Gamma_{in} = \Gamma_{out}$, we arrive at: $$\frac{1}{4\pi} \int_0^{\infty} Q(a,\lambda)F_{\lambda}(r,\lambda) d\lambda = \int_{0}^{\infty} Q(a,\lambda)B(T,\lambda)d\lambda \label{Temperature_Integral}$$ By numerically evaluating each integral in Equation \[Temperature\_Integral\], we obtain the temperature of a given grain. In order to do so, we generate a lookup table of these integrals. The integral on the left is tabulated as a function of $a$ and calculated at a radius of 50 AU; to determine the values of this integral at different radii, we scale these values by $1/r^2$. The second integral is tabulated as a function of both $a$ and $T$. $a$ is sampled from $0.1$ to $3000$ microns with about 3 sizes per decade (in log space), and $T$ is sampled from $0$ to $1000$ K with a step size of 1 K. The associated wavelengths in our lists of $\kappa_{tot}(a,\lambda)$ and $\omega(a,\lambda)$ span from $10^{-5}$ to $3\times10^{-1}$cm, sampled in logarithmic intervals of 0.05.
The surface number density of grains, $N(r)$, is related to the surface mass density as $\Sigma (r) = N(r) m_g$, where $m_g$ is the mass of a grain, which we assume is spherical. We assume a density of 2.7gcm$^{-3}$, which is a compromise between typical bulk densities measured for cometary and interplanetary dust particles and terrestrial materials typically assumed to comprise astronomical graphite or silicate grains [see, e.g., @dra84; @bro06; @blu08]. We then parameterize $\Sigma (r) = \Sigma_{100}(\frac{r}{100 \mathrm{ AU}})^{-p}$, where $p$ is the surface density power law, which we fix at a value of 1 (this value is consistent with both the radial falloff of surface brightness in the region of the AU Mic birth ring postulated as the birth ring in @str06, as well as a typical value for bright protoplanetary disks measured by @and09). There is a well-known degeneracy between $p$ and the outer radius, and our data are not of sufficiently high quality to distinguish between these variables; see, e.g., discussion in @mun96. We integrate flux contributions between the inner and outer radius, yielding: $$F_\lambda = \frac{\pi a^2 Q(\lambda)}{d^2} \int_{R_{in}}^{R_{out}} 2 \pi r B_\lambda (T_r) N(r) dr$$
At the observed wavelength of 1.3mm, we use the equations above to generate a high-resolution synthetic image of the disk. As is evident in Figure \[plot:SED\_mcmc1119\], the star and the 100K dust belt do not contribute significant flux at the wavelength of the SMA observations, and are hence absent from the model image. To generate this image, we assume an inclination angle of $84.3^\circ$ and a position angle of $70.3^\circ$ derived from the higher-resolution scattered light images [@bue10], and project the flux onto the sky plane. We then utilize the MIRIAD task `uvmodel` in order to sample the model image at the same spatial frequencies as the SMA data and compare the data and model in the visibility domain.
MCMC Fitting \[sec:MCMC\]
-------------------------
In order to compare the model with the SED and visibilities, we compute a $\chi^2$ value for each and sum the two. As discussed in @and09, these two values of $\chi^2$ are comparably sensitive to changes in the disk parameters (the large numbers of visibilities are balanced by the low fractional uncertainty on the SED points), causing neither to dominate the total $\chi^2$ and thus the final fit. We omit the SMA 1300$\mu$m flux from the SED $\chi^2$ calculation since it is implicitly included in the visibility $\chi^2$. In order to locate the best fit and determine constraints on each parameter, we utilize the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fitting technique described in @goo10, an affine-invariant ensemble sampler which performs well when parameters are correlated. The SED includes the observed fluxes listed in Table \[table:Fluxes\]. Only the points with wavelengths beyond 10 $\mu$m are affected by the parameters of the model disk, and therefore we include only these values in the computation of $\chi^2$.
\[ht\]
$\lambda$ ($\mu m$) Flux (Jy) Source
--------------------- ------------------- --------------------- --
0.436 $1.04 \pm 0.02$ Tycho-2 [@hog00]
0.545 $1.82 \pm 0.02$ Tycho-2 [@hog00]
1.220 $2.77 \pm 0.07$ 2MASS [@cut03]
1.630 $2.39 \pm 0.10$ 2MASS [@cut03]
2.190 $1.71 \pm 0.04$ 2MASS [@cut03]
3.6 $0.75 \pm 0.02$ FEPS [@hil08]
4.5 $0.47 \pm 0.01$ FEPS [@hil08]
8 $0.17 \pm 0.004$ FEPS [@hil08]
13 $0.062 \pm 0.004$ FEPS [@hil08]
16 $0.049 \pm 0.003$ Spitzer IRS Archive
22 $0.045 \pm 0.004$ Spitzer IRS Archive
24 $0.041 \pm 0.002$ FEPS [@hil08]
33 $0.11 \pm 0.007$ FEPS [@hil08]
70 $0.63 \pm 0.05$ FEPS [@hil08]
160 $0.50 \pm 0.16$ FEPS [@hil08]
350 $0.095 \pm .012$ CSO [@roc09]
: Observed Flux Points for HD 61005\[table:Fluxes\]
After experimentation with the initial values of the ensemble, we find that the ensemble consistently converges to the same region in the parameter space independent of the initial parameter values. For all subsequent runs, we fix the initial values of the chain to the values of a reasonably good fit: $R_{in} = 68$ AU, $\log(a [\mu m]) = 0.5$, $\log(M_D [M_\oplus]) = -2.7$, $\beta = 0.5$, $\log(M_B [M_\oplus]) = -6.0$. Trial states for $R_{in}$ and $\beta$ are generated in linear space, while states for $a$, $M_D$, and $M_B$ are generated in logarithmic space. The widths of the Gaussians determining trial states for each parameter are set to 2 AU for $R_{in}$, 0.05 for log($a$), 0.1 for log($M_D$), 0.01 for $\beta$, and 0.05 for log($M_B$), which we found were the approximate uncertainties in these parameters. We run $100$ “walkers” through $800$ trials each, and after rejecting the “burn-in" phase (the region in which the average $\chi ^2$ decreases with time before settling) which constitutes the first $\sim 200$ trials, we then determine the best-fit model and generate probability distributions for each of the parameters.
Best fit parameters for the five free parameters are listed in the left column of Table \[table:BestFitParameters\]. Figure \[plot:histo\_mcmc1119.eps\] displays probability density functions generated by the models of the chain, as well as the locations of the best fit parameters, defined as the mode of the probability distributions. Figure \[plot:Model\_Image.eps\] displays the best fit model image, as well as its residuals. For this best fit, we obtain a total flux of $7.2 \pm 0.3$ mJy (with an additional estimated 20% systematic uncertainty). For this value, and the values in Table \[table:BestFitParameters\], the uncertainty is determined from the posterior PDF of the ensemble as the width in parameter space which encloses 68.2% (1 $\sigma$) of the models, which we found to be symmetric about the best fit. For each of these models, the reduced $\chi^2$ is equal to $1.85$.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\hspace{-35pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f4a.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f4b.eps}
\end{array}$
\[h!\]
Parameter Best-Fit Model For $T_B = 80$K For $w = 65$AU
------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$R_{in}$ (AU) 67 $\pm$ 2 67$\pm$ 2 71$^a$ $\pm$ 3
$\log(a\ [\mu \rm{m}])$ 0.38 $\pm$ 0.07 0.44 $\pm$ 0.09 0.33 $\pm$ 0.09
$\log(M_D\ [M_\oplus])$ $-2.92 \pm 0.13$ $-2.92 \pm 0.17$ $-2.91 \pm 0.16$
$\beta$ 0.43 $\pm$ 0.05 0.40 $\pm$ 0.06 0.41 $\pm$ 0.06
$\log(M_B\ [M_\oplus])$ $-5.93 \pm 0.06$ $-5.23 \pm 0.06$ $-5.97 \pm 0.08$
Total $\chi^2$ $456103.228$ $456107.180$ $456107.413$
: The best fit parameters for HD 61005. \[table:BestFitParameters\]
There are known degeneracies in this fitting process. Since we parameterized the disk with a single characteristic grain size, for a given value of $M_D$, increasing $a$ decreases the number of blackbody emitters and decreases their temperature, which therefore decreases the total flux. Hence, $M_D$ must increase in accordance with $a$ in order to maintain the observed flux. $\beta$ is less strongly correlated with $a$, but the degeneracy occurs because as $a$ increases, the peak wavelength in the SED also increases as the grain temperature decreases. Since $\beta$ affects the slope of the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the SED, it must increase along with the position of the peak in order to obtain a steeper slope. If we were fitting for the SED alone, we would also expect $R_{in}$ to exhibit a similarly strong degeneracy, since higher temperatures and therefore fluxes could be obtained both by bringing the grains closer to the star and by shrinking the grains. However, the inner radius is well-constrained by our spatially resolved data, so there is only a mild correlation between $R_{in}$ and $a$, as shown in Figure \[plot:Contour\].
It is also necessary to check that the underlying assumptions of our model do not bias these results. In Sections \[sec:temp\] and \[Sec:Width\] we investigate the robustness of the best-fit results to perturbations in our assumptions about belt temperature and ring width. Finally, it is important to consider our results in the context of the scattered light morphology. The ring radius we derive is consistent with the radius reported from scattered light observations [61.25$\pm$0.85AU; @bue10], differing by 2.6$\sigma$. This result hints at wavelength-dependent structure, in the sense that if the millimeter emission traced the scattered light precisely, the ring radius should be noticeably larger to reflect the contribution from the scattered light wings. To quantify the spatial distribution of the millimeter-wavelength emission, we perform a visibility-domain analysis of the millimeter morphology in Section \[sec:wings\], using a toy model that incorporates constraints from the scattered light emission to decompose the emission into ring and streamer components.
### Effect of Assumed Belt Temperature \[sec:temp\]
As discussed above, a simple single grain size fit to the data is incapable of reproducing the short-wavelength flux in the IRS spectrum. This additional flux necessitates either a population of hot grains substantially smaller than the characteristic grain size (and therefore substantially smaller than the blowout size for this system), or the addition of an inner warm dust belt. While there are very few data to constrain belt properties, we conducted a brief exploration of the effect of our assumed 100 K belt temperature on the derived disk parameters by running a separate MCMC chain with the temperature of the inner belt set to 80 K rather than 100 K. The center column of Table \[table:BestFitParameters\] displays the results of the best fit.
The only noticeable change occurs in $M_B$, which increases to compensate for the decreased temperature. The visibilities fix $R_{in}$, the SED peak fixes $a$ and $M_D$, and the slope of the Wien tail fixes $\beta$. This model fit deviates in quality of fit from the 100K model only by 0.6$\sigma$. The available data are therefore evidently not sufficient to strongly constrain the temperature of the warm belt, but this confirms the robustness of our analysis of the outer, cold debris disk, independent of the assumed belt temperature.
### Effect of Disk Width \[Sec:Width\]
While the data are consistent with a narrow ring centered at the radius of the scattered light ring, we also investigate a scenario in which the width is fixed to 65AU to determine whether the millimeter data can constrain the width of the ring. This value was chosen so that $w / R \sim 1$. The right column of Table \[table:BestFitParameters\] displays the results.
The best-fit broad belt has a central radius of 71 $\pm$ 3 AU from the star (although due to the falloff of surface density with radius, more of the emission is concentrated closer to the star), which is consistent with the radius of the narrow ring fit within 2 sigma. This model differs in quality of fit from the best-fit narrow ring model only by 0.6$\sigma$. Our spatial resolution – nominally $\sim$80AU with natural weighting, but including shorter baselines that provide information on smaller spatial scales – is therefore evidently not sufficient to distinguish between a wide and a narrow millimeter belt, although it is notable that in both the wide and narrow disk fit, the disk is centered on the location of the scattered light ring to within the uncertainties.
Are there Large Grains in the Streamers? {#sec:wings}
----------------------------------------
The swept-back “wings" are the most remarkable features of the debris disk around HD 61005. Particularly prominent in scattered light, they contribute slightly more than half the flux at short wavelengths. While most theoretical interpretations of the streamers focus on dynamics of small grains, large grains that dominate millimeter maps are far better tracers of gravitational dynamics and are therefore useful in distinguishing between mechanisms that might sculpt this striking morphology. The relative contribution of the flux at infrared and millimeter wavelengths provides insight into the grain size distribution in the wings and the streamers.
Since this is a purely geometric problem and we cannot reliably distinguish between SED contributions from the disk and the streamers, we perform the analysis on the visibilities only. We therefore depart from the analysis strategy of Section \[sec:sed\] and instead use a toy model that incorporates constraints on the disk structure from the observed scattered light morphology. Unlike the MCMC analysis in Section \[sec:MCMC\] above, we fix as many parameters as possible to match the scattered light. To maintain consistency with @bue10, we fix the inner radius of the disk to 61.25AU and the width to the original narrow value. We set the angle that the streamers make with the plane of the disk to $23^\circ$, and set the flux density power law to that observed in scattered light: $F \propto r^{-4.4}$ [@bue10].
We compute a grid that varies the total flux in the image and the streamer contribution. For each value of the streamer contribution between zero and one, we search for the value of the total flux between 5 and 9 mJy that minimizes the $\chi^2$ value between the data and model. Each of these ranges of parameters was divided into 50 steps, such that the streamer contribution was explored with a step size of 2%, while the total flux was explored with a step size of 0.08 mJy. We then calculate the statistical deviation of each model from the global minimum. Figure \[plot:Streamergrid\] displays the results. The deviation from the global minimum $\chi^2$ value, expressed as the number of standard deviations corresponding to the probability with which the model is a worse fit than the global best-fit value, is plotted against the percentage of the total flux in the image that originates in the streamers (with the remainder of the flux originating from the ring). The observed streamer contribution from the scattered light data is indicated by a vertical red line. The results demonstrate that a scenario in which the millimeter emission traces the morphology of the scattered light, including the swept-back wings, is ruled out at the 4$\sigma$ level. The data are of insufficient quality to draw fine distinctions about whether some smaller fraction of the millimeter flux might originate from the streamers, but they are certainly consistent with a scenario in which the large grains responsible for the 1.3mm emission are confined exclusively to the scattered light ring. The implications of this result will be discussed in more detail in Section \[sec:structure\] below.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hspace{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{f5a.eps} &
\hspace{-25pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{f5b.eps} &
\hspace{-25pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{f5c.eps}
\end{array}$
Dust Grain Properties {#sec:dust}
---------------------
The best-fit grain size in the fiducial model is $a$=2.4$\mu$m. This value is somewhat smaller than for other debris disks analyzed using similar methods [see, e.g., @wil04; @hug11]; the relatively small grain size reflects the high temperatures indicated by the peak wavelength of the SED, which is inconsistent with blackbody equilibrium temperature at the radii indicated by the millimeter and scattered light images. The blow-out grain size for HD 61005 due to radiation pressure is roughly 1$\mu$m, estimated using the relationship $a_\mathrm{blowout} = 3L_*/16\pi G M_* c \rho$, where $L_*$ is the stellar luminosity, $M_*$ is the mass of the star, $c$ is the speed of light, and $\rho$ is the density of a dust grain. This relationship results from balancing the radiation pressure force against the gravitational force for a particle on a circular orbit (which is a factor of two easier to remove from the potential well than a stationary dust grain), including a factor of 0.5 to estimate the effects of a realistic albedo and radiative efficiency of a silicate dust grain [@bac93].
It is clear from the ensemble of models in our fitting process that the small grain size primarily reflects the need for the grains to attain a temperature high enough to match the peak wavelength of emission while being located in a ring roughly 60-70AU from the central star. A simple estimate of dust temperature using Wien’s Law and the approximate peak wavelength of the blackbody predicts a dust temperature of about 43K, while the temperature predicted by Equation \[Temperature\_Integral\] is 50K for grains with the best-fit size and emission efficiency. As a sanity check, we performed a “chi-by-eye” fit to the SED using a complete radiative transfer code with a realistic grain size distribution [MCFOST; @pin06; @pin09]. We obtained a reasonable fit with a minimum grain size of 2.5$\mu$m. The ring is assumed to extend from 60 to 63 AU, with a surface density power law index $p$=0.5 and a total mass in dust of $3.3\times10^{-4}$ M$_\earth$. The assumed dust composition is compact astrophysical silicates [@dra03], with a distribution spanning the 2.5$\mu$m–1cm range and a -3.5 power law index appropriate for a collisional cascade. However, we did not pursue MCMC minimization with this code due to the computational intensity of the task. We mention it here only to indicate that it is possible to reproduce the SED (although not the near-IR excess that we attribute to the warm belt) with a realistic grain size distribution that includes only grains larger than the blowout size.
It is also worth noting that SED modeling has been notoriously difficult due to the complexity of the system. Previous SED models using single-blackbody fits have resulted in disk radius estimates between 16 [@hin07] and 96AU [@roc09], depending on the method and assumed grain properties, while a slightly more complex extended disk model by @hil08 predicted a disk that stretches between radii of 8.6 and 41AU. To some extent the small radii indicate the presence of hot dust close to the star, which we model as an unresolved 100K blackbody. It would be difficult to reproduce this short-wavelength excess emission using only small dust grains, since the maximum temperature of astrosilicate grains at the radius of the scattered light ring is 70K, and furthermore very small grains are ruled out by the lack of solid state features in the [*Spitzer*]{} IRS spectrum. However, the resolved observations confirm that even the outer belt is significantly hotter than its blackbody equilibrium temperature. As discussed by @boo12, this mismatch in sizes is typical of the effort to deduce debris disk sizes from SED fitting; in the particular case of HD 61005, increasing the porosity of the grains could help account for the high temperatures indicated by the SED. It is also interesting to note that some polarimetric observations of debris disks seem to require high grain porosity to explain the observed properties of the scattered light [e.g., @gra07].
Comparison of Millimeter and Scattered Light Morphology {#sec:structure}
-------------------------------------------------------
When considering the morphology of the millimeter-wavelength emission, the most salient question is how it compares with the structure observed in scattered light. Based on the ISM-driven mechanism for creating the swept-back wings of the Moth [@man09; @deb09] and the size-dependent response of dust grains to such a mechanism [@mar11], we expect that the millimeter grains would be confined to the thin parent-body ring at 61AU radius and absent from the swept-back features. Indeed, the analysis in Section \[sec:wings\] demonstrates that a scenario in which the millimeter emission traces the morphology of the scattered light wings is ruled out at the 4$\sigma$ level. While this analysis is rudimentary, it is certainly suggestive that we are observing wavelength-dependent structure. The small grains responsible for scattered light appear to form the bulk of the material in the streamers, while the larger grains that dominate the 1.3mm emission are confined primarily to the narrow ring observed in scattered light.
Due to the relatively low signal-to-noise of the SMA observations we are as yet unable to decisively rule out an alternative scenario, in which millimeter grains at least to some extent trace the spectacular scattered light wings. If some of the emission from large grains does in fact originate from the wings, it would provide an indication that large grains are perturbed (to a lesser extent) by the same mechanism that is responsible for the swept-back structure observed in scattered light. Given the theoretical work by @mar11 indicating that large grains should remain unperturbed by ISM interactions, this would suggest that an alternative mechanism is responsible for the wings of the Moth. An eccentric perturber – for example, an unseen planet embedded in the disk – may also be capable of breaking the symmetry or the disk and causing the bowl-shaped appearance of the scattered light (M. Fitzgerald, in prep). Secular interactions can cause grains to acquire both a forced eccentricity [@wya99] and inclination, the magnitude of which is dependent on the ratio $\beta$ of radiation pressure to gravity. Larger grains should therefore exhibit less extreme swept-back structure, although the offset of the disk center from the star position should persist at millimeter wavelengths. Higher-resolution observations of the millimeter emission would therefore be advantageous in order to further disambiguate the physical processes shaping the disk.
The somewhat ambiguous morphology of the millimeter-wavelength emission should be considered in the context of hints that the HD 61005 system may host at least one planet. The system has been considered from several different planet-related perspectives. @set08 included HD 61005 in an RV search for planetary companions around nearby young star, but report that the observed variability is consistent with stellar activity rather than planets; however, the length of the survey does not appear to be sufficient to detect planets orbiting at tens of AU from the central star. @wat11 include HD 61005 in a sample of debris disks with known viewing geometries, for which they estimate the inclination of the stellar rotation to the line of sight and search for evidence of misalignment. They find that debris disks, including HD 61005, are generally well aligned with the rotation axes of their host stars. The @bue10 scattered light study indicates that the ring is offset from the star position by at least 2.75$\pm$0.85AU (in projection onto the sky plane, along the major axis only), indicative of eccentricity. They also note a pronounced brightness asymmetry between the NE and SW components of the ring that is almost certainly due to density enhancements. The upper limit on companion mass in the LOCI image is below the deuterium-burning limit, varying between roughly 3 and 6M$_\mathrm{Jup}$ between the inner working angle and the ring radius. It is not yet clear whether the position offset and density enhancements could be caused by a planet, or whether they could be caused by the same ISM interaction that might be producing the streamers. However, the 1.6$\mu$m wavelength of the VLT observations presented in @bue10 approaches the grain population discussed in @mar11, which is too large to be effectively sculpted by the ISM. The near-IR eccentricity and asymmetric density distributions are suggestive that a mechanism other than the ISM, possibly including planets, may be needed to explain all the observed features of the system. However, it should be emphasized that the millimeter emission alone is so far fully consistent with an ISM-sculpted disk morphology.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
We have spatially resolved the dust continuum emission from the debris disk around HD 61005 at a wavelength of 1.3mm. We observe a double-peaked structure consistent with an optically thin disk viewed close to edge-on. A simultaneous analysis of the spectral energy distribution and millimeter-wavelength visibilities demonstrates that the dust is hotter than the expected blackbody equilibrium temperature given the relatively large radial extent of the ring resolved in scattered light and millimeter continuum emission. This is indicative of the presence of a substantial quantity of small grains, some of which are likely close to the blow-out size.
We also investigate the morphology of the millimeter-wavelength emission, particularly in comparison with the scattered light observations. Our MCMC analysis suggests that the millimeter emission arises from roughly the same stellocentric distance as the thin ring observed in scattered light. This is confirmed by a visibility-domain analysis of the millimeter emission compared with a toy model based on the observed features of the scattered light emission. In the context of our toy model, a scenario in which the millimeter morphology traces the scattered light flux distribution is ruled out at the 4$\sigma$ level. This result is suggestive of wavelength-dependent structure, in which the large grains remain in the parent body ring, while small grains are preferentially affected by the perturbation responsible for sculpting the scattered light wings. Such grain size segregation is consistent with theoretical expectations for an ISM-sculpted disk. The sensitivity and resolution of current observations is insufficient to provide a firm conclusion on the detailed morphology of the millimeter emission; hence these results remain merely suggestive. However, these investigations pave the way for more sensitive future observations, for example with the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) currently nearing the end of its construction phase, and ripe to contribute to this exciting field.
We thank Holly Maness, who obtained the early data sets used in this paper and established detection. We are also grateful to Esther Buenzli for kindly providing her LOCI image used in Figure \[plot:Image\]. A.M.H. is supported by a fellowship from the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science.
[^1]: See http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/$\sim$cqi/mircook.html.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
\
**Key Words:** Implicit Large Eddy Simulation, Turbulence, Discontinuous Galerkin, Moving Mesh, Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian Approach, De-aliasing, Kinetic Energy Dissipative Methods, Entropy Stable Methods\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
height 1.5pt
author:
- '[Nico Krais[^1], Gero Schnücke[^2], Thomas Bolemann[^3] and Gregor J. Gassner [^4]]{}'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'Split form ALE discontinuous Galerkin methods with applications to under-resolved turbulent low-Mach number flows'
---
=cmr12 at 10pt
Introduction {#sec:Int}
============
The Navier Stokes equations (NSE) in three dimensions {#NSE}
=====================================================
Discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method (DGSEM) {#Sec:DGSEMNSE}
======================================================
Numerical results {#sec:numResults}
=================
The proposed split form ALE DGSEM is implemented in the open source high order DG solver FLEXI[^5] [@krais2019flexi]. It provides the necessary framework for the implementation of different split forms for high order unstructured meshes, was successfully applied to under-resolved simulations in fluid dynamics before [@beck2014high; @flad2016simulation] and shows excellent scaling properties, making it a suitable choice for large-scale simulations, as presented in the next chapter.
Experimental convergence rates
------------------------------
Numerical validation of the entropy and kinetic energy analysis {#EC_KEP_Test}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simulation of transitional flow past a plunging airfoil {#Sim_P_Air}
=======================================================
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Gero Schnücke and Gregor Gassner are supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Eights Framework Program Horizon 2020 with the research project Extreme, ERC grant agreement no. 714487. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and the computing time on “Hazel Hen” provided by the HLRS through the project “hpcdg”.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
[^1]: Inst. of Aerodynamics and Gas Dynamics (IAG), University of Stuttgart, Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Dep. for Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Cologne, Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Inst. of Aerodynamics and Gas Dynamics (IAG), University of Stuttgart, Email: [email protected]
[^4]: Dep. for Mathematics/Computer Science; Center for Data and Simulation Science, University of Cologne, Email: [email protected]
[^5]: http://www.flexi-project.org
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'After having announced the statistically significant observation (5.6 $\sigma$) of the new exotic $\pi K$ atom, the DIRAC experiment at the CERN proton synchrotron presents the measurement of the corresponding atom lifetime, based on the full $\pi K$ data sample: $\tau = (5.5^{+5.0}_{-2.8}) \cdot 10^{-15}s$. By means of a precise relation ($<1\%$) between atom lifetime and scattering length, the following value for the S-wave isospin-odd $\pi K$ scattering length $a_0^{-}~=~\frac{1}{3}(a_{1/2}-a_{3/2})$ has been derived: $\left|a_0^-\right| = (0.072^{+0.031}_{-0.020}) M_{\pi}^{-1}$.'
author:
- 'B. Adeva'
- 'L. Afanasyev'
- 'Y. Allkofer'
- 'C. Amsler'
- 'A. Anania'
- 'S. Aogaki'
- 'A. Benelli'
- 'V. Brekhovskikh'
- 'T. Cechak'
- 'M. Chiba'
- 'P. Chliapnikov'
- 'D. Drijard'
- 'A. Dudarev'
- 'D. Dumitriu'
- 'P. Federicova'
- 'D. Fluerasu'
- 'A. Gorin'
- 'O. Gorchakov'
- 'K. Gritsay'
- 'C. Guaraldo'
- 'M. Gugiu'
- 'M. Hansroul'
- 'Z. Hons'
- 'S. Horikawa'
- 'Y. Iwashita'
- 'V. Karpukhin'
- 'J. Kluson'
- 'M. Kobayashi'
- 'V. Kruglov'
- 'L. Kruglova'
- 'A. Kulikov'
- 'E. Kulish'
- 'A. Kuptsov'
- 'A. Lamberto'
- 'A. Lanaro'
- 'R. Lednicky'
- 'C. Mariñas'
- 'J. Martincik'
- 'L. Nemenov'
- 'M. Nikitin'
- 'K. Okada'
- 'V. Olchevskii'
- 'M. Pentia'
- 'A. Penzo'
- 'M. Plo'
- 'P. Prusa'
- 'G. Rappazzo'
- 'A. Romero Vidal'
- 'A. Ryazantsev'
- 'V. Rykalin'
- 'J. Saborido'
- 'J. Schacher'
- 'A. Sidorov'
- 'J. Smolik'
- 'F. Takeutchi'
- 'L. Tauscher'
- 'T. Trojek'
- 'S. Trusov'
- 'T. Urban'
- 'T. Vrba'
- 'V. Yazkov'
- 'Y. Yoshimura'
- 'M. Zhabitsky'
- 'P. Zrelov'
title: 'Measurement of the $\pi K$ atom lifetime and the $\pi K$ scattering length'
---
Introduction
============
In 2007, the DIRAC collaboration enlarged the scope of the dimesonic atom investigation by starting to search for the strange pion-kaon ($\pi K$) atom. In addition to the ongoing study of $\pi\pi$ atoms, the DIRAC experiment at the CERN proton synchrotron (CERN PS) also collected data containing a kaon beside a pion in the final state. Using all the data since 2007 and optimizing data handling and analysis, the observation of the $\pi K$ atom could be achieved for the first time with a significance of more than 5 standard deviations [@ADEV16]. On the basis of the same data sample, this paper presents the resulting $\pi K$ atom lifetime and the corresponding $\pi K$ scattering length.
Using non-perturbative lattice QCD (LQCD), chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) and dispersive analysis, the S-wave $\pi\pi$ and $\pi K$ scattering lengths were calculated. S-wave $\pi\pi$ scattering lengths as described in QCD exploiting chiral $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ symmetry breaking were confirmed experimentally at a level of about 4% [@BATE09; @BATE10; @ADEV11]. These measurements - independently of their accuracy - cannot test QCD predictions in the strange sector based on chiral $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ symmetry breaking. However, this check can be done by investigating $\pi K$ scattering lengths, where the s quark is involved.
The lifetime of the hydrogen-like $\pi K$ atom $A_{K \pi}$ or $A_{\pi K}$, consisting of $\pi^- K^+$ or $\pi^+ K^-$ mesons, is given by the S-wave $\pi K$ scattering length difference $|a_{1/ 2}-a_{3/2}|$, where $a_I$ is the scattering length for isospin $I$ [@BILE69]. This atom is an electromagnetically bound state of $\pi^\mp$ and $K^\pm$ mesons with a Bohr radius of $a_{B}=249$ fm and a ground state Coulomb binding energy of $E_{B}=2.9$ keV. It decays predominantly[^1] by strong interaction into the neutral meson pair $\pi^0 K^0$ or $\pi^0 \overline{K}^0$ (Fig. \[fig:piK\]).
![The dominant decay channel of the $\pi K$ atom. The wavy lines indicate Coulomb photons. []{data-label="fig:piK"}](fig-1.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The atom decay width $\Gamma_{1S}$ in the ground state (1S) is determined by the relation [@BILE69; @SCHW04]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma}
\Gamma_{1S} & = \frac{1}{\tau_{1S}} \simeq
\Gamma(A_{K \pi} \to \pi^0 K^0 \;\; \text{or} \;\; A_{\pi K} \to \pi^0
\overline{K}^0) \nonumber \\
&= 8 \; \alpha^3 \; \mu^2 \; p^* \; (a_{0}^-)^2 \; (1+\delta_K), \end{aligned}$$ where the S-wave isospin-odd $\pi K$ scattering length $a_0^-=\frac{1}{3}(a_{1/2}-a_{3/2})$ is defined in pure QCD for the quark masses $m_u=m_d$. Further, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $\mu=109$ MeV/$c$ the reduced mass of the $\pi^{\mp} K^{\pm}$ system, $p^*=11.8$ MeV/$c$ the outgoing 3-momentum of $\pi^0$ or $K^0$ ($\overline{K}^0$) in the $\pi K$ atom system, and $\delta_K$ accounts for corrections, due to isospin breaking, at order $\alpha$ and quark mass difference $m_u - m_d$ [@SCHW04].
A dispersion analysis of $\pi K$ scattering, using Roy-Steiner equations and experimental data in the GeV range, yields $M_\pi (a_{1/2}-a_{3/2})=0.269\pm0.015$ [@BUET04], with $M_\pi$ as charged pion mass. Inserting $a^-_0 = (0.090 \pm 0.005)~M_{\pi}^{-1}$ and $\delta_K = 0.040 \pm 0.022$ [@SCHW04] in (\[eq:gamma\]), one predicts for the $\pi K$ atom lifetime in the ground state $$\label{eq:tau35}
\tau =(3.5 \pm 0.4)\cdot10^{-15}~\text{s}.$$ In the framework of $SU(3)$ ChPT [@WEIN66; @Gasser85], $a_{1/2}$ and $a_{3/2}$ were calculated in leading order ($LO$) [@WEIN66], 1-loop ($1l$) [@BERN91] (see also [@KUBI02]) and 2-loop order ($2l$) [@BIJN04]. This chiral expansion can be summarized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chiral}
M_\pi a^-_0 & = M_\pi a^-_0(LO) (1+\delta_{1l}+\delta_{2l}) \nonumber \\
& = M_\pi \frac{\mu}{8\pi F_\pi^2} (1+0.11+0.14) = 0.089\end{aligned}$$ with the physical pion decay constant $F_\pi$, the 1-loop $\delta_{1l}$ and the 2-loop contribution $\delta_{2l}$. Because of the relatively large s quark mass, compared to u and d quark, chiral symmetry is much more broken, and ChPT is not very reliable at the $\pi K$ threshold. The hope is to get new insights by LQCD. Previously, $\pi K$ scattering lengths were investigated on the lattice with unphysical meson masses and then chirally extrapolated to the physical point. Nowadays, scattering lengths can be calculated directly at the physical point as presented in [@JANO14]: $M_\pi a^-_0 = 0.0745 \pm 0.0020$. Taking into account statistical and systematic errors, the different lattice calculations [@JANO14; @BEAN06; @Fu12; @Sasaki14] provide consistent results for $a^-_0$. Hence, a scattering length measurement could sensitively check QCD (LQCD) predictions.
The production of dimesonic atoms (mesonium) in inclusive high-energy interactions was described in 1985 [@NEME85]. To observe and study such atoms, the following sequence of physical steps was considered: production rate of atoms and their quantum numbers, atom breakup by interacting electromagnetically with target atoms, lifetime measurement and background estimation. An approach to measure the lifetime, describing the atom as a multilevel system propagating and interacting in the target, was derived in [@afan96]. It provides a one-to-one relation between the atom lifetime and its breakup probability in the target. By this means, $\pi^+\pi^-$ [@AFAN93; @AFAN94; @ADEV04; @ADEV05; @ADEV11; @ADEV15] and $\pi K$ atoms [@ADEV09; @ADEV14; @ADEV16] were detected and studied in detail by the DIRAC experiment. The $\pi K$ atom production in proton-nucleus collisions was calculated for different proton energies and atom emission angles [@GORC00; @GORC16]. The relativistic $\pi K$ atoms, formed by Coulomb final state interaction (FSI), propagate inside a target and part of them break up (Fig. \[fig:piK-source\]). Particle pairs from breakup, called “atomic pairs” (atomic pair in Fig. \[fig:piK-source\]), are characterised by small relative momenta, $Q < 3$ MeV/$c$, in the centre-of-mass (c.m.) system of the pair. Here, $Q$ stands for the experimental c.m. relative momentum, smeared by multiple scattering in the target and other materials and by reconstruction uncertainties. Later, the original c.m. relative momentum $q$ will also be used in the context of particle pair production. In the small $Q$ region, the number of atomic pairs above a substantial background of free $\pi K$ pairs can be extracted.
In the first $\pi K$ atom investigation with a platinum (Pt) target [@ADEV09], $173\pm54$ (3.2 $\sigma$) $\pi K$ atomic pairs were identified. This sample allowed to derive a lower limit on the $\pi K$ atom lifetime of $\tau > 0.8\cdot10^{-15}$ s (90% CL). For measuring the lifetime, a nickel (Ni) target was used because of its breakup probability rapidly rising with lifetime around $3.5\cdot10^{-15}$ s. This experiment yielded $178\pm49$ (3.6 $\sigma$) $\pi K$ atomic pairs, resulting in a first atom lifetime and a scattering length measurement [@ADEV14]: $\tau=(2.5^{+3.0}_{-1.8})\cdot10^{-15}$ s and $M_\pi a^-_0
=0.11^{+0.09}_{-0.04}$. Next, the Pt and Ni data were reprocessed [@ADEV16] with more precise setup geometry, improved detector response description for the simulation and optimized criteria for the $\pi K$ atomic pair identification. The components of $Q_T$, the transverse component of $\vec{Q}$, are labelled $Q_X$ and $Q_Y$ (horizontal and vertical), and $Q_L$ is the longitudinal component. Concerning Pt data, informations from detectors upstream of the spectrometer magnet were included, improving significantly the resolution in $Q_T$ compared to the previous analyzis [@ADEV09]. By analyzing the reprocessed Pt and Ni data, $349\pm62$ (5.6 $\sigma$) $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ atomic pairs [@ADEV16] were observed with reliable statistics and the atom lifetime and scattering length measurement could be improved as presented here.
![Inclusive $\pi K$ production in the 24 GeV$/c$ p-Ni interaction: p + Ni $\to$ $\pi^{\mp} K^{\pm}$ + X; $A_{K \pi}$ stands for $K^+\pi^-$ atom. []{data-label="fig:piK-source"}](fig-2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Setup and conditions {#sec:setup}
====================
The aim of the setup is to detect and identify simultaneously $\pi^- K^+$, $\pi^+ K^-$ and $\pi^+ \pi^-$ pairs with small $Q$. The magnetic 2-arm vacuum spectrometer [@DIRAC2] (Fig. \[fig:det\]) was optimized for simultaneous detection of these pairs [@GORC05a; @GORC05b; @PENT15]. The structure of these pairs after the magnet is approximately symmetric for $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and asymmetric for $\pi K$ as sketched in Fig. \[fig:det\]. Originating from a bound system, these pair particles travel with similar velocities, and hence for $\pi K$ the K momentum is by the factor $\frac{M_{K}}{M_{\pi}}=3.5$ larger than the $\pi$ momentum, where $M_{K}$ is the charged kaon mass.
The 24 GeV/$c$ primary proton beam, extracted from the CERN PS, hit in RUN1 a Pt target and in RUN2, RUN3 and RUN4 Ni targets (Table \[tab:targ\]). The Ni targets are adapted for measuring the $\pi K$ atom lifetime, whereas the Pt target provides better conditions for the atom observation. With a spill duration of 450 ms, the beam intensity was $(1.5 \div 2.1)\cdot10^{11}$ in RUN1 and $(1.05 \div 1.2)\cdot10^{11}$ protons/spill in RUN2 to RUN4, and the corresponding flux in the secondary channel $(5 \div 6) \cdot 10^6$ particles/spill.
Run Number 1 2 3 4
----------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010
Run duration 3 months 3 months 5.3 months 5.8 months
Target material Pt Ni Ni Ni
Target purity (%) 99.95 99.98 99.98 99.98
Target thickness (m) $25.7\pm1$ $98\pm1$ $108\pm1$ $108\pm1$
Radiation thickness ($X_0$) $8.4\cdot10^{-3}$ $6.7\cdot10^{-3}$ $7.4\cdot10^{-3}$ $7.4\cdot10^{-3}$
Nuclear efficiency $2.8\cdot10^{-4}$ $6.4\cdot10^{-4}$ $7.1\cdot10^{-4}$ $7.1\cdot10^{-4}$
: Data and targets[]{data-label="tab:targ"}
{width="\linewidth"}
After the target station, primary protons pass under the setup to the beam dump, whereas secondary particles are confined by the rectangular beam collimator of the second steel shielding wall. The axis of the secondary channel is inclined relative to the proton beam by $5.7^\circ$ upward, and the angular divergence in the vertical and horizontal plane is $\pm 1^\circ$ (solid angle $\Omega = 1.2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ sr). Secondary particles propagate mainly in vacuum up to the Al foil $(7.6 \cdot 10^{-3} X_{0})$ at the exit of the vacuum chamber, which is installed between the poles of the dipole magnet ($B_{max}$ = 1.65 T and $BL$ = 2.2 Tm).
In the vacuum channel gap, 18 planes of the Micro Drift Chambers (MDC) and ($X$, $Y$, $U$) planes of the Scintillation Fiber Detector (SFD) were installed in order to measure both the particle coordinates ($\sigma_{SFDx} = \sigma_{SFDy} = 60$ m, $\sigma_{SFDu} = 120$ m) and the particle time ($\sigma_{tSFDx} = 380$ m, $\sigma_{tSFDy} = \sigma_{tSFDu} = 520~\text{ps}$). In RUN1 only the $Y$ and $U$ SFD planes were used. Four planes of the scintillation ionization hodoscope (IH) serve to identify unresolved double tracks (signal only from one SFD column). In RUN1 IH was not in use. The total matter radiation thickness between target and vacuum chamber amounts to $7.7 \cdot 10^{-2} X_{0}$.
Each spectrometer arm is equipped with the following subdetectors [@DIRAC2]: drift chambers (DC) to measure particle coordinates with $\approx$85 m precision; vertical hodoscope (VH) to measure particle times with 110 ps accuracy to identify particle types via time-of-flight (TOF) measurement; horizontal hodoscope (HH) to select particles with a vertical distance of less than 75 mm ($Q_{Y}$ less than 15 MeV/$c$) in the two arms; aerogel Cherenkov counter (ChA) to distinguish kaons from protons; heavy gas ($\text{C}_{4} \text{F}_{10}$) Cherenkov counter (ChF) to distinguish pions from kaons; nitrogen Cherenkov (ChN) and preshower (PSh) counter to identify $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs; iron absorber; two-layer muon scintillating counter (Mu) to identify muons. In the “negative” arm, no aerogel counter was installed, because the number of antiprotons compared to $K^{-}$ is small.
Pairs of oppositely charged time-correlated particles (prompt pairs) and accidentals in the time interval $\pm 20~\text{ns}$ are selected by requiring a 2-arm coincidence (ChN in anticoincidence) with the coplanarity restriction (HH) in the first-level trigger. The second-level trigger selects events with at least one track in each arm by exploiting the DC-wire information (track finder). Using the track information, the online trigger selects $\pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ pairs with relative momenta $|Q_X| < 12~\text{MeV}/c$ and $|Q_L| < 30~\text{MeV}/c$. The trigger efficiency is $\approx$ 98% for pairs with $|Q_X| < 6~\text{MeV}/c$, $|Q_Y| < 4~\text{MeV}/c$ and $|Q_L| < 28~\text{MeV}/c$. Particle pairs $\pi^{-} p$ ($\pi^{+} \bar{p}$) from $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) decay were used for spectrometer calibration and $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs for general detector calibrations.
Production of bound and free $\pi^- K^+$ and $\pi^+ K^-$ pairs {#sec:freebound}
==============================================================
Prompt oppositely charged $\pi K$ pairs, emerging from proton-nucleus collisions, are produced either directly or originate from short-lived (e.g. $\Delta$, $\rho$), medium-lived (e.g. $\omega$, $\phi$) or long-lived sources (e.g. $\eta'$, $\eta$). These pion-kaon pairs, except those from long-lived sources, undergo Coulomb FSI resulting in modified unbound states (Coulomb pair in Fig. \[fig:piK-source\]) or forming bound systems in $S$-states with a known distribution of the principal quantum number ($A_{K \pi}$ in Fig. \[fig:piK-source\]) [@NEME85]. Pairs from long-lived sources are nearly unaffected by the Coulomb interaction (non-Coulomb pair in Fig. \[fig:piK-source\]). The accidental pairs arise from different proton-nucleus interactions.
The cross section of $\pi K$ atom production is given in [@NEME85] by the expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prod}
\frac{d\sigma^{n}_A}{d\vec p_A} & =(2\pi)^3\frac{E_A}{M_A}
\left.\frac{d^2\sigma^0_s}{d\vec p_K d\vec p_\pi}\right |_{
\frac{\vec p_K}{M_{K}} \approx \frac{\vec p_\pi}{M_{\pi}}}
\hspace{-1mm} \cdot \left|\psi_{n}(0)\right|^2 \nonumber \\
& = (2\pi)^3\frac{E_A}{M_A}
\frac{1}{\pi a_B^3 n^3}
\left.\frac{d^2\sigma^0_s}{d\vec p_K d\vec p_\pi}\right |_{
\frac{\vec p_K}{M_{K}} \approx \frac{\vec p_\pi}{M_{\pi}}} \:,\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec p_{A}$, $E_{A}$ and $M_{A}$ are the momentum, energy and rest mass of the $A_{K \pi}$ atom in the laboratory system, respectively, and $\vec p_K$ and $\vec p_\pi$ the momenta of the charged kaon and pion with equal velocities. Therefore, these momenta obey in good approximation the relations $\vec p_{K}=\frac{M_{K}}{M_{A}} \vec p_{A}$ and $\vec p_{\pi}=\frac{M_{\pi}}{M_{A}} \vec p_{A}$. The inclusive production cross section of $\pi K$ pairs from short-lived sources without FSI is denoted by $\sigma_s^0$, and $\psi_{n}(0)$ is the $S$-state atomic Coulomb wave function at the origin with the principal quantum number $n$. According to (\[eq:prod\]), $\pi K$ atoms are only produced in $S$-states with probabilities $W_n~=~\frac{W_1}{n^3}$: $W_1~=~83.2\%$, $W_2~=~10.4\%$, $W_3~=~3.1\%$, $\dots$ , $W_{n>3}~=~3.3\%$. In complete analogy, the production of free oppositely charged $\pi K$ pairs from short- and medium-lived sources, i.e. Coulomb pairs, is described in the pointlike production approximation by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cross_sect_C}
\frac{d^2\sigma_C}{d\vec p_K d\vec p_\pi} & =
\frac{d^2\sigma^0_s}{d\vec p_K d\vec p_\pi}
\hspace{-2mm} \cdot A_C(q)
\quad \text{with} \nonumber \\
A_C(q) & = \frac{2\pi m_\pi \alpha/q}
{1-\exp\left( -2\pi m_\pi \alpha/q\right) } \;.\end{aligned}$$ The Coulomb enhancement function $A_C(q)$ in dependence on the relative momentum $q$ (see above) is the well-known Gamov-Sommerfeld-Sakharov factor [@GAMO28; @SOMM31; @SAKH91]. The relative yield between atoms and Coulomb pairs [@AFAN99] is given by the ratio of equations (\[eq:prod\]) and (\[eq:cross\_sect\_C\]). The total number $N_A$ of produced $A_{\pi K}$ is determined by the model-independent relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:number_A}
N_A = & K(q_0) N_C(q \le q_0)
\quad \text{with} \nonumber \\
& K(q_0 = 3.12~\text{MeV}/c) = 0.615 \:,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_C(q \le q_0)$ is the number of Coulomb pairs with $q \le q_0$ and $K(q_0)$ a known function of $q_0$.
Up to now, the pair production was assumed to be pointlike. In order to check finite size effects due to the presence of medium-lived resonances ($\omega$, $\phi$), a study about non-pointlike particle pair sources was performed [@LEDN08; @note1205]. Due to the large value of the Bohr radius $a_B = 249$ fm, the pointlike treatment of the Coulomb $\pi K$ FSI is valid for directly produced pairs as well as for pairs from short-lived strongly decaying resonances. This treatment, however, should be adjusted for pions and kaons originating from decays of medium-lived particles with path lengths comparable with $a_{B}$ in the c.m. system. Furthermore, strong FSI should be taken into account: elastic $\pi^{+}K^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{+}K^{-}$ or $\pi^{-}K^{+} \rightarrow \pi^{-}K^{+}$ (driven at $q \rightarrow 0$ by the $S$-wave scattering length 0.137 fm) and inelastic scattering $\pi^{0}\bar{K^{0}} \rightarrow \pi^{+}K^{-}$ or $\pi^{0}K^{0} \rightarrow \pi^{-}K^{+}$ (scattering length 0.147 fm). In Fig. \[fig:r\_dist\], the simulated distribution of the production regions [@LEDN08; @note1205] is shown. Corrections to the pointlike Coulomb FSI can be performed by means of two correction factors $1+\delta(q)$ and $1+\delta_n$ ($n$ = principal quantum number), to be applied to the calculated pointlike production cross sections of Coulomb $\pi K$ pairs (\[eq:cross\_sect\_C\]) and S-state $\pi K$ atoms (\[eq:prod\]), correspondingly [@LEDN08; @note1205].
![Predicted distribution of the relative distance $r^*$ between the production points for $\pi K$ pairs. The individual curves with increasing $r^*$ correspond to pairs produced directly plus from short-lived sources and from $\phi$, $\omega$ and $\eta'$ mesons. The sum curve is also shown. []{data-label="fig:r_dist"}](fig-4.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Propagation of $\pi K$ atoms through the target {#sec:interact}
===============================================
To evaluate the $A_{\pi K}$ lifetime from the experimental value of the $A_{\pi K}$ breakup probability $P_\mathrm{br}$, it is necessary to know $P_\mathrm{br}= f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ as a function of $A_{\pi K}$ lifetime $\tau$, target thickness $l$, material atomic number $Z$ and lab atom momentum $p_A$. After fixing $l$ and $Z$ in accordance with the experimental conditions and integrating $f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ with the measured distribution of $p_A$, the dependence $P_\mathrm{br}= f(\tau)$ is obtained.
![ Breakup probability as a function of $\pi K$ atom lifetime $\tau$ (ground state) in the DIRAC experiment. Top: Pt target of thickness 25.7 m. Bottom: Ni targets of thicknesses 98 m (red dashed line) and 108 m (solid blue line). The predicted lifetime $\tau = 3.5 \cdot 10^{-15}$ s (\[eq:tau35\]) corresponds to the breakup probabilities $P_\mathrm{br}$ = 0.50 (Pt) and 0.28 (Ni). []{data-label="fig:pbr_tau"}](fig-5a.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} ![ Breakup probability as a function of $\pi K$ atom lifetime $\tau$ (ground state) in the DIRAC experiment. Top: Pt target of thickness 25.7 m. Bottom: Ni targets of thicknesses 98 m (red dashed line) and 108 m (solid blue line). The predicted lifetime $\tau = 3.5 \cdot 10^{-15}$ s (\[eq:tau35\]) corresponds to the breakup probabilities $P_\mathrm{br}$ = 0.50 (Pt) and 0.28 (Ni). []{data-label="fig:pbr_tau"}](fig-5b.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
To calculate $f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$, one needs to know the total interaction cross sections $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(n,l,m)$ of $A_{\pi K}$ with matter (ordinary) atoms and all transition (excitation/deexcitation) cross sections $\sigma_{if}(n_{i},l_{i},m_{i};n_{f},l_{f},m_{f})$ for a large set of initial $i$ and final $f$ $A_{\pi K}$ states ($n$ principal, $l$ orbital and $m$ magnetic quantum number). In the consideration below, all states with $n\le10$ were accounted for. Using these cross sections, the distribution of the atom quantum numbers at production (\[eq:prod\]) and as free parameter the $A_{\pi K}$ lifetime $\tau$, the evolution of each initial $n$S state from the production point up to the end of the target is described in order to calculate the ionization or breakup probability $P_\mathrm{br}$ (Fig. \[fig:pbr\_tau\]).
Interaction cross sections of $\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ atoms with matter atoms {#ssec:cs}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cross sections of $A_{\pi K}$ interaction with matter atoms were determined from analogous theoretical studies about $\pi^+\pi^-$ atoms ($A_{2\pi}$) interacting with matter atoms: the $A_{2\pi}$ wave functions are replaced in all formulas by the $A_{\pi K}$ wave functions. The interaction of $A_{2\pi}$ with target atoms includes two parts: 1) interaction with screened nuclei, i.e. coherent scattering, that leaves the target atom in the initial state and 2) interaction with orbital electrons, i.e. incoherent scattering, where the target atom will be excited or ionized. The former is proportional to the square of the nuclear charge ($Z^2$), while the latter is proportional to the number of electrons ($Z$). Thus, the latter contribution is insignificant for large $Z$. The cross sections $\sigma_\mathrm{tot}$ and $\sigma_{if}$ for the coherent interaction are calculated in first Born approximation (one-photon exchange) by describing the target atoms in the Thomas-Fermi model with Moliere parameterisation [@afan96; @KOTS80; @KOTS83; @MROW86; @MROW87]. The $\sigma_{if}$ values taking in to account coherent interaction as well as the incoherent interactions with more precise non-relativistic Hartree-Fock wave functions were calculated in [@afan96]. For Ni targets, the incoherent contribution to the cross sections is about 4% of the coherent one. The influence of relativistic effects on the $\sigma_{if}$ accuracy was studied [@basel00; @basel01; @basel02] by describing the ordinary atom with the relativistic Dirac-Hartree-Fock-Slater wave functions. Different models for the Ni atom potential lead to an uncertainty in $P_\mathrm{br}$ of about 1% [@DN201406].
In the $A_{2\pi}$ c.m. system, a target atom creates a scalar and a vector potential. The interaction with the vector potential (magnetic interaction) was discussed in [@MROW87; @basel00; @basel01]. The “magnetic” contribution to the cross sections was calculated in [@Afan02]. It was shown that “magnetic” contribution to the cross sections for Ni is about 1% of the “electric” one for $A_{2\pi}$ and about 2% for $A_{\pi K}$. All the small cross section corrections discussed here are about twice larger for $A_{\pi K}$ than for $A_{2\pi}$.
Applying the eikonal (Glauber) approach, the next step in accuracy for the mesonium–atom interaction cross sections has been achieved [@Taras91; @Voskr98; @basel01; @basel02]. This method includes multi-photon exchange processes in comparison with the single-photon exchange in the first Born approximation. The total cross sections for the mesonium interaction with ordinary atoms were calculated. The interaction cross sections for Ni in this approach are less than in the first Born approximation by 0.8% for $n=1$ and at most 1.5% for $n=6$ [@Afan99jp; @Ivan99]. Therefore, the inclusion of multi-photon exchanges is only relevant in calculations of $\sigma_{if}$ at the 1% level. In the above calculations, the target atoms are considered isolated, i.e. no solid state modification is applied to the wave functions. A dedicated analysis [@basel01] proves that solid-state effects and target chemistry do not change the $A_{2\pi}$ cross sections. In the mentioned cross section calculations, the $A_{2\pi}$ wave functions are the hydrogen-like non-relativistic Schrödinger equation solutions. The relativistic Klein–Gordon equation for the $A_{2\pi}$ description leads to negligible relativistic corrections to the cross sections [@basel00]. Furthermore, the seagull diagram contribution can be safely neglected [@hadatom01].
$\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ atom breakup probabilities {#ssec:br}
------------------------------------------------
The description of the $A_{\pi K}$ (multilevel atomic system) propagation in (target) matter is almost the same as in the case for $A_{2\pi}$, first considered in [@afan96]. $A_{2\pi}$, produced in proton-nucleus collisions, can either annihilate or interact with target atoms. It was shown that stationary atomic states are formed between two successive interactions, at least for $n \leq 6$. Thus, the population of each level can be described in terms of probabilities, disregarding interferences between degenerated states with the same energy. The population of atomic $A_{2\pi}$ states, moving in the target, is described by a set of differential (kinetic) equations, accounting for the $A_{2\pi}$ interaction with target atoms and the $A_{2\pi}$ annihilation. The set of kinetic equations, formally containing an infinite number of equations, is truncated up to states with $n\leq7$ to get a numerical solution. The breakup probability $P_\mathrm{br}$ is calculated by applying the unitary condition: $$P_\mathrm{br}+ P_\mathrm{dsc}(n \leq 7) + P_\mathrm{dsc}(n>7) + P_\mathrm{ann}
= 1,$$ where $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n \leq 7)$ and $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n>7)$ are the populations of the discrete $A_{2\pi}$ states, leaving the target, with $n \leq 7$ and $n>7$, and $P_\mathrm{ann}$ is the $A_{2\pi}$ annihilation probability in the target. Values of $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n \leq 7)$ and $P_\mathrm{ann}$ are obtained by solving the truncated set of kinetic equations. On the other hand, one gets a value of $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n>7)$ by extrapolating the calculated behaviour of $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n)$. The value of $P_\mathrm{dsc}(n>7)$ is about 0.006, and the extrapolation accuracy is insignificant for the accuracy of $P_\mathrm{br}$. The method here only uses total cross sections and transition cross sections between discrete $A_{2\pi}$ states.
Obtaining the ionization (breakup) cross sections for an arbitrary $A_{2\pi}$ bound state [@basel99; @basel00], allows to calculate directly $P_\mathrm{br}$ [@Zhab08]. The difference of 0.5% between two methods for $n=8$ demonstrates the convergence and estimates the $P_\mathrm{br}$ precision.
To clarify the influence of the interference between degenerated states with the same energy, the motion of $A_{2\pi}$ in the target was described in the density matrix formalism [@Voskr03]. The $P_\mathrm{br}$ value calculated using this method coincides with the one in the probability based approach with an accuracy of better than $10^{-5}$ [@Afan04]. The same is true for $A_{\pi K}$.
The function $P_\mathrm{br}=f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ has a weak dependence on the target thickness $l$ in the conditions of the DIRAC experiment. The relative $l$ uncertainty of $\pm$1% leads to an insignificant error of $f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ on the level of $\pm$0.1%.
In the present article, $P_\mathrm{br}=f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ is calculated by means of the DIPGEN code [@DIPGEN], using the unitary condition and the set of $A_{\pi K}$ total and transition cross sections calculated in the approach of Ref. [@afan96] for $n\leq10$ without taking into account the incoherent interaction, magnetic interaction and multi-photon exchange [@pik-prop]. As described above, all these effects contribute to the cross section only at the level of (1–2)% with different signs. The common error of the approximation used is evaluated in the following way. The $A_{2\pi}$ breakup probabilities $P_\mathrm{br}^{\pi\pi}$ are determined in the same way as for $A_{\pi K}$ and also using very precise cross sections [@basel99; @basel00; @basel01; @basel02] considering all types of interactions. The difference in the $P_\mathrm{br}^{\pi\pi}$ values is 0.6% [@pik-prop]. For $A_{\pi K}$, the contributions of unaccounted cross sections are larger than for $A_{2\pi}$ (see above). Hence, the difference in $P_\mathrm{br}$ is expected to be larger by a factor of around 2. The accuracy of the $P_\mathrm{br}$ calculation procedure for Ni is estimated as 0.8% [@Zhab08]. Therefore, the upper limit of the total uncertainty of $P_\mathrm{br}$ for $A_{\pi K}$ cannot exceed 2%, compared to 1% for $A_{2\pi}$ [@ADEV11]. This value is significantly smaller than the statistical accuracy.
Relative momentum distribution of atomic $\pi K$ pairs {#ssec:q}
------------------------------------------------------
The evaluation of the number of the atomic pairs requires the knowledge of their distribution on the relative momentum at the target exit and after the reconstruction. This distribution depends on the atomic quantum numbers at the atom breakup point and the coordinates of this point. The relative momentum distributions of the atomic pairs for different atom quantum numbers have been calculated [@hadatom01] and were entered into DIPGEN [@DIPGEN]. This distribution is further broadened by multiple scattering of the mesons in the target. The main influence on the distribution of the transverse relative atomic pair momentum at the target exit is due to multiple scattering in the target, whereas the influence from the atomic states is significantly smaller, but nevertheless taken into account in DIPGEN.
Data processing {#sec:dp}
===============
The collected events were analyzed with the DIRAC reconstruction program ARIANE [@Ariane] modified for analyzing $\pi K$ data.
Tracking {#ssec:track}
--------
Only events with one or two particle tracks in DC of each arm are processed. The event reconstruction is performed according to the following steps:
- One or two hadron tracks are identified in DC of each arm with hits in VH, HH and PSh slabs and no signal in ChN and Mu.
- Track segments, reconstructed in DC, are extrapolated backward to the beam position in the target, using the transfer function of the dipole magnet and the program ARIANE. This procedure provides approximate particle momenta and the corresponding points of intersection in MDC, SFD and IH.
- Hits are searched for around the expected SFD coordinates in the region $\pm 1$ cm corresponding to (3–5) $\sigma_{\mathrm{pos}}$ defined by the position accuracy taking into account the particle momenta. The number of hits around the two tracks is $\le 4$ in each SFD plane and $\le 9$ in all three SFD planes. The case of only one hit in the region $\pm 1$ cm can occur because of detector inefficiency (two crossing particles, but one is not detected) or if two particles cross the same SFD column. The latter type of event may be recovered by selecting double ionization in the corresponding IH slab. For RUN1 data collected with the Pt target, the criteria are different: the number of hits is two in the $Y$- and $U$-plane (signals from SFD $X$-plane and IH, which may resolve crossing of only one SFD column by two particles, were not available in RUN1 data).
The momentum of the positively or negatively charged particle is refined to match the $X$-coordinates of the DC tracks as well as the SFD hits in the $X$- or $U$-plane, depending on the presence of hits. In order to find the best 2-track combination, the two tracks may not use a common SFD hit in the case of more than one hit in the proper region. In the final analysis, the combination with the best $\chi^2$ in the other SFD planes is kept.
Setup tuning using $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ particles {#ssec:geom}
----------------------------------------------------------
In order to check the general geometry of the DIRAC experiment, the $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ particles, decaying into ${\rm p}\pi^-$ and $\pi^+\bar{\rm p}$ in our setup, were used. Details of this study are reported in [@DN201601; @lan; @note0516]. Comparing our reconstructed $\Lambda$ mass values with PDG data [@pdg] allows to check the geometrical setup description. The main factors, that can influence the value of the $\Lambda$ mass, are the position of the aluminium (Al) membrane (defining the location of the spectrometer magnetic field relative to the setup detectors) and the angles between each downstream telescope arm axis and the setup axis (secondary particle beam direction). The position of the Al membrane was fixed to $z_{Al} = 1433.85$ mm from the centre of the magnet. The orientation of the downstream arm axes should be corrected on average for the right arm by $-0.032$ mrad and for the left arm by $+0.088$ mrad relative to the geodesic measurements. The values, from year to year used, are reported in [@DN201601].
Fig. \[fig:lambda\] shows the distribution of the $\Lambda$ mass for the RUN3 data and for the corresponding Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The distributions are fitted with a Gaussian and a second degree polynomial that describes the background.
![$\Lambda$ mass distribution for RUN3 data (top) and MC simulation (bottom) are fitted with a Gaussian (in blue) for the $\Lambda$ peak and a second degree polynomial (in red) describing the background. $\Lambda^{exp} -1110.0 =5.676 \pm 5.9 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $\Lambda^{MC} -1110.0 =5.675 \pm 4.3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in $\rm{MeV}/c^2$.[]{data-label="fig:lambda"}](fig-6a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![$\Lambda$ mass distribution for RUN3 data (top) and MC simulation (bottom) are fitted with a Gaussian (in blue) for the $\Lambda$ peak and a second degree polynomial (in red) describing the background. $\Lambda^{exp} -1110.0 =5.676 \pm 5.9 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $\Lambda^{MC} -1110.0 =5.675 \pm 4.3 \cdot 10^{-3}$ in $\rm{MeV}/c^2$.[]{data-label="fig:lambda"}](fig-6b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The weighted average value of the experimental $\Lambda$ mass over all runs, $M^\mathrm{DIRAC}_{\Lambda} = (1.115680 \pm 2.9 \cdot 10^{-6}) \;
\text{GeV}/c^2$, agrees very well with the PDG value, $M^{\text{PDG}}_{\Lambda} = (1.115683 \pm 6 \cdot 10^{-6}) \; \text{GeV}/c^2$. The weighted average of the experimental ${\bar{\Lambda}}$ mass is $M^\mathrm{DIRAC}_{\bar{\Lambda}} = (1.11566 \pm 1 \cdot 10^{-5}) \;
\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$. This demonstrates that the geometry of the DIRAC setup is well described.
The width of the $\Lambda$ mass distribution allows to test the momentum and angular setup resolution in the simulation. Table \[tab:lambda-w\] shows a good agreement between simulated and experimental $\Lambda$ width. A further test consists in comparing the experimental $\Lambda$ and ${\bar{\Lambda}}$ widths.
------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------
$\sigma_\Lambda$ (data) $\sigma_\Lambda$ (MC) $\sigma_{\bar{\Lambda}}$ (data)
$\rm{GeV}/c^2$ $\rm{GeV}/c^2$ $\rm{GeV}/c^2$
RUN1 $4.22 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $ 4.15 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $4.3 \cdot 10^{-4}$
${}\pm 4.6\cdot 10^{-6}$ $ {}\pm 2.9\cdot 10^{-6}$ ${}\pm 3\cdot 10^{-5}$
RUN2 $4.33 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $ 4.38 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $4.6 \cdot 10^{-4}$
${}\pm 8.2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ $ {}\pm 4.6 \cdot 10^{-6}$ ${}\pm 2 \cdot 10^{-5}$
RUN3 $4.42 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $ 4.42 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $4.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$
${}\pm 7.4 \cdot 10^{-6}$ $ {}\pm 4.4 \cdot 10^{-6}$ ${}\pm 3 \cdot 10^{-5}$
RUN4 $4.41 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $ 4.37 \cdot 10^{-4}$ $4.3\cdot 10^{-4}$
${}\pm 7.5\cdot 10^{-6}$ $ {}\pm 4.5\cdot 10^{-6}$ ${}\pm 2\cdot 10^{-5}$
------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------
: Standard deviations from Gaussian fit of $\Lambda$ peak in GeV/$c^2$ for experimental and MC data and ${\bar\Lambda}$ experimental data.[]{data-label="tab:lambda-w"}
In order to understand, if the differences between data and MC are significant or just due to statistical fluctuations, the MC distributions were generated with a width artificially squeezed and enlarged. In every simulated event, the value of the reconstructed invariant mass of the system pion-proton, $x$, was modified according to $MC_f = ( x - M_{MC} ) \cdot f + M_{DATA}$, where $f$ is the parameter shrinking or enlarging the $\Lambda$ distribution by $\pm 20\%$ in steps of 2%. The $\Lambda$ peak positions of the experimental and original MC distributions are denoted by $M_\mathrm{DATA}$ and $M_\mathrm{MC}$, respectively. Then, the experimental and modified MC distributions were compared [@CERN-EP-2017-137]. For RUN1 with the Pt target and 2 SFD planes, procedure found the best agreement for $f_{RUN1}=1.019 \pm 2. \cdot 10^{-3}$. For the runs with 3 SFD planes and Ni target, the following $f$ values were obtained: $f_{RUN2} = 1.00235 \pm 4.34 \cdot 10^{-3}$, $f_{RUN3} = 1.00059 \pm 2.75 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $f_{RUN4} = 1.00401 \pm 3.38~\cdot~10^{-3}$ with the average value $f_{Ni} = 1.00203 \pm 0.00191$.
The difference between data and MC widths could be the consequence of imperfectly describing the downstream setup part, to be fixed by a Gaussian smearing of the reconstructed momenta for MC data. On an event–by–event basis, the smearing of the reconstructed proton and pion momentum $p$ has been applied in the form $p^\mathrm{smeared} = p(1+C \cdot N(10^{-4}))$, where $N(10^{-4})$ is a normally distributed random number with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.0001. The values $f_{RUN1}$ and $f_{Ni}$ correspond to $C_{RUN1}=6.7 ^{+2.2}_{-2.9}$ and $C_{Ni}=2.2319^{+0.7438}_{-1.1758}$, respectively.
The $Q_L$ distribution of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs can be used to check the geometrical alignment. Since the $\pi^+\pi^-$ system is symmetric, the corresponding $Q_L$ distribution should be centered at 0. Fig. \[fig:6\_3\] shows the experimental $Q_L$ distribution of pion pairs with transverse momenta $Q_T < 4~\text{MeV}/c$: the distribution is centered at 0 with a precision of 0.2 $\text{MeV}/c$.
![$Q_L$ distribution of $\pi^+\pi^-$ experimental data with cut $Q_T < 4~\text{MeV}/c$ (RUN2 to RUN4). []{data-label="fig:6_3"}](fig-7.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Background subtraction {#sec:backr_subtr}
----------------------
The background of electron-positron pairs is suppressed by ChN at the first level of the trigger system. Because of the large $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ flux and finite ChN efficiency, a certain admixture of $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs with small $Q_T$ remains and can induce a bias in the data analysis. To further suppress this background, the preshower scintillation detector PSh is used [@PENT15].
At the preparation stage, a set of $\pi^+\pi^-$ (hadron-hadron) and a set of $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ data were selected by using ChN (low and high amplitude in both arms, respectively). For each pair of PSh slabs ($i$-th slab in the left and $j$-th in the right arm), a procedure selects the amplitude criterion of these slabs accepting 98% of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ and suppressing $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs. Furthermore, the ratio $R_{ij}$ of $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ events accepted ($N^{\text{accepted}}_{ij}$) and rejected ($N^{\text{rejected}}_{ij}$) by this criterion was calculated for electron trigger data: $ R_{ij}=\frac{N^{\text{accepted}}_{ij}}{N^{\text{rejected}}_{ij}} $. In the data analysis, these criteria are applied to the events. Fig. \[fig:qt\_ee\_pipi\]a and Fig. \[fig:qt\_ee\_pipi\]b present the results for $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs and $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs, respectively. The initial distributions are shown as black solid lines and the distributions after applying the PSh amplitude criterion in the left and right arm as red dashed lines. This criterion accepts 97.8% of $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs and rejects 87.5% of $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ pairs. To improve the $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ suppression, the remaining electron admixture in the PSh cut data is subtracted from the distribution of accepted events with the event-by-event weight $R_{ij}$. The final distributions are shown as blue dotted lines. The rejection efficiency for the $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ background achieves 99.9%, whereas 2.5% of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ data are lost.
![$Q_T$ distributions for a) $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$ and b) $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs without PSh amplitude criterion (black solid line), after amplitude criterion (red dashed line) and after additional subtraction of electron admixture in the accepted events (blue dotted line).[]{data-label="fig:qt_ee_pipi"}](fig-8.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![a) Difference of particle generation times for events with positively charged particle momenta $(4.4 \div 4.5)~\text{GeV}/c$. Experimental data (histogram) are fitted by the event sum (black, solid): $K^+\pi^-$ (red, dashed), $\pi^+\pi^-$ (blue, dotted), $\text{p}\pi^-$ (magenta, dotted-dashed) and accidentals (green, constant). b) Similar distributions for events with positively charged particle momenta $(5.4 \div 5.5)~\text{GeV}/c$.[]{data-label="fig:dTmGen"}](fig-9a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth" height="0.8\columnwidth"} ![a) Difference of particle generation times for events with positively charged particle momenta $(4.4 \div 4.5)~\text{GeV}/c$. Experimental data (histogram) are fitted by the event sum (black, solid): $K^+\pi^-$ (red, dashed), $\pi^+\pi^-$ (blue, dotted), $\text{p}\pi^-$ (magenta, dotted-dashed) and accidentals (green, constant). b) Similar distributions for events with positively charged particle momenta $(5.4 \div 5.5)~\text{GeV}/c$.[]{data-label="fig:dTmGen"}](fig-9b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth" height="0.8\columnwidth"}
Event selection criteria {#ssec:Ev_sel}
------------------------
The selected events are classified into three categories: $\pi^-K^+$, $\pi^+K^-$ and $\pi^-\pi^+$. The last category is used for calibration. Pairs of $\pi K$ are cleaned of $\pi^-\pi^+$ and $\pi^-{\rm p}$ background by the Cherenkov counters ChF and ChA (Section \[sec:setup\]). In the momentum range from 3.8 to 7 $\text{GeV}/c$, pions are detected by ChF with (95–97)% efficiency [@note1305], whereas kaons and protons (antiprotons) do not produce any signal. The admixture of $\pi^-{\rm p}$ pairs is suppressed by ChA, which records kaons but not protons [@note0907]. Due to finite detector efficiency, a certain admixture of misidentified pairs still remains in the experimental distributions. For the selected events, the procedure applied plots the distribution of the measured difference $\Delta T$ of particle generation times. These times of production at the target are the times, which are measured by VH and reduced by the time-of-flights from the target to the VH planes for particles with the expected masses ($K^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\mp}$ mesons) and the measured lab momenta. For $\pi^-K^+$ ($\pi^+K^-$) pairs, the difference is centered at 0 and, for misidentified pairs, biased. Fig. \[fig:dTmGen\]a presents the event distribution over the difference of the particle production times for $K^+$ mesons in the range (4.4–4.5) $\text{GeV}/c$. The distribution is fitted by the simulated distribution of admixed fractions. Similarly to Fig. \[fig:dTmGen\]a, Fig. \[fig:dTmGen\]b shows the fit for $K^+$ in the range (5.4–5.5) $\text{GeV}/c$. The contribution of misidentified pairs was estimated and accordingly subtracted [@note1306]. Fig. \[fig:kpi-selection\]a illustrates the $Q_L$ distribution of potential $\pi^-K^+$ pairs requiring a ChF signal and $Q_T < 4~\text{MeV}/c$. The dominant peak on the left side is due to ${\rm p}\pi^-$ pairs from $\Lambda$ decay. After requesting a ChA signal, the admixture of ${\rm p}\pi^-$ pairs is decreased by a factor of 10 (Fig. \[fig:kpi-selection\]b). By selecting compatible TOFs between target and VH, background $\text{p}\pi^-$ and $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs can be substantially suppressed (Fig. \[fig:kpi-selection\]c). In the final distribution, the well-defined $\pi^-K^+$ Coulomb peak at $Q_L=0$ emerges beside the strongly reduced peak from $\Lambda$ decays at $Q_L=-30~\text{MeV}/c$.
{width="\linewidth"}
The $Q_L$ distribution of potential $\pi^+K^-$ pairs shows a similar behaviour [@CERN-EP-2017-137]. For the final analysis, the DIRAC procedure selects events fulfilling the following criteria: $$\label{eq:7c_critq}
Q_T < 4 \;\text{MeV}/c,\quad |Q_L| < 20 \;\text{MeV}/c \, .$$
Data simulation {#sec:simul}
===============
Multiple scattering simulation {#ssec:MSc}
------------------------------
The DIRAC setup as a magnetic vacuum spectrometer has been designed to avoid as much as possible distortions of particle momenta by multiple scattering. Since particles are scattered in the detector planes, it is essential to simulate and reproduce the effect of multiple scattering with a precision better than 1%. A detailed study of multiple scattering has already been performed in the past [@GORC07; @msn] and been updated [@msn_new] including a new evaluation of thickness and density of the SFD material and additionally cutting on $|Q_X|$ and $|Q_Y| < 4~\text{MeV}/c$. This cut has been performed by the trigger for RUN2 and RUN3 allowing a more accurate comparison between data and MC simulation in this region. Prompt $\pi \pi$ pairs were used in order to check the correctness of the multiple scattering description in the simulation. The events were reconstructed, and tracks of positively and negatively charged particles are extrapolated to the target plane: $x_2$ ($x_1$) and $y_2$ ($y_1$) are the $\pi^{+}$ ($\pi^{-}$) track coordinates on the target plane. The experimental error in the track measurement and multiple scattering determine the width of $\Delta x =x_2 - x_1$ and $\Delta y =y_2 - y_1$, called vertex resolution. The vertex resolution as a function of the total momentum was studied for particle track pairs with momenta $p_1$, $p_2$ and velocities $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ by using the following parameterisation ($X$ direction): $$\sigma^2_{\Delta x} = c_1^2 + \frac{s_1^2}{(p_1\cdot \beta_1)^2} +
c_2^2 + \frac{s_2^2}{(p_2\cdot \beta_2)^2}.$$ Here, $c_1$ and $c_2$ account for the momentum independent contribution to $\sigma$ (width) of the $x_1$ and $x_2$ distributions and terms with $s_1$ and $s_2$ account for the momentum dependent contributions to $\sigma$. Assuming $c_1=c_2=c$ and $s_1=s_2=s$, one gets $$\sigma^2_{\Delta x} = 2 \cdot c^2 + \left( \frac{1}{(p_1\cdot \beta_1)^2} +
\frac{1}{(p_2\cdot \beta_2)^2}\right) \cdot s^2
= 2 \cdot c^2 + Z \cdot s^2.$$ Fig. \[fig:6\_4\] shows for RUN2 a perfect agreement between data and MC for the $X$ coordinate, the same is valid for the $Y$ coordinate. This procedure, performed for every year of data taking, yields a good agreement with the simulation.
![$X$ vertex resolution $\sigma^2_{\Delta x}$ in $\rm{cm}^2$ as a function of $Z = 1/(p_1\cdot \beta_1)^2 + 1/(p_2\cdot \beta_2)^2$. Experimental data — blue triangle, MC data — red bullet.[]{data-label="fig:6_4"}](fig-11.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
SFD response {#ssec:SFD}
------------
Track pairs contributing to the signal are characterised by different opening angles, including very small ones. Therefore, it is essential that the SFD detector, which reconstructs upstream tracks, is well described in the simulation.
![Left: $\Delta n$ distribution in SFDx for track pairs with small $\Delta n$ in $Y$ ($\Delta n_Y < 3$). Right: $\Delta n$ distribution in SFDx without any constraint in $Y$. Solid line: experimental data; dotted line: MC data.[]{data-label="fig:6_5"}](fig-12a.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"}![Left: $\Delta n$ distribution in SFDx for track pairs with small $\Delta n$ in $Y$ ($\Delta n_Y < 3$). Right: $\Delta n$ distribution in SFDx without any constraint in $Y$. Solid line: experimental data; dotted line: MC data.[]{data-label="fig:6_5"}](fig-12b.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\linewidth"}
From the $\pi^+\pi^-$ sample outside the signal region $(|Q_L| > 10~\text{MeV}/c)$, track pairs with small opening angles (small distance between SFD hits) were chosen for comparison of experimental and simulated data. To compare experimental and MC data, the events were classified depending on the distance $\Delta n$ between the tracks in SFD column number. As an example, Fig. \[fig:6\_5\] (left) shows the $\Delta n_X$ distribution of very close tracks in $Y$ ($\Delta n_Y < 3$) and Fig. \[fig:6\_5\] (right) the $\Delta n_X$ distribution without any constraint in $Y$ for data of RUN3. (For more details and data from the other runs, see [@note1603].) The remaining difference between experimental and MC data (Fig. \[fig:6\_5\]) is corrected with weights, which depend on the combination of $\Delta n$ in all 3 planes, providing equal $\Delta n$ distributions.
The new MC simulation takes into account: hit efficiency, electronic and photomultiplier noise, cluster size associated with a track and background hits from beam pipe tracks or from particle scattering in the shielding around the detector. These parameters have been evaluated for every run, and the comparison between data and simulation is satisfactory. The SFD multiplicities in the 3 planes are shown in Table \[tab:2\] for experimental and in Table \[tab:3\] for MC data.
RUN SFDx SFDy SFDu
----- --------------- ---------------- -----------------
1 – $3.4 \pm 0.7$ $3.0 \pm 0.7$
2 $3.6 \pm 0.8$ $4.1 \pm 1.0 $ $3.6 \pm 0.8 $
3 $3.3 \pm 0.8$ $3.7 \pm 0.9$ $3.2 \pm 0.8 $
4 $2.9 \pm 0.8$ $3.3 \pm 1.0$ $3.0 \pm 0.8 $
: SFD hit multiplicity for experimental data.[]{data-label="tab:2"}
RUN SFDx SFDy SFDu
----- --------------- --------------- ----------------
1 – $3.5 \pm 0.6$ $ 3.4 \pm 0.6$
2 $3.8 \pm 0.6$ $4.0 \pm 0.6$ $3.7 \pm 0.6 $
3 $3.3 \pm 0.6$ $3.6 \pm 0.6$ $3.3 \pm 0.6 $
4 $3.1 \pm 0.8$ $3.4 \pm 1.0$ $3.0 \pm 0.8 $
: SFD hit multiplicity for MC data.[]{data-label="tab:3"}
Momentum resolution {#ssec:momentum}
-------------------
{width="0.47\linewidth"}{width="0.47\linewidth"}\
{width="0.47\linewidth"}{width="0.47\linewidth"}
Using simulated $\pi K$ events, the momentum resolution is evaluated by means of the expression $\delta_{p} = (p_\mathrm{gen} - p_\mathrm{rec}) /
p_\mathrm{gen}$, where $p_\mathrm{gen}$ and $p_\mathrm{rec}$ are the generated and reconstructed momenta, respectively. The additional momentum smearing was taken into account (Section \[ssec:geom\]). The resulting $\delta_{p}$ distributions were fitted with a Gaussian, and the standard deviations $\sigma$ of the distributions as a function of the particle momentum $p_{rec}$ are presented in Fig. \[fig:6\_7\]a. In the range from 1 to 8 $\text{GeV}/c$, the DIRAC spectrometer reconstructs lab momenta with a relative precision between $2.4 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and $3.2 \cdot 10^{-3}$. The resolution of the relative momentum components $Q_{L}$, $Q_{X}$ and $Q_{Y}$ are obtained by MC simulation in the same approach as for the momentum resolution. The results for RUN4 are shown in Fig. \[fig:6\_7\]. For the other runs, the resolutions are similar.
Simulation of atomic, Coulomb and non-Coulomb $\pi K$ pair production {#ssec:pairs}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Coulomb $\pi K$ pairs, not affected by FSI, show uniform distributions in the c.m. relative momentum projections, whereas Coulomb pairs, exposed to Coulomb FSI, show distributions corresponding to uniform distributions modified by the Gamov-Sommerfeld-Sakharov factor (\[eq:cross\_sect\_C\]). The MC distributions of the lab pair momentum are based on the experimental momentum distributions [@GORC10]. The $\pi^+K^-$ were simulated according to $dN/dp=e^{-0.50p}$ and the $\pi^-K^+$ pairs according to $dN/dp=e^{-0.89p}$, where $p$ is the lab pair momentum in $\text{GeV}/c$. After comparing the experimental with the MC distribution analyzed by the DIRAC program ARIANE, the simulated distributions were modified by applying a weight function in order to fit the experimental data. The lab momentum spectrum of simulated atoms is the same as for Coulomb pairs (\[eq:prod\]). Numerically solving the transport equations (Section \[sec:interact\]), allows to obtain the distributions of the atom breakup points in the target and of the atomic states at the breakup. The latter distribution defines the original c.m. relative momenta $q$ of the produced atomic pairs. The initial spectra of MC atomic, Coulomb and non-Coulomb pairs have been generated by the DIPGEN code [@DIPGEN]. Then, these pairs propagate through the setup according to the detector simulation program GEANT-DIRAC and get analyzed by ARIANE.
The description of the charged particle propagation takes into account (a) multiple scattering in the target, detector planes and setup partitions, (b) the response of all detectors, (c) the additional momentum smearing (Section \[ssec:geom\]) and (d) the results of the SFD response analysis (Section \[ssec:SFD\]) influencing the $Q_T$ resolution.
The propagation of $A_{\pi K}$ through the target is simulated by the MC method. The total amount of atomic pairs is $n_A^{MC}(0)$. The full number of simulated Coulomb pairs in the same setup acceptance is $N^{MC}_C(0)$, and the amount of Coulomb pairs with relative momenta $q < 3.12~\text{MeV}/c$ (\[eq:number\_A\]) is $N^{MC}_C(K)$. These numbers are used for calculating the atom breakup probabilities.
Data analysis {#sec:analysis}
=============
Number of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ atoms and atomic pairs {#ssec:nA}
----------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of $\pi K$ data is similar to the $\pi^+\pi^-$ analysis as presented in [@ADEV11]. For events with $Q_T < 4~\text{MeV}/c$ and $|Q_L| < 20~\text{MeV}/c$ (\[eq:7c\_critq\]), the experimental distributions of $Q$ ($N(Q_i)$) and of its projections have been fitted for each run and each $\pi K$ charge combination by simulated distributions of atomic ($n^{MC}_A(Q_i)$), Coulomb ($N^{MC}_{C}(Q_i)$) and non-Coulomb ($N^{MC}_{nC}(Q_i)$) pairs. The admixture of accidental pairs has been subtracted from the experimental distributions, using the difference of the particle production times (Section \[ssec:Ev\_sel\]). The distributions of simulated events are normalized to 1 by integrating them ($n^{MC}_A$, $N^{MC}_C$ and $N^{MC}_{nC}$). In the experimental distributions, the numbers of atomic ($n_A$), Coulomb ($N_C$) and non-Coulomb ($N_{nC}$) pairs are free fit parameters in the minimizing expression:
$$\label{eq:fitdata-chi2}
\chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{\left( N(Q_i) -
n_A \cdot n^{MC}_A(Q_i) -
N_C \cdot N^{MC}_{C}(Q_i) -
N_{nC} \cdot N^{MC}_{nC}(Q_i) \right)^2}
{\sigma^{2}_{N(Q_i)}} \,.$$
The sum of these parameters is equal to the number of analyzed events. The fitting procedure takes into account the statistical errors of the experimental distributions. The statistical errors of the MC distributions are more than one order less than the experimental ones.
Fig. \[fig:Q\_Pt\]a presents the experimental and simulated $Q$ distributions of $\pi K$ pairs for the data obtained from the Pt target and Fig. \[fig:Q\_Ni\]a for Ni data. One observes an excess of events above the sum of Coulomb and non-Coulomb pairs in the low $Q$ region, where atomic pairs are expected: these excess spectra are shown in Figs. \[fig:Q\_Pt\]b and \[fig:Q\_Ni\]b together with the simulated distribution of atomic pairs. The numbers of atomic pairs, found in the Pt and Ni target data, are $n_A(\text{Pt})=73 \pm 22$ ($\chi^2/n = 40/36$, $n =$ number of degrees of freedom) and $n_A(\text{Ni})=275 \pm 57$ ($\chi^2/n = 40/37$). Comparing the experimental and simulated distributions demonstrates good agreement.
![a) Experimental distribution of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ pairs (points with error bars) for the platinum (Pt) target fitted by a sum of simulated distributions of “atomic”, “Coulomb” and “non-Coulomb” pairs. The background distribution of free (“Coulomb” and “non-Coulomb”) pairs is shown as black line; b) Difference distribution between the experimental and simulated free pair distributions compared with the simulated distribution of “atomic pairs”.[]{data-label="fig:Q_Pt"}](fig-14.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Experimental distribution of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ pairs for nickel (Ni) target analogous to Fig. \[fig:Q\_Pt\].[]{data-label="fig:Q_Ni"}](fig-15.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The same analysis was performed for $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ pairs, separately. For the Pt target, the numbers of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ atomic pairs are $n^{\pi^-K^+}_A(\text{Pt})=57 \pm 19$ ($\chi^2/n = 40/36$) and $n^{\pi^+K^-}_A(\text{Pt})=16 \pm 12$ ($\chi^2/n = 41/36$), and for Ni, the corresponding numbers are $n^{\pi^-K^+}_A(\text{Ni})=186 \pm 48$ ($\chi^2/n = 33/37$) and $n^{\pi^+K^-}_A(\text{Ni})=90 \pm 30$ ($\chi^2/n = 39/37$). The experimental ratios between the two types of atom production are $3.5 \pm 2.7$ for Pt and $2.07 \pm 0.87$ for Ni. Corrected by the difference of their detection efficiencies, these ratios result in $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}(\text{Pt})=3.2 \pm 2.5$ and $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}(\text{Ni})= 2.5 \pm 1.0$, compatible with $2.4$ as calculated in the framework of FRITIOF [@GORC16]. Tables \[tab:nA\_Pt\] and \[tab:nA\_Ni\] present these data, comparing them with the results of the $|Q_L|$ and the 2-dimensional ($|Q_L|$,$Q_T$) analyzes. The results of the $Q$ and ($|Q_L|$,$Q_T$) analyzes are in good agreement, and the 1-dimensional $|Q_L|$ analysis does not contradict the values obtained in the other two statistically more precise analyzes.
------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------
Analysis $n_A$ $n^{\pi^-K^+}_A$ $n^{\pi^+K^-}_A$ $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}$
($\chi^2/n$) ($\chi^2/n$) ($\chi^2/n$)
$Q$ $73 \pm 22$ $57 \pm 19$ $16 \pm 12$ $3.2 \pm 2.5$
(40/36) (40/36) (41/36)
$|Q_L|$ $73 \pm 31$ $61 \pm 27$ $12 \pm 16$ $4.7 \pm 6.6$
(37/37) (40/37) (28/37)
$|Q_L|,Q_T$ $71 \pm 21$ $65 \pm 18$ $6 \pm 11$ $10 \pm 20$
(169/154) (159/151) (102/135)
------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------
: $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ data for the Pt target: atomic pair numbers $n_A$ and ratio $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}$ as obtained by analyzing the 1-dimensional $Q$ and $|Q_L|$ distributions and the 2-dimensional ($|Q_L|$,$Q_T$) distribution. Only statistical errors are given.[]{data-label="tab:nA_Pt"}
------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------
Analysis $n_A$ $n^{\pi^-K^+}_A$ $n^{\pi^+K^-}_A$ $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}$
($\chi^2/n$) ($\chi^2/n$) ($\chi^2/n$)
$Q$ $275 \pm 57$ $186 \pm 48$ $90 \pm 30$ $2.5 \pm 1.0$
(40/37) (33/37) (39/37)
$|Q_L|$ $157 \pm 87$ $103 \pm 74$ $55 \pm 45$ $2.3 \pm 2.5$
(56/37) (52/37) (32/37)
$|Q_L|,Q_T$ $243 \pm 56$ $171 \pm 47$ $72 \pm 30$ $2.8 \pm 1.4$
(225/157) (226/157) (157/157)
------------- -------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------
: $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ data for the Ni targets: atomic pair numbers $n_A$ and ratio $R^{\pi^-K^+}_{\pi^+K^-}$ analogous to Table \[tab:nA\_Pt\].[]{data-label="tab:nA_Ni"}
The efficiency of atomic pair recording is evaluated from the simulated data as ratio of the MC atomic pair number $n_A^{MC}$, passed the corresponding cuts - in each of the above analysis - to the full number of generated atomic pairs: $\varepsilon_A=n_A^{MC}/n_A^{MC}(0)$ (Section \[ssec:pairs\]). The full number of atomic pairs, that corresponds to the experimental value $n_A$, is given by $n_A/\varepsilon_A$. In the same way, the efficiency of Coulomb pair recording is $\varepsilon_C=N_C^{MC}/N_C^{MC}(0)$ and the full number of Coulomb pairs $N_C/\varepsilon_C$. This number allows to calculate the number $N_A$ of atoms produced in the target, using the theoretical ratio $K$ (\[eq:number\_A\]) and the simulated efficiency $\varepsilon_K=N_C^{MC}(K)/N_C^{MC}(0)$ of the cut $q < 3.12~\mathrm{MeV}/c$ for Coulomb pairs: $N_A=K\cdot\varepsilon_K\cdot N_C/\varepsilon_C$. Thus, the atom breakup probability $P_\mathrm{br}$ is expressed via the fit results $n_A$, $N_C$ and the simulated efficiencies as: $$\label{eq:pbr}
P_\mathrm{br} = \frac{\frac{n_A}{\varepsilon_A}}
{K \cdot \varepsilon_K \frac{N_C}{\varepsilon_C}} \, .$$
Table \[tab:Pbr\] contains the $P_\mathrm{br}$ values obtained in the $Q$ and ($|Q_L|$,$Q_T$) analyzes.
Data RUN Target (m) $P^{Q}_{br}$ $P^{|Q_L|,Q_T}_{br}$
---------------------- ----- ------------ ----------------- ----------------------
$\pi^+K^-$ 1 Pt (25.7) $1.2 \pm 1.3$ $0.27 \pm 0.56$
$\pi^+K^-$ 2 Ni (98) $0.53 \pm 0.39$ $0.42 \pm 0.38$
$\pi^+K^-$ 3 Ni (108) $0.29 \pm 0.20$ $0.33 \pm 0.24$
$\pi^+K^-$ 4 Ni (108) $0.33 \pm 0.22$ $0.21 \pm 0.20$
$\pi^-K^+$ 1 Pt (25.7) $1.09 \pm 0.52$ $1.44 \pm 0.59$
$\pi^-K^+$ 2 Ni (98) $0.32 \pm 0.20$ $0.44 \pm 0.22$
$\pi^-K^+$ 3 Ni (108) $0.23 \pm 0.16$ $0.16 \pm 0.15$
$\pi^-K^+$ 4 Ni (108) $0.41 \pm 0.17$ $0.34 \pm 0.16$
$\pi^+K^-\&K^+\pi^-$ 1 Pt, 25.7 $1.11 \pm 0.48$ $0.83 \pm 0.41$
: Experimental $P_\mathrm{br}$ from $Q$ and $(|Q_L|,Q_T)$ analyzes. Only statistical uncertainties are cited.[]{data-label="tab:Pbr"}
Systematic errors {#ssec:systematic}
-----------------
Different sources of systematic errors were investigated. Most of them arise from differences in the shapes of experimental and MC distributions for atomic, Coulomb and, to a much lesser extent, for non-Coulomb pairs. The shape differences induce a bias in the values of the fit parameters $n_A$ and $N_C$, leading to systematic errors of the atomic pair number and finally of the probability $P_\mathrm{br}$. In the following, a list of the different sources is presented:
- Resolution over particle momentum of the simulated events is modified by the $\Lambda$ width correction (Section \[ssec:geom\]). The parameter $C$, used for additional smearing of measured momenta, is defined with finite accuracy, resulting in a possible difference in resolution of experimental and simulated data over $Q_L$.
- Multiple scattering in the targets (Pt and Ni) provides a major part of the $Q_T$ smearing. The average multiple scattering angle is known with 1% accuracy. This uncertainty induces a systematic error due to different resolutions over $Q_T$ for experimental and simulated data.
- SFD simulation procedure as described in Section \[ssec:SFD\] corrects a residual difference with weights, depending on the distances between particles in the three SFD planes. These weights are estimated by a separate procedure resulting in a systematic error.
- Coulomb pair production cross section increases at low $q$ according to $A_C(q)$ (\[eq:cross\_sect\_C\]) assuming a pointlike pair production region. Typical sizes of production regions from medium-lived particle decays \[($30 \div 40$) fm\] are smaller than the Bohr radius (such pairs undergo Coulomb FSI), but not pointlike. In order to check finite size effects due to the presence of medium-lived particles ($\omega$, $\phi$), non-pointlike particle pair sources are investigated, and correlation functions for the different pair sources calculated [@LEDN08]. The final correlation function, considering the sizes of the pair production regions, has some uncertainty due to limited accurate fractions of the different $\pi K$ sources.
- Uncertainties in the measurement of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ pair lab momentum spectra and the relation between these uncertainties and the systematic errors of the atomic pair measurement are described in [@note1306]. There is a mechanism that increases the influence of the bias between experimental and simulated distributions for $\pi K$ compared to $\pi\pi$. For detected small $Q$ $\pi K$ pairs, kaons have lab momenta $\sim 3.5$ times higher than pions, $(4 \div 6)~\text{GeV}/c$ compared to $(1.2 \div 2)~\text{GeV}/c$. The spectrometer acceptance as a function of lab momentum strongly decreases at momenta higher than 3 $\text{GeV}/c$. As a result, kaons with lower momenta are detected more efficiently. In the pair c.m. system, this corresponds to $Q_L < 0$ for $\pi^-K^+$ pairs as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:kpi-selection\]c. For $\pi\pi$, the corresponding distributions consist of the flat horizontal background of non-Coulomb pairs and symmetric peak of Coulomb and atomic pairs. The observed slope for $\pi K$ in $Q_L$ distribution is non-linear, that transforms to a non-linear background behavior in $|Q_L|$. Thus, the quality of separation between Coulomb and non-Coulomb pairs becomes more sensitive to the accuracy of simulated distributions.
- Uncertainty in the lab momentum spectrum of background pairs results in a similar effect as the uncertainties of $\pi^-K^+$ and $\pi^+K^-$ spectra. Both spectra are measured with a time-of-flight based procedure (Section \[sec:backr\_subtr\]), but as independent parameters. Therefore, the uncertainty of the background pairs is assumed to be an independent source for systematic errors.
- Uncertainty in the $P_\mathrm{br}(\tau)$ relation (Section \[ssec:br\]).
Estimations of systematic errors, induced by different sources, are presented in Table \[tab:systPt\] for Pt data and Table \[tab:systNi\] for Ni data. The total errors were calculated as the quadratic sum. The procedure of the $\pi K$ atom lifetime estimation described below includes all systematic errors, although their contributions are insignificant compared to the statistical errors.
[p[0.65]{}ll]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source & $Q$ & $(|Q_L|,Q_T)$\
Uncertainty in $\Lambda$ width correction & 0.011 & 0.073\
Uncertainty of multiple scattering in the Pt target & 0.0087 & 0.014\
Accuracy of SFD simulation & 0. & 0.\
Correction of the Coulomb correlation function on finite size production region & 0.0001 & 0.0002\
Uncertainty in $\pi K$ pair lab. momentum spectrum & 0.089 & 0.25\
Uncertainty in the laboratory momentum spectrum of background pairs & 0.22 & 0.21\
Uncertainty in the $P_\mathrm{br}(\tau)$ relation & 0.01 & 0.01\
Total & 0.24 & 0.34\
[p[0.65]{}ll]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source & $Q$ & $(|Q_L|,Q_T)$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertainty in $\Lambda$ width correction & 0.0006 & 0.0006\
Uncertainty of multiple scattering in a Ni target & 0.0051 & 0.0036\
Accuracy of SFD simulation & 0.0002 & 0.0003\
Correction of the Coulomb correlation function on finite size production region & 0.0001 & 0.0000\
Uncertainty in $\pi K$ pair lab. momentum spectrum & 0.0052 & 0.0050\
Uncertainty in the laboratory momentum spectrum of background pairs & 0.0011 & 0.0011\
Uncertainty in the $P_\mathrm{br}(\tau)$ relation & 0.0055 & 0.0055\
Total & 0.0092 & 0.0084\
$\pi K$ atom lifetime and $\pi K$ scattering length measurements {#ssec:time}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The $\pi K$ atom breakup probabilities $P_\mathrm{br}= f(\tau,l,Z,p_A)$ in the different targets are presented in Section \[ssec:br\] and have been calculated for the Ni (98 m, 108 m) and the Pt (26 m) targets. For each target, $P_\mathrm{br}$ is evaluated for $\pi^+K^-$ and $\pi^-K^+$ atoms, separately, taking into account their lab momentum distributions. For estimating the lifetime of $A_{\pi K}$ in the ground state, the maximum likelihood method [@daniel08] is applied [@DN201606]: $$L(\tau) = \exp \left(-U^T G^{-1} U/2\right),$$ where $U_i=\Pi_i-P_{\mathrm{br},i}(\tau)$ is a vector of differences between measured $\Pi_i$ ($P_\mathrm{br}$ in Table \[tab:Pbr\]) and corresponding theoretical breakup probability $P_{\mathrm{br},i}(\tau)$ for a data sample $i$. The error matrix of $U$, named $G$, includes statistical ($\sigma_i$) as well as systematic uncertainties. Only the term corresponding to the uncertainty in the $P_{\mathrm{br}}(\tau)$ relation is considered as correlated between the Ni and Pt data, which is a conservative approach and overestimates this error. The other systematic uncertainties do not exhibit a correlation between the data samples from the Ni and Pt targets. On the other hand, systematic uncertainties of the Ni data samples are correlated.
The likelihood functions of the $(|Q_L|, Q_T)$ and $Q$ analyzes are shown in Fig. \[fig:likelihoods\], and Table \[tab:piKlifetime\] summarizes the results of both analysis types and for different cuts in the $Q$ space. One realizes that the usage of the Pt data in the analysis does not significantly modify the final result. As the magnitude of the systematic error for Pt is only about 2 times smaller than the statistical uncertainty, the inclusion of systematic errors changes the relative weights of the Pt and Ni data samples, thus shifting the best estimate for $\tau_{\text{tot}}$ with respect to $\tau_{\text{stat}}$. The introduction of the criteria $|Q_x|,|Q_y|<4\:\text{MeV}/c$ increases the background level by 22%, relative to the criterion $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$. The results in Table \[tab:piKlifetime\] show that the lifetime values obtained with the $Q$ analysis are practically equal for both criteria. Therefore, the final result is presented for the $Q$ analysis evaluated with the criterion $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$, using the statistics of the Ni and Pt data samples: $$\tau_{\text{tot}} = \left.
(5.5^{+5.0}_{-2.8}\right|_{\text{tot}})\cdot10^{-15}~\text{s}.
\label{eq:piKlifetime_Q}$$ The measured $\pi K$ atom lifetime corresponds, according to the relation (\[eq:gamma\]) (Fig. \[fig:tau\_a0\]), to the following value of the $\pi K$ scattering length $a_0^-$: $$\left|a_0^-\right| M_{\pi} = \left. 0.072^{+0.031}_{-0.020}\right|_{\text{tot}}.$$
![Likelihood functions $L(\tau)$ for $Q$ analyzes with $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$. The likelihood functions on the basis of both statistical and systematic errors (dashed green line) and on the basis of only statistical error (solid blue line) are presented. The vertical blue lines indicate the best estimate for $\tau_{\text{tot}}$ and the corresponding confidence interval. The vertical red line is the theoretical prediction (\[eq:tau35\]). []{data-label="fig:likelihoods"}](fig-16.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Analysis Cuts Target $\tau_{\text{stat}}$ $\tau_{\text{tot}}$
---------------- ----------------------------- -------- ------------------------ ------------------------
$(|Q_L|, Q_T)$ $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$ Pt&Ni $3.96^{+3.49}_{-2.12}$ $3.79^{+3.48}_{-2.12}$
$(|Q_L|, Q_T)$ $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$ Ni $3.52^{+3.40}_{-2.10}$ $3.52^{+3.42}_{-2.11}$
$(|Q_L|, Q_T)$ $|Q_x|,|Q_y|<4\text{MeV}/c$ Pt&Ni $3.16^{+2.67}_{-1.73}$ $2.89^{+2.63}_{-1.70}$
$(|Q_L|, Q_T)$ $|Q_x|,|Q_y|<4\text{MeV}/c$ Ni $2.66^{+2.56}_{-1.66}$ $2.66^{+2.58}_{-1.66}$
$Q$ $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$ Pt&Ni $5.64^{+4.99}_{-2.82}$ $5.53^{+4.98}_{-2.81}$
$Q$ $Q_T<4\:\text{MeV}/c$ Ni $5.07^{+4.73}_{-2.74}$ $5.07^{+4.77}_{-2.75}$
$Q$ $|Q_x|,|Q_y|<4\text{MeV}/c$ Pt&Ni $5.62^{+4.65}_{-2.71}$ $5.60^{+4.68}_{-2.72}$
$Q$ $|Q_x|,|Q_y|<4\text{MeV}/c$ Ni $4.98^{+4.37}_{-2.60}$ $4.98^{+4.41}_{-2.62}$
: $\pi K$ atom lifetime measurements: $\tau_{\text{stat}}$ (only statistical error) and $\tau_{\text{tot}}$ (total error) in $10^{-15}$ s.[]{data-label="tab:piKlifetime"}
![Ground state $A_{\pi K}$ lifetime $\tau_{1S}$ versus $a_0^-$ form $Q$ analysis. Experimental results (blue lines) are compared to the theoretical prediction (red lines).[]{data-label="fig:tau_a0"}](fig-17.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
All theoretical predictions are compatible with the measured value taking into account the experimental precision. The main contribution to the experimental uncertainty comes from statistics. As shown in [@GORC16], the number of $\pi K$ atoms detected per time unit would be increased by a factor of 30 to 40, if the DIRAC experiment could exploit the CERN SPS 450 $\text{GeV}/c$ proton beam.Under these conditions, the statistical precision of $a_0^-$ will be around 5% for a single run period.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
The DIRAC Collaboration published the observation of $\pi^- K^+$ and $\pi^+ K^-$ atoms [@ADEV16]. These atoms were generated by the 24 $\text{GeV}/c$ protons of the CERN PS in Ni and Pt targets, where a part of them broke up, yielding $\pi^- K^+$ and $\pi^+ K^-$ atomic pairs. In the present article, the breakup probabilities for each atom type and each target are determined by analyzing atomic and free $\pi K$ pairs. By means of these probabilities, the lifetime of the $\pi K$ atom in the ground state is evaluated, $\tau_{\text{tot}} =
\left.(5.5^{+5.0}_{-2.8}\right|_{\text{tot}})\cdot10^{-15}$ s, and the S-wave isospin-odd $\pi K$ scattering length deduced, $\left|a_0^-\right| =
\frac{1}{3}\left|a_{1/2}-a_{3/2}\right| = \left.
(0.072^{+0.031}_{-0.020}\right|_{\text{tot}}) M_{\pi}^{-1}$. The measured $a_0^-$ value is compatible with our previous less precise result [@ADEV14] and with theoretical results calculated in ChPT, LQCD and in a dispersive framework using Roy-Steiner equations [@SCHW04; @BUET04; @WEIN66; @Gasser85; @BERN91; @KUBI02; @BIJN04; @JANO14; @BEAN06; @Fu12; @Sasaki14].
On the basis of the statistically significant observation of $\pi K$ atoms [@ADEV16], DIRAC presents a measurement of the $\pi K$ atom lifetime and the corresponding fundamental $\pi K$ scattering length.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to R. Steerenberg and the CERN PS crew for the delivery of a high quality proton beam and the permanent effort to improve the beam characteristics. We thank G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, U.G. Meissner, B. Kubis, A. Rusetsky, M. Ivanov and O. Teryaev for their interest to our work and helpful discussions. The project DIRAC has been supported by CERN and JINR administrations, Ministry of Education and Youth of the Czech Republic by project LG130131, the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and the University of Messina (Italy), the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Ministry of Education and Research (Romania), the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Dirección Xeral de Investigación, Desenvolvemento e Innovación, Xunta de Galicia (Spain) and the Swiss National Science Foundation.
[99]{}
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 112001.
J.R. Bateley et al., Eur. Phys. J. C64 (2009) 589.
J.R. Bateley et al., Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010) 635.
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011) 24.
S.M. Bilen’kii et al., Yad. Fiz. 10 (1969) 812; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 10 (1969) 469.
J. Schweizer, Phys. Lett. B 587 (2004) 33; Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004) 483.
P. Buettiker, S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 409. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 616.
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985) 465.
V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and Ulf-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 2757;\
V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and Ulf-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B357 (1991) 129.
B. Kubis and Ulf-G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 529 (2002) 69.
J. Bijnens, P. Dhonte and P. Talavera, J. High Energy Phys. 0405 (2004) 036.
T. Janowski et al., PoS LATTICE2014 (2015) 080.
S.R. Beane, et al., Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 114503.
Z. Fu, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 074501.
K. Sasaki, N. Ishizuka, M. Oka, T. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 054502.
L. Nemenov, Yad. Fiz. 41 (1985) 980; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1985) 629.
L. Afanasyev and A.V. Tarasov, Yad. Fiz. 59 (1996) 2212; Phys. Atom. Nucl. 59 (1996) 2130.
L. Afanasyev et al., Phys. Lett. B 308 (1993) 200.
L. Afanasyev et al., Phys. Lett. B 338 (1994) 478.
B. Adeva et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 30 (2004) 1929.
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B 619 (2005) 50.
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B 751 (2015) 12.
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B 674 (2009) 11.
B. Adeva et al., Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 288.
O. Gorchakov et al., Yad. Fiz. 63 (2000) 1936; Phys. At. Nucl. 63 (2000) 1847.
O. Gorchakov and L. Nemenov, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 43 (2016) 095004.
B. Adeva et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 839 (2016) 52.
O. Gorchakov and A. Kuptsov, DN (DIRAC Note) 2005-05; cds.cern.ch/record/1369686.
O. Gorchakov, DN 2005-23; cds.cern.ch/record/1369668.
M. Pentia et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A 795 (2015) 200.
G. Gamov, Z. Phys. 51 (1928) 204.
A. Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien, F. Vieweg & Sohn (1931).
A.D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 34 (1991) 375.
L. Afanasyev and O. Voskresenskaya, Phys. Lett. B 453 (1999) 302;\
L. Afanasyev, O. Voskresenskaya and V. Yazkov, Communication JINR P1-97-306 Dubna 1997.
R. Lednicky, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 (2008) 125109.
R. Lednicky, DN 2012-05; cds.cern.ch/record/1475781.
A. Kotsinian, preprint EFI-400 (7) Erevan 1980.
L.S. Dulian and A.M. Kotsinian, Yad. Fiz. 37 (1983) 137; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 37 (1983) 78.
S. Mrówczyński, Phys. Rev. A 33, 1549 (1986).
S. Mrówczyński, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 1520;\
K.G. Denisenko and S.Mrówczyński, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 1529.
L. Afanasyev, A. Tarasov and O. Voskresenskaya, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 096001.
T.A. Heim et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 33 (2000) 3583.
T.A. Heim et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 34 (2001) 3763.
M. Schumann, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35 (2002) 2683.
M. Zhabitsky, DN 2014-06; cds.cern.ch/record/1987122.
A.V. Tarasov and I.U. Khristova, JINR-P2-91-10 Dubna 1991.
O. Voskresenskaya, S.R. Gevorkyan and A.V. Tarasov, Phys. At. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1517.
L. Afanasyev, A. Tarasov and O. Voskresenskaya, J. Phys. G 25 B7 (1999) 224.
D.Yu. Ivanov and L. Szymanowski, Eur. Phys. J. A5 (1999) 117.
T.A. Heim et al., Proc. Workshop on Hadronic Atoms HadAtom01 Bern 2001 13;\
arXiv:hep-ph/0112293.
Z. Halabuka et al., Nucl. Phys. B 554 (1999) 86.
M.V. Zhabitsky, Phys. At. Nucl. 71 (2008) 1040.
O. Voskresenskaya, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36 (2003) 3293.
L. Afanasyev et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37 (2004) 4749.
M. Zhabitsky, DN 2007-11; cds.cern.ch/record/1369651.
B. Adeva et al., Addendum to the DIRAC Proposal CERN–SPSC–2004–009 SPSC-P-284 Add. 4; http://cds.cern.ch/record/729809.
DIRAC Collaboration,\
dirac.web.cern.ch/DIRAC/offlinedocs/Userguide.html.
A. Benelli and V. Yazkov, DN 2016-01; cds.cern.ch/record/2137645.
O. Gorchakov, DN 2009-10; cds.cern.ch/record/1369625;\
DN 2009-08; cds.cern.ch/record/1369627;\
DN 2009-02; cds.cern.ch/record/1369633;\
DN 2008-09; cds.cern.ch/record/1369636.
B. Adeva, A. Romero and O. Vazquez Doce, DN 2005-16; cds.cern.ch/record/1369675. J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001.
B. Adeva et al., CERN-EP-2017-137; cds.cern.ch/record/2268734.
P. Doskarova and V. Yazkov, DN 2013-05; cds.cern.ch/record/1628541.
A. Benelli and V. Yazkov, DN 2009-07; cds.cern.ch/record/1369628.
V. Yazkov and M. Zhabitsky, DN 2013-06; cds.cern.ch/record/1628544.
O. Gorchakov, DN 2007-04; cds.cern.ch/record/1369657.
A. Benelli and V. Yazkov, DN 2012-04; cds.cern.ch/record/1475780.
A. Benelli and V. Yazkov, DN 2016-02; cds.cern.ch/record/2137799.
A. Benelli and V. Yazkov, DN 2016-03; cds.cern.ch/record/2207225.
O. Gorchakov, DN 2010-01; cds.cern.ch/record/1369624.
D. Drijard and M. Zhabitsky, DN 2008-07; cds.cern.ch/record/1367888.
V. Yazkov and M. Zhabitsky, DN 2016-06; cds.cern.ch/record/2252375.
[^1]: Further decay channels with photons and $e^+ e^-$ pairs are suppressed at $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'P. Székely, L. L. Kiss, B. Csák, A. Derekas, T. R. Bedding'
- 'K. Szatmáry'
title: A comprehensive survey of variable stars in the globular cluster NGC 362
---
Introduction
============
Although globular clusters are primary testbeds of modern astrophysics due to large number of stars with the same age and composition, there are still a number of unstudied clusters, mostly in the southern hemisphere. We have been carrying out a CCD photometric survey project of southern globular clusters since mid-2003. Here we present the first results for NGC 362, which is one of the brightest unstudied southern clusters, located in front of the outer edge of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC).
Observations and data analysis
==============================
Our V-filtered photometric observations were carried out between July 2003 and October 2004 on 17 nights at Siding Spring Observatory, Australia. We used the 1m ANU telescope equipped with the Wide Field Imager. In addition to the photometry, we measured radial velocities for the brightest RR Lyrae stars from spectra taken with the 2.3m ANU telescope.
Instrumental magnitudes were obtained via a semi-automatic pipeline using daophot tasks for PSF photometry. Periods for variables were determined with a combination of Fourier analysis, phase dispersion minimization [@stellingwerf1978] and string-length minimization [@lafler1965].
Discussion
==========
Our results can be summarized as follows.
- From the ensemble photometry of over 10,000 stars, we found 19 RRab/RRc variable stars (of which 16 are new discoveries) with very similar mean apparent brightnesses, so that they are all members of the cluster. The measured radial velocities for 5 RR Lyraes supported this conclusion for having the same $\sim$200 km/s mean velocity as the cluster itself [@fischer1993].
- A large fraction of RR Lyrae stars show periodic amplitude and/or phase modulations, the so-called Blazhko-effect, which is still one of the greatest mysteries in classical pulsating stars (e.g. @chadid2004). In our sample, two variables, V6 and V18 (shown right), have the strongest light curve modulations, while further five stars (V9, V12, V13, V19 and V31) exhibited subtle changes during the 15 months of observations.
- We found a number of variable stars belonging to other classes. Interestingly, we also identified a few RR Lyrae stars that are several magnitudes fainter than those in the cluster. We suspect these to belong to the outher halo of the Small Magellanic Cloud; a more secure membership investigation is in progress.
- We found 5 long period ($>$1 d) RR Lyr-like variables, which are either candidate above-horizontal-branch stars (AHB stars, @diethelm1990) or short-period Type II Cepheids.
- We also discovered several short-period eclipsing binaries, most likely in the galactic foreground of the cluster.
- A number of stars on the red giant branch showed evidence for variability on a time-scale of 10-50 days, suggesting the presence of RGB pulsations predicted by @kiss2003.
Our work was supported by the Australian Research Council and the Hungarian OTKA Grant \#T042509. LLK is supported by a University of Sydney Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. The NASA ADS Abstract Service was used to access data and references.
Chadid, M. et al., 2004, A&A, 413, 1087 Clement, C. M. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2587 Diethelm, R., 1990, A&A, 239, 186 Fischer, P. et al., 1993, AJ, 106, 1508 Jurcsik, J., Kovács, G., 1996, A&A, 312, 111 Kiss, L.L., Bedding, T.R., 2003, MNRAS, 343, L79 Lafler, J., Kinman, T. D., 1965, ApJS, 11, 216 Stellingwerf, R. F., 1978, ApJ, 224, 953
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'An effective description of a general class of stochastic phase oscillators is presented. For this, the effective phase velocity is defined either by invariant probability density or via first passage times. While the first approach exhibits correct frequency and distribution density, the second one yields proper phase resetting curves. Their discrepancy is most pronounced for noise-induced oscillations and is related to non-monotonicity of the phase fluctuations.'
author:
- 'Justus T. C. Schwabedal'
- Arkady Pikovsky
title: 'Effective phase description of noise-perturbed and noise-induced oscillations'
---
General introduction
====================
The phase is a theoretical concept lying at the heart of description of oscillatory dynamics. In a physical context a periodic phase variable provides a simplified description of self-sustained oscillations shown by natural, synthetic or mathematical systems in their state space [@Kuramoto-84; @Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01]. The phase description contains many characterizing physical properties associated to oscillatory motion as for example frequency and regularity of oscillations. Most importantly, smooth or impulsive coupling of interacting oscillators may be formulated in terms of phase dynamics [@Kuramoto-84; @Kralemann-08; @Canavier2007].
Irregular features, interpreted as noise, may be present in oscillations. In many situations noise can be treated as a perturbation to oscillatory dynamics. In this case one can start with the phase description of noiseless oscillations, and consider noise as a perturbation. However, noise may be substantial in the sense that it induces oscillations in the system which would equilibrate otherwise. Such noise-induced oscillations may be quite coherent disguising the underlying systems excitable nature. Therefore, it may not be possible to distinguish between the two cases in an experimental setup unless noise may be eliminated.
Despite of evident similarities between noise-perturbed and noise-induced oscillations, a phase description of noise-induced oscillations cannot be obtained through standard perturbative procedures, because in the noise-free situation there is no dynamics. Recently, this problem was addressed by an effective description, where noise-induced oscillations driven by an external periodic force could be characterized in a genuine way [@Pikovsky2010]. It was seen, that the effective phase model relies on an average concept of speed given by the current velocity [@Nelson-66].
The goal of this paper is to generalize the method of [@Pikovsky2010]. For this, we show that an alternative effective phase model is possible, and compare the two approaches. After a summary of well-known dynamical properties of stochastic phase oscillators in the next section, we outline the current model of effective phase theory for a single oscillator (Section \[sec:currentModel\]). Hereon, an alternative model based on first passage times is presented in Section \[sec:ptm\] modeling other aspects of stochastic dynamics. In Section \[sec:asymptotics\], mathematical aspects of the theory in its limiting cases for small and large noise are discussed highlighting differences and similarities of the effective phase models. A special emphasis is put on the description of noise-induced oscillations in these limits. In Section \[sec:stochPRC\], phase resetting curves of stochastic phase oscillators and their relation to the first passage model of effective phase theory are described.
Stochastic phase oscillators and their effective description
============================================================
Our basic model is a stochastic phase oscillator. It is described by a $2\pi$-periodic random process $\theta$, called *protophase*, that obeys the Langevin dynamics $$\dot{{\theta}}(t)=h({\theta}(t))+g({\theta}(t))\xi(t),
\label{eq:generalOsci}$$ where $\xi(t)$ is $\delta$-correlated Gaussian noise $\langle \xi(t)\xi(t')\rangle=2\delta(t-t')$. A well-known example showing most prominent features of stochastic oscillations is the theta model [@Ermentrout2008] $$\dot{{\theta}}(t)=a+\cos{\theta}+{ \sigma }\xi(t)~.
\label{eq:thetaNeuron}$$ For $|a|<1$, it shows noise-induced oscillations which remain also in the deterministic limit ${ \sigma^2 }\to0$, while for $|a|>1$ oscillations are noise-perturbed and they persist also for vanishing noise.
For the stochastic phase oscillator introduced above, most relevant quantities are accessible analytically. The probability density $P({\theta})$ is governed by the Fokker-Planck equation associated to equation [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} given by $$\partial_tP=-{ \partial_{{\theta}}}\left[hP\right]+{ \partial_{{\theta}}}\left[ g{ \partial_{{\theta}}}\left[gP\right]\right]=-{ \partial_{{\theta}}}J~.
\label{eq:FPQ}$$ For stationary probability density, the *probability flux* $J$ is constant and we obtain the simpler equation $$J=hP-g\partial_{\theta}\left[gP\right]~.
\label{eq:flux}$$ This equation has the well-known solution [@Risken1989] $$P({\theta})=C\int_{\theta}^{2\pi+{\theta}}\frac{{d}\psi}{g({\theta})g(\psi)}~{\text{e}}^{-\int_{\theta}^\psi\frac{h({\varphi})}{g^2({\varphi})}~{d}{\varphi}}~,
\label{eq:FPQ-sol}$$ where $C$ is a *normalization constant* ensuring $\int_0^{2\pi}P({\theta})~{d}{\theta}=1$. As illustrated in Fig. [\[fig:theta-Pl\]]{}, probability density becomes singular for vanishing noise if oscillations are noise-induced.
![ Left: Probability density [(\[eq:FPQ-sol\])]{} of the theta-model for $a=0.9$ and values of ${ \sigma }$ as indicated. Right: Lyapunov exponent [(\[eq:lyap\])]{} of theta-model as a function of ${ \sigma }$ for $a=0.5$ (blue circles), $a=0.95$ (red triangles), and $a=1.5$ (black squares). []{data-label="fig:theta-Pl"}](sec2-theta-Pl.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Among the traditional quantities of stochastic phase oscillators are the mean frequency and diffusion coefficient $${\omega}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{{\langle \theta(t)\rangle}}{t}~,~\text{and}~~D=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{{\langle \left[{\theta}(t)-{\omega}t \right]^2\rangle}}{2t}~,
\label{eq:freqDiff}$$ which actually are properties of the point process $n(t)$ counting the number of rotations of ${\theta}(t)$. They are expressed in terms of $h({\theta})$ and $g({\theta})$ through the well-known formulas [@Risken1989; @Reimann2001] $${\omega}= 2\pi J = 2\pi C\left[1-{\text{e}}^{-\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{h({\varphi})}{g^2({\varphi})}~{d}{\varphi}}\right]~\text{, and}
\label{eq:freqflux}$$ $$D=\frac{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\psi}{g(\psi)}
\left[\int_{\psi-2\pi}^\psi\frac{d{\varphi}}{g({\varphi})}\rho({\varphi},\psi)\right]^2
\int_\psi^{\psi+2\pi}\frac{d{\varphi}}{g({\varphi})}\rho(\psi,{\varphi})}
{\left[\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\psi}{g(\psi)}\int_{\psi-2\pi}^\psi\frac{2d{\varphi}}{g({\varphi})}\rho({\varphi},\psi)\right]^3}~,
\label{eq:diffCoef}$$ where $\rho(\theta,{\varphi})=\exp\left[-\int_{\theta}^{{\varphi}}
\frac{h(\eta)}{g^2(\eta)}~{d}\eta\right]$. For noise-induced oscillations the mean frequency converges to zero in the limit of vanishing noise, as shown in the left plot of Fig. [\[fig:theta-wD\]]{}. In the large noise limit ${ \sigma^2 }\to\infty$ the mean frequency converges to a finite value for additive noise, which will be shown in a general setup in section \[sec:asymptotics\]. The quotient of diffusion coefficient and mean frequency is a measure for decoherence of oscillations (right plot). For noise-induced oscillations, the well-known effect of coherence resonance is observable where decoherence decreases for increasing noise amplitude (red triangles and blue circles) [@Pikovsky-Kurths-97]. The effect is not observable for noise-perturbed oscillations (black squares).
![ Mean frequency [(\[eq:freqflux\])]{} in left plot, and quotient of diffusion coefficient [(\[eq:diffCoef\])]{} and mean frequency in right plot of the $\theta$-model as functions of $\sigma$ for $a=0.5$ (blue circles), $a=0.95$ (red triangles), and $a=1.5$ (black squares). []{data-label="fig:theta-wD"}](sec2-theta-wD.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Another interesting quantity that characterizes phase oscillations is Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$ associated to noise. It quantifies whether oscillators under the influence of the same noise representation $\xi(t)$ will synchronize by stochasticity. For oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} it is computed by $$\lambda = {\langle h'({\theta})+g''({\theta})g({\theta})\rangle}.
\label{eq:lyap}$$ For oscillators under the influence by additive noise like the theta model, $\lambda$ vanishes in the limit ${ \sigma^2 }\to\infty$. For small noise there are three cases as exemplified in figure (\[fig:theta-wD\]). For a noise-perturbed oscillator (black squares) the Lyapunov exponent goes to zero as $\lambda\propto-\Gamma$ [@Goldobin2005]. For excitable oscillators (red triangles and blue circles) it converges to a finite negative value dependent on the quantitative stability of their fixed point. For these, there arises yet the special case where $\lambda$ shows a local minimum as a function of ${ \sigma }$ (red triangles) which somehow resembles the noise-perturbed case.
As we have seen, phase dynamics of noise-induced oscillators can be quite close to that of periodic ones, what suggests a purely deterministic phase equation of the type $$\dot{{\theta}}=F({\theta})~,
\label{eq:genefd}$$ for a theoretical description to be possible. Generally, one cannot set $F(\theta)=h(\theta)$ by taking the deterministic part of the Langevin model (\[eq:generalOsci\]), as $h(\theta)$ may have zeros and thus $\theta$ would be non-oscillating. Instead, we have to construct an *effective phase model* using some criteria to determine $F$. Generally, we demand that the effective phase model of type (\[eq:genefd\]) represent as many characteristic properties of stochastic phase oscillators as possible. In [@Pikovsky2010], one approach was proposed that allowed for a construction of an effective phase model with the same mean frequency (i) (equivalently, the same mean period) and distribution density (ii) as the stochastic phase oscillator. Without violating these conditions, the diffusion coefficient (iii) could be modeled, too, by adding noise to (\[eq:genefd\]) in a certain way. Drawing a more general framework, we will present in the next two sections the effective phase model from [@Pikovsky2010] and another effective phase model based on first passage times in a coherent way. Roughly, the difference of these models is in the definitions of the mean velocity. Given an interval of length $\Delta{\theta}$, velocity can be measured as the quotient of $\Delta{\theta}$ and the mean time $\Delta t$, that ${\theta}(t)$ spends in this interval. This leads exactly to an effective phase description as presented in [@Pikovsky2010]. Alternatively, velocity can be measured as the quotient of $\Delta{\theta}$ and the mean time taken to reach the opposite boundary of the interval, leading to the concept of *first passage velocity*. For deterministic phase oscillators the two definitions of velocity coincide, whereas for oscillations driven by a random force there is a difference, which is especially pronounced for oscillations that are noise-induced.
Current Model of effective phase dynamics {#sec:currentModel}
=========================================
We start by constructing the deterministic phase equation for the *current model* $$\dot{{\theta}}=H({\theta})~,
\label{eq:effOsci}$$ by using the notion of speed based on the mean time that the stochastic phase oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} spends in an interval $[{\theta},{\theta}+{d}{\theta}]$. This time is defined according to the invariant probability density ${d}t=P{d}{\theta}/J$. It follows, that the *current velocity* $H$ is given by $$H({\theta}) =\frac{J{d}{\theta}}{P({\theta}){d}{\theta}} = \frac{{\omega}}{2\pi P({\theta})}~.
\label{eq:flowvelocity}$$ This leads to the same effective model introduced in [@Pikovsky2010]. Model [(\[eq:effOsci\])]{} obeys conditions (i)\[preservation of the mean frequency\] and (ii) \[preservation of the probability density\] because it fulfills the stationary Liouville equation for $P({\theta})$ and it shows correct period $T$ as seen by $$-{ \partial_{{\theta}}}\left[ H({\theta})P({\theta})\right]=0~,~\text{and}~\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d{\theta}}{H({\theta})}=T~.
\nonumber$$ In Fig. [\[fig:sec3-flowModel\]]{} we compare time series of oscillator [(\[eq:thetaNeuron\])]{} and its current model [(\[eq:effOsci\])]{}. Although the stochastic components are missing in the effective model, the observed dynamics is comparable.
The current velocity $H(\theta)$ can be expressed in terms of $h({\theta})$ and $g({\theta})$. For this, equation [(\[eq:flux\])]{} is divided by $P$, and the result is compared to equation [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{} yielding $$H({\theta}) = h({\theta})-\frac{1}{2}\left[g^2({\theta})\right]'-g^2({\theta})\left[\ln P({\theta})\right]'=h({\theta})-u({\theta})~.
\label{eq:Heff2}$$ It consists of the deterministic contribution $h({\theta})$ and an osmotic contribution $u({\theta})$, that is especially pronounced for the noise-induced oscillations in the theta model (Fig. [\[fig:sec3-flowModel\]]{} bottom panel). The current velocity corresponds to the point-wise average of central differences [@Just2003]. Therefore, it may be constructed from an observed (e.g., experimentally) time series ${\theta}_n={\theta}(n\Delta t)$ by a simple averaging procedure $$H({\theta})\approx\left.\frac{\langle{\theta}_{n+1}-{\theta}_{n-1}\rangle}{2\Delta t}\right|_{{\theta}_n={\theta}}~.
\label{eq:Heff-esti}$$
![ Current model [(\[eq:effOsci\])]{} has dynamics ${\theta}(t)$ strongly resembling that of the theta model [(\[eq:thetaNeuron\])]{}, here at $a=0.9$ and ${ \sigma }=0.3$ (top). For noise-induced oscillations the osmotic contribution $u({\theta})$ to current velocity [(\[eq:Heff2\])]{} is non-negligible and accounts for its strict positivity. []{data-label="fig:sec3-flowModel"}](sec3-flowModel.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Having constructed the current model, we can transform the protophase $\theta$ to a uniformly rotating phase variable ${\varphi}$, that describes oscillations in an invariant way. It has simple properties $$\dot{{\varphi}}={\omega}~;~~~P({\varphi})=\frac{1}{2\pi}~.
\label{eq:uniformPhase}$$ As it can be easily checked, the nonlinear transformation ${\theta}\to{\varphi}$ is given by $${\varphi}=S({\theta})=2\pi\int_0^{{\theta}}P({\theta}')~d{\theta}'~.
\label{eq:trafo1}$$ With the transformation, coordinate dependent differences in the protophase $\Delta{\theta}={\theta}_2-{\theta}_1$ can be transformed to invariant differences in the phase given by $$\Delta{\varphi}=S({\theta}_2)-S({\theta}_1)=2\pi\int_{{\theta}_1}^{{\theta}_2}P({\theta})~{d}{\theta}~.
\label{eq:trafo1-2}$$ Given a set of data ${\theta}_n={\theta}(n\Delta t)$ containing $N$ data points, transformation can be obtained numerically as in [@Kralemann-08]. If one is not interested in the transformation $S({\theta})$ but in the transformed data ${\varphi}_n=S({\theta}_n)$ only, one may alternatively evaluate $${\varphi}_n=\frac{2\pi}{N}\sum_{l=0}^{N-1}\Theta({\theta}_n-{\theta}_l)~,
\label{eq:trafo1-esti}$$ which is implemented quickly by sorting ($\Theta$ is the Heaviside function).
It was also shown in [@Pikovsky2010], that simultaneously to the mean period and the probability density, phase diffusion may be modeled. For this, $\delta$-correlated noise $\eta(t)$ is added to the invariant phase dynamics [(\[eq:uniformPhase\])]{} with noise intensity $\sqrt{D}$ leading to $$\dot{{\varphi}} ={\omega}+\sqrt{D}\eta(t)~.
\label{eq:effNoise}$$ Now, ${\varphi}$ has a diffusion constant $D$ while preserving uniform density and mean frequency ${\omega}$. Therefore, application of the inverse transformation ${\theta}=S{^{-1}}({\varphi})$ gives us the stochastic current model $$\dot{{\theta}}=H({\theta})+\frac{\sqrt{D}}{{\omega}}H({\theta})\eta(t)~,
\label{eq:stochProtoPhase}$$ that fulfills conditions (i) and (ii) for any value of $D$. It may be chosen freely, and we chose it uniquely from condition (iii): Diffusion coefficients of stochastic current model [(\[eq:stochProtoPhase\])]{} and stochastic phase oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{}, should be equal. This condition is fulfilled if diffusion coefficient [(\[eq:diffCoef\])]{} is used for $D$.
Passage time model of effective phase dynamics {#sec:ptm}
==============================================
As an alternative to the current model outlined in last section, a velocity based on first passage time statistics of oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} shall lead us to a *first passage model* $$\dot{{\theta}} = N({\theta})~.
\label{eq:fpm}$$ To determine $\dot{{\theta}}\approx \frac{\Delta{\theta}}{\Delta t}$ we interpret $\Delta t$ as the first passage time of passing interval $\Delta {\theta}$. More precisely, the *first passage velocity* is constructed using the mean first passage time $T(\alpha,\beta)$ which it takes for ${\theta}(t)$ to reach a boundary $\beta>\alpha$ starting at $\alpha$. We get $$\frac{1}{N({\theta})}=\frac{dt}{d{\theta}}=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to0}\frac{T({\theta},{\theta}+{\varepsilon})-T({\theta},{\theta})}{{\varepsilon}}={ \partial_{\beta}}T({\theta},{\theta})~.
\label{eq:fpv}$$ It fulfills condition that the mean frequency of (\[eq:fpm\]) should be equal to the mean frequency of the oscillations, because the mean period $T$ is nothing else as $T({\theta},2\pi+{\theta})$ and therefore $\int_0^{2\pi}d{\theta}/N({\theta})=T$. However, the condition (ii) above \[density in the effective model is equal to the density of stochastic oscillations\] is generally not fulfilled, as will be shown next.
The distribution density of model [(\[eq:fpm\])]{}, which we will call *first passage density*, is given by $$R({\theta})=\frac{{\omega}}{2\pi N({\theta})}~.
\label{eq:fpd}$$ In order to derive an equation for $R({\theta})$, an equation for the mean first passage time has to be established [@Risken1989]. Consider Fokker-Planck equation [(\[eq:FPQ\])]{}, with the sharp initial condition $P(\theta,0)=\delta(\theta-\alpha)$. In this case equation [(\[eq:FPQ\])]{} describes the conditional probability $P(\theta,t|\alpha,0)$. The boundary conditions $$P(-\infty,t|\alpha,0)=P(\beta,t|\alpha,0)=0~,
\label{eq:bCond}$$ are introduced, which correspond to the fact that trajectories starting at $\theta(0)=\alpha$ should only be considered as long as they do not reach boundary $\beta$. Now, $P$ has to be reinterpreted since the normalization condition does not hold anymore. The *no-passage probability* $G(\alpha,t)$ is defined as the probability that at time $t$ boundary $\beta$ is not reached when starting at $\alpha$. It is defined as $$G(\alpha,t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\beta}P(\theta',t|\alpha,0){d}\theta'~.
\label{eq:chap2-8}$$ By a backward-Kolmogorov expansion of the Markovian transition probability $P$ it is derived [@Risken1989] that $G$ obeys $${ \partial_{t}}G=h(\alpha){ \partial_{\alpha}} G+g(\alpha){ \partial_{\alpha}}\left[g(\alpha){ \partial_{\alpha}} G\right]~.
\label{eq:bkexp}$$ For $t\in[0,\infty)$ and $\alpha<\beta$, a distribution density for random first passage times is given by $g(\alpha,t)=-{ \partial_{t}}G$. With respect to it, the mean first passage time is given by $$T(\alpha,\beta) = \langle t\rangle = \int_0^{\infty}G(\alpha,t')~{d}t'~.
\label{eq:chap2-10}$$ Integrating equation [(\[eq:bkexp\])]{} over positive times one obtains an equation for the mean first passage time $$\begin{aligned}
-1 &= h{ \partial_{\alpha}}T+g{ \partial_{\alpha}}\left[g{ \partial_{\alpha}}T\right]~. \end{aligned}
\label{eq:meanT}$$ Because ${ \partial_{\beta}}T({\theta},{\theta})=-{ \partial_{\alpha}}T({\theta},{\theta})=1/N({\theta})$, equation [(\[eq:meanT\])]{} may be rewritten for the first passage density $R({\theta})$ as $$J = hR+g{ \partial_{{\theta}}}\left[gR\right]~,
\label{eq:densR}$$ solved by $$R({\theta}) = C{ \int\limits}_{{\theta}-2\pi}^{{\theta}}\frac{{d}\psi}{g({\theta})g(\psi)}{\text{e}}^{-\int_{\psi}^{{\theta}}\frac{h({\varphi})}{g^2({\varphi})}{d}{\varphi}}~,
\label{eq:fpdeq}$$ with a normalization constant $C$, and $J={\omega}/2\pi$. Note that, equation [(\[eq:densR\])]{} is similar to [(\[eq:flux\])]{}, but has an opposite sign of the second term. It provides an easy to handle analytic formula for the first passage velocity $N({\theta})$.
The passage time density has a direct meaning for the stochastic protophase ${\theta}(t)$, as we will explain in the following. Let $t_n$ be the times of first passage, for which ${\theta}(t<t_n)<{\theta}(t_n)$ holds. This is illustrated in left panel of Fig. [\[fig:sec3-fpd\]]{} where realization ${\theta}(t)$ and point process ${\theta}_n={\theta}(t_n)$ are counterposed. Because of the Markov property, ${\theta}_n$ gives the starting point for a measurement of passage time ending when ${\theta}(t)$ reaches ${\theta}_{n+1}={\theta}_n+{d}{\theta}$. Although the trajectory of corresponding time segment ${\theta}(t_n<t<t_{n+1})$ lies in the whole region ${\theta}<{\theta}_{n+1}$, for the first passage density $R({\theta})$ it is attributed to the interval ${\theta}_{n}<{\theta}<{\theta}_{n+1}$. So, in fact $R({\theta})$ is the density of the *envelope* of the stochastic protophase ${\theta}(t)$, shown as a red bold line in Fig. \[fig:sec3-fpd\]. As shown in the right panel, the probability density $P({\theta})$ and the first passage density $R({\theta})$ can be quite different. The fact that $R({\theta})$ is probability density of the envelope of ${\theta}(t)$ can be used for a numerical reconstruction from data, as it is shown later in this section.
We would like to mention here that going from the stochastic protophase ${\theta}(t)$ to its envelope, we achieve a monotonically growing protophase. Indeed, phase is often understood as a strictly monotonic variable, in some sense a “replacement” for a time variable. For a stochastic oscillator one often observes “reverse” variations. Thus, taking the envelope is a natural way to restore a monotonic function of time.\
![ Protophase ${\theta}(t)$ (black line) of theta model [(\[eq:thetaNeuron\])]{} and its envelope (red thick line) have similar long term dynamics (left plot), but their distribution densities $P({\theta})$ (black circles) and $R({\theta})$ (red squares) are different, especially for noise-induced oscillations, shown at parameters $a=0.9$ and ${ \sigma }=0.3$. []{data-label="fig:sec3-fpd"}](sec3-fpd.eps){width="49.00000%"}
The first passage model [(\[eq:fpm\])]{} provides effective phase dynamics alternative to the current model. It fulfills condition (i) in that it shows the same mean frequency as oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{}, but instead of modeling probability density (ii), preserves first passage density (iib), which is for deterministic oscillators equal to distribution density. In Fig. [\[fig:sec3-cmpRN\]]{}, first passage (blue circles) and current velocity (red squares) are counterposed for theta models [(\[eq:thetaNeuron\])]{}, for cases of noise-induced (top panel) and noise-perturbed oscillations (bottom panel). In the latter $N({\theta})$ and $H({\theta})$ coincide for vanishing noise, whereas for noise-induced oscillations the difference widens.\
\
![ Current velocity [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{} (red squares) and first passage velocity [(\[eq:fpv\])]{} (blue circles) for the theta model [(\[eq:thetaNeuron\])]{} differ essentially, for both noise-induced at $a=0.9$ (top plot), and noise-perturbed at $a=1.1$ (bottom plot) oscillations. Noise amplitude is ${ \sigma }=0.2$. The difference in effective velocities is especially pronounced for noise-induced oscillations and does not disappear for small ${ \sigma^2 }$. []{data-label="fig:sec3-cmpRN"}](sec3-cmpRN.eps){width="49.00000%"}
In the numerical example, current and first passage velocities are mapped to each other by mirror symmetry. This is due to the fact that both $h$ and $g$ are symmetric in the theta model. For a stochastic phase oscillator with with symmetric $h$ and $g$, the transformation ${\theta}\to-{\theta}$ transforms equation [(\[eq:densR\])]{} in [(\[eq:flux\])]{}. Their solutions are mapped to each other too. Therefore, symmetry of $h$ and $g$ implies $N({\theta})=H(-{\theta})$, as observed in Fig. [\[fig:sec3-cmpRN\]]{}.
For the first passage model, a uniformly rotating phase variable is constructed by the transformation $$\psi = Z({\theta})=2\pi{ \int\limits}_0^{{\theta}}R({\theta}')~{d}{\theta}'~.
\label{eq:trafo2}$$ Again, differences in protophase ${\theta}_2-{\theta}_1$ can are transformed to differences in phase by $$\Delta\psi=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)=2\pi\int_{{\theta}_1}^{{\theta}_2}R({\theta})~{d}{\theta}~.
\label{eq:trafo2-2}$$
As for the current model, noise may then be taken into account by $$\dot{{\theta}}=N({\theta})+\frac{\sqrt{D}}{{\omega}}N({\theta})\eta(t)~.
\label{eq:Sfpm}$$ This stochastic first passage model fulfills conditions (i), (iib), and (iii). However, it does not fulfill condition (ii), as its probability density is $R({\theta})\neq P({\theta})$. Therefore, an application of transformation [(\[eq:trafo2\])]{} to the stochastic variable ${\theta}(t)$ does not lead to a uniformly distributed phase $\psi(t)$ as in equation [(\[eq:uniformPhase\])]{}.
The fact, that $R({\theta})$ is the probability density of the envelope of a realization ${\theta}(t)$, can be used to obtain transformation $Z({\theta})$ from a dataset ${\theta}(n\Delta t)$. The envelope of data has to be constructed. For this, we need to find the times of first passages $t_n$ for which data has a history that is strictly smaller, i. e. ${\theta}(j\Delta t<t_n)<{\theta}(t_n)$. At these first passages ${\theta}_n={\theta}(t_n)$, transformation [(\[eq:trafo2\])]{} is estimated by formula $$\psi_n=Z({\theta}_n) = \frac{2\pi}{T}\sum_{{\theta}_j<{\theta}_n}t_j-t_{j-1}~.
\label{eq:trafo2-esti}$$ To find the transformation on the whole domain one can proceed by an appropriate interpolation of $Z({\theta}_n)$ as for example smoothing splines. Note, that equation [(\[eq:trafo2-esti\])]{} gives a biased estimator. This can be fixed by inserting a central difference scheme $(t_{j+1}-t_{j-1})/2$.
Asymptotic properties {#sec:asymptotics}
=====================
Singular perturbation for small noise {#ssec:singPerturb}
-------------------------------------
In the Fokker-Planck equation [(\[eq:FPQ\])]{}, noise amplitude $g({\theta})$ appears in front of the derivative with highest order in ${\theta}$. Therefore, a perturbation expansion in $g({\theta})$ for a deterministic approximation of dynamics [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} might be singular. For an oscillator with additive noise $$\dot{{\theta}} = h({\theta})+{ \sigma }\xi(t)~,
\label{eq:addNoise}$$ we show that perturbation expansion becomes singular if oscillations are noise-induced. We discuss the case in which the approximation of dynamics [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} should model the distribution density of oscillator [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{}. The singularity that arises in the limit $\sigma\to0$ is discussed by perturbation expansion starting from $\sigma=0$, and starting from $\sigma>0$ by effective phase theory. For the latter, current model [(\[eq:effOsci\])]{} is used.
For $\sigma=0$, our considerations start with the arbitrary model $\dot{\theta}=h(\theta)$ for oscillator [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{}. Suppose, it shows noise-perturbed oscillations, i. e. $h({\theta})$ strictly positive. Then, the distribution density of arbitrary model gives a proper zeroth order approximation to the probability density $$P(\theta)=\frac{C}{h(\theta)}+{\mathcal{O}}({ \sigma })~.
\nonumber$$ Better approximations can be obtained analytically by Taylor expansion of $P({\theta})$. On the other hand, oscillator [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{} may show noise-induced oscillations, for which we impose without loss of generality that $h({\theta})$ shows two zero crossings. Then, the model has a stable fixed point at ${\theta}_-$, and an unstable at ${\theta}_+>{\theta}_-$, and its distribution density is given by $$P(\theta)=\delta({\theta}-{\theta}_-)+{\mathcal{O}}({ \sigma })~,
\label{eq:addNoise-Pex}$$ corresponds to the probability density of equation [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{}. However, higher order terms in $\sigma$ that should lead to a smooth distribution density must necessarily be singular. It is seen, that perturbation theory becomes singular for noise-induced oscillations. Note, that first passage density also shows a singular limit for noise-induced oscillations, however, not at the stable, but the unstable fixed point. In the above example it is given by $$R({\theta})=\delta({\theta}-{\theta}_+)+{\mathcal{O}}({ \sigma })~.
\label{eq:addNoise-Rex}$$ On the other hand, first passage density and probability density converge for noise-perturbed oscillations, reflecting the fact that for deterministic self-sustained oscillators the quantities are synonym.
Starting from a current model to oscillator [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{} computed at finite $\sigma$, another view can be gained on the limit $\sigma\to0$. With formula [(\[eq:freqflux\])]{} and [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{}, current velocity corresponding to [(\[eq:addNoise\])]{} is given by $$H({\theta}) = \frac{1-{\text{e}}^{-\frac{r(0,2\pi)}{{ \sigma^2 }}}}{\int_{\theta}^{{\theta}+2\pi}\frac{{d}\psi}{{ \sigma^2 }}{\text{e}}^{-\frac{r(\theta,\psi)}{{ \sigma^2 }}}}~,~\text{with}~r(\theta,\psi) = \int_{\theta}^\psi h({\varphi})~{d}{\varphi}~.
\label{eq:Heff-addNoise}$$ Let us assume without loss of generality that $r(0,2\pi)$ is positive. In the limit of small noise, the integral in the denominator of equation [(\[eq:Heff-addNoise\])]{} is dominated by the minimum of $r(\theta,\psi)$ with respect to $\psi$. Using the method of stationary phase the zeroth order expansion $$H\left( \theta \right) = {\mathcal{O}}(\sigma)+\left\{
\begin{gathered}
h({\theta})~:\text{ if } \text{argmin}_\psi \left[r({\theta},\psi)\right]={\theta}\hfill \\
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: \text{ elsewise}\hfill
\end{gathered} \right.
\label{eq:Heff-lim0}$$ is obtained. It can be seen, that the deterministic limit cannot be used at $\sigma=0$. Surprisingly, small noise limit leads to a vanishing of current velocity in a finite interval around the fixed point ${\theta}_-$ and not just at this point. A similar derivation is possible for first passage velocity, as for example seen by mirror symmetry.
In Fig. [\[fig:1\]]{} the peculiar nature of $H({\theta})$ is illustrated for the theta model. If noise is small, the effective velocity becomes discontinuous for noise-induced oscillations where $|a|<1$ (right plot), whereas for noise-perturbed oscillations at $|a|\ge1$, $H({\theta})$ converges to $h({\theta})$ for all ${\theta}$ (left plot).
![ Effective velocity at small ${ \sigma }$ (red squares) converges to $h$ (dashed black line) for noise-perturbed oscillations (left plot), but for noise-induced oscillations becomes discontinuous (right plot) as in formula [(\[eq:Heff-lim0\])]{}. Furthermore, the total area under the curve is independent of $\sigma$ (formula [(\[eq:Int2\])]{}). Red squares: ${ \sigma }=0.1$, Blue circles: ${ \sigma }=0.7$. Parameter $a$ is chosen to be $1.1$ (left plot), and $0.9$ (right plot). []{data-label="fig:1"}](sec4-heff.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Estimating frequency for large noise {#ssec:estifreq}
------------------------------------
For large noise, an estimation of frequency can be troublesome when one has to rely on Monte-Carlo simulations. Here, we want to provide a formula that allows for an estimation of frequency at large noise amplitude $\sigma\to\infty$, when given an effective velocity at arbitrary $\sigma$.
In the limit of large noise the probability density becomes uniform. By the definition of, for example, current velocity [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{} it is seen that: $$\lim_{\sigma\to\infty}I = \lim_{\sigma\to\infty}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}H(\theta)~{d}\theta = \lim_{\sigma\to\infty}\omega = {\omega}_\infty~.
\label{eq:Int0}$$ Now, it is shown that integral $I$ does not depend on $\sigma$. Using equation [(\[eq:Heff2\])]{}, current velocity is represented as $H = h-{ \sigma^2 }\left[\ln P\right]'$ which yields for the integral ${ \partial_{{ \sigma^2 }}}I=0$. Therefore, $I$ does not depend on $\sigma$, and we have $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}H(\theta)~{d}\theta = {\omega}_\infty~,
\label{eq:Int1}$$ where $H$ may be given for arbitrary noise intensity $\sigma$. With equation [(\[eq:Heff-lim0\])]{} it can also be verified that $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}h(\theta)~{d}\theta = {\omega}_\infty~.
\label{eq:Int2}$$ For additive noise it is seen that the area under the function $H({\theta})$ is a preserved quantity and equal to $2\pi{\omega}_\infty$. The same result can be obtained for the first passage velocity, straight-forwardly.
Stochastic phase resetting {#sec:stochPRC}
==========================
In the realm of phase resetting one is interested in the response of an oscillator to a brief stimulus, a kick, applied to the system at certain protophase $\alpha$ with certain strength and direction ${\mathbf{k}}$. The freely rotating period $T$ is compared to the period $T_{\mathbf{k}}(\alpha)$ wherein the kick is applied, by computing the *phase resetting curve* [@Canavier2006] $$\Delta\psi(\alpha,{\mathbf{k}}) = 2\pi\frac{T-T_{\mathbf{k}}(\alpha)}{T}.
\label{eq:prc}$$ It gives the shift in uniformly rotating phase the oscillator experiences due to the kick. For example equation [(\[eq:trafo1-2\])]{} provides the phase resetting curve of current model [(\[eq:effOsci\])]{}, whereas [(\[eq:trafo2-2\])]{} provides it for first passage model [(\[eq:fpm\])]{} when for each setting ${\theta}_2={\theta}_1+k$. Up to here, quantities appearing in equation [(\[eq:prc\])]{} are only well-defined for deterministic systems that show limit-cycle oscillations. In this section we extend the applicability of formula [(\[eq:prc\])]{} to stochastic phase oscillators (cf. [@Ermentrout-Saunders-06]) and discuss the results in terms of effective phase theory.
A kick applied at a time $t'$ with scalar strength $k$ representing a brief stimulus is introduced to our stochastic phase oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{} by formula $$\dot{{\theta}}(t)=h({\theta}(t))+g({\theta}(t))\xi(t)+k\delta(t'-t)~,
\label{eq:Osciwithkick}$$ Phase resetting is computed by a comparison of the kicked and unkicked stochastic phase oscillator. For this, quantities appearing in formula [(\[eq:prc\])]{} are interpreted as follows: Quantity $T$ is given by mean period $T=2\pi/{\omega}$ computed for the unkicked oscillator. Quantity $T_k(\alpha)$ is computed for the kicked oscillator as the mean conditional first passage time starting at ${\theta}=\alpha+k$ (value just after kick), to reach boundary ${\theta}=\alpha+2\pi$. Here, the mean shall be taken with respect to noise.
By the above interpretation of formula [(\[eq:prc\])]{} for kicked stochastic oscillators, phase resetting can be calculated using mean first passage times. From formula [(\[eq:meanT\])]{} it is deduced that $T(\alpha,\beta)+T(\beta,\delta)=T(\alpha,\delta)$. This is related to the Markov property of ${\theta}(t)$, and it allows us to express mean conditional first passage time as $$T_k(\alpha) = T-T(\alpha,\alpha+k)~,
\label{eq:repT-kalpha}$$ For equation [(\[eq:prc\])]{}, it follows $\Delta\psi(\alpha,k)=2\pi T(\alpha,\alpha+k)/T$. This can be rewritten in terms of $R$ using equation [(\[eq:fpd\])]{} as $$\Delta\psi(\alpha,k) = 2\pi{ \int\limits}_{\alpha}^{\alpha+k}R({\theta})~{d}{\theta}~.
\label{eq:prcR}$$ This is the exact formula of phase resetting curve $\Delta\psi(\alpha,k)$ for a general stochastic phase oscillator [(\[eq:generalOsci\])]{}.
It is seen that, phase resetting curve $$\Delta{{\varphi}}(\alpha,k)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to0}\left[{\varphi}(t'+{\varepsilon})-{\varphi}(t'-{\varepsilon})\right]_{{\theta}(t')=\alpha}=2\pi{ \int\limits}_{\alpha}^{\alpha+k}P({\theta})~{d}{\theta}~,
\label{eq:wrongPRC}$$ derived for the current model does not correspond to that of the stochastic phase oscillator, whereas phase resetting curve $$\Delta{\psi}(\alpha,k)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to0}\left[\psi(t'+{\varepsilon})-\psi(t'-{\varepsilon})\right]_{{\theta}(t')=\alpha}=2\pi{ \int\limits}_{\alpha}^{\alpha+k}P({\theta})~{d}{\theta}~,
\label{eq:rightPRC}$$ derived from first passage model [(\[eq:fpm\])]{} yields the correct formula [(\[eq:prcR\])]{}. Let us explain why the current model fails. In section \[sec:currentModel\], it was seen that current velocity is given by $H({\theta})=J/P$, which leads to the stationary solution [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{}. However, the stationary state is broken in the phase resetting procedure, where the time evolution of ${\theta}(t)$ starts from the definite value ${\theta}=\alpha+k$. Consider for example the moment, right after the resetting, where $P({\theta})=\delta({\theta}-\alpha-k)$. The probability flux is calculated by integrating equation [(\[eq:flux\])]{} and one obtains $J(\alpha)=h(\alpha+k)$. Deviations to the stationary solution [(\[eq:flowvelocity\])]{} are most prominent in the excitable regime where $J(\alpha+k)=h(\alpha+k)<0$. In this case, the time-dependent current model $$\dot{{\theta}} = \frac{J({\theta},t)}{P({\theta},t)}~,
\label{eq:tdepH}$$ has non-monotonic dynamics, and therefore does not yield a good phase description.
The failure of current model to predict the correct phase resetting curve is illustrated in figure [\[fig:sec5-flowBreakdown\]]{} by noise-induced oscillations of the theta model. For this, $1000$ representations starting from ${\theta}_1={\theta}_+-0.2$ (red solid line) and ${\theta}_2={\theta}_++0.2$ (blue dashed line) were calculated and transformed to uniformly distributed phase ${\varphi}=S({\theta})$. As before, ${\theta}_+$ is the unstable fixed point of corresponding arbitrary model. For each group an average over representations was performed to obtain average dynamics ${\varphi}(t)$. Equation [(\[eq:uniformPhase\])]{} predicts ${\varphi}$ to be rotating uniformly. Numerically, it is found however that while asymptotically uniformly rotating, initially ${\varphi}(t)$ has systematic non-uniformities such that initial phase difference $\Delta{\varphi}(0)=S({\theta}_2)-S({\theta}_1)$ widens. Asymptotically, it reaches the value $\Delta\psi=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)$ as correctly predicted by stochastic phase resetting [(\[eq:prcR\])]{} and first passage model [(\[eq:rightPRC\])]{}. For the stochastic phase oscillator with initial condition ${\theta}_1$ with $h({\theta}_1)<0$, it is furthermore seen that ${\frac{d}{dt}}\langle{\varphi}\rangle<0$ initially, as explained above. Performing the same procedure using transformation $\psi=Z({\theta})$ it is confirmed that formula [(\[eq:rightPRC\])]{} predicts the correct phase resetting curve (see right plot).
![Dynamics of ${\varphi}(t)=S({\theta}(t))$ and $\psi(t)=Z({\theta}(t))$, averaged over $1000$ representations starting at two distinct initial conditions ${\theta}_{1/2}={\theta}_+\pm0.2$ (top plots, $+$: blue dashed, $-$: red solid). Left column confirms that [(\[eq:uniformPhase\])]{} does not hold for the phase resetting. For fixed initial conditions the initial phase difference $\Delta{\varphi}(0)=S({\theta}_2)-S({\theta}_1)$ widens (bottom plot, top Fig.) to the value $\Delta\psi=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)$ (red horizontal line); for larger times phase difference diffuses away due to insufficient averaging. Right column confirms that equation [(\[eq:rightPRC\])]{} gives the correct phase resetting curve for stochastic oscillators. The initial phase difference $\Delta\psi(0)=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)$ persists (bottom plot, bottom Fig.) at its theoretically predicted value. []{data-label="fig:sec5-flowBreakdown"}](sec5-flowBreakdown.epsi "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
\
\
![Dynamics of ${\varphi}(t)=S({\theta}(t))$ and $\psi(t)=Z({\theta}(t))$, averaged over $1000$ representations starting at two distinct initial conditions ${\theta}_{1/2}={\theta}_+\pm0.2$ (top plots, $+$: blue dashed, $-$: red solid). Left column confirms that [(\[eq:uniformPhase\])]{} does not hold for the phase resetting. For fixed initial conditions the initial phase difference $\Delta{\varphi}(0)=S({\theta}_2)-S({\theta}_1)$ widens (bottom plot, top Fig.) to the value $\Delta\psi=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)$ (red horizontal line); for larger times phase difference diffuses away due to insufficient averaging. Right column confirms that equation [(\[eq:rightPRC\])]{} gives the correct phase resetting curve for stochastic oscillators. The initial phase difference $\Delta\psi(0)=Z({\theta}_2)-Z({\theta}_1)$ persists (bottom plot, bottom Fig.) at its theoretically predicted value. []{data-label="fig:sec5-flowBreakdown"}](sec5-prc.epsi "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
Two useful formulations of effective phase theory are presented, each relying on different definitions of phase velocity. While the concept of time spent on average in an interval leads to current velocity, a definition based on first passage times leads to first passage velocity. For noise-perturbed oscillations, the two velocities converge for vanishing noise, whereas for noise-induced oscillations they don’t. Whereas the current model was shown to be useful for a characterization of continuous coupling [@Pikovsky2010] of stochastic phase oscillators, it was seen in this article, that first passage model gives a correct description of phase resetting.
A natural extension of effective phase theory would be to construct models of two-dimensional oscillators for which a phase variable and a corresponding radius variable may be found. The extension is not straight-forward: A deterministic current-type model for higher-dimensional oscillators must have a meaning different from the one-dimensional case, because the correspondence between distribution and probability density (condition (ii)) can not be drawn. Here, also other interesting difficulties arise as described in [@Guralnik2008]. On the other hand, it might be possible to construct a first passage-type model exhibiting the correct phase resetting curve. In this sense the approach already implies, that a perturbative approach, as applied in [@Yoshimura2008], for a construction of a phase resetting curve is expected to be biased.
Together with these issues, it remains unresolved how to construct a theoretical description of a stochastic phase oscillator under the influence of an external force consisting of both, a continuous and a pulse-like contribution. Furthermore, we expect the presented work to be useful for a characterization of finite ensembles of oscillators with either continuous or pulse-like coupling.
*Acknowledgement* The work was supported by DFG via SFB 555 “Complex Nonlinear Processes”.
[16]{}
Y. Kuramoto, *Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbulence* (Springer, Berlin, 1984)
A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, J. Kurths, *Synchronization. A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences.* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001)
B. Kralemann, L. Cimponeriu, M. Rosenblum, A. Pikovsky, R. Mrowka, Phys. Rev. E **77**(6), 066205 (2008)
S.A. C. C. Canavier, Scholarpedia **2**(4), 1331 (2007)
J.T.C. Schwabedal, A. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. E **81**(4), 046218 (2010)
E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. **150**(4), 1079 (1966)
G.B. Ermentrout, Scholarpedia **3**(3), 1398 (2008)
H.Z. Risken, *The Fokker–Planck Equation* (Springer, Berlin, 1989)
P. Reimann, C. Van den Broeck, H. Linke, P. Hanggi, J.M. Rubi, A. Perez-Madrid, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**(1), 010602 (2001)
A.S. Pikovsky, J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**(5), 775 (1997)
D.S. Goldobin, A. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. E **71**(4), 045201 (2005)
W. Just, H. Kantz, M. Ragwitz, F. Schmüser, Europhys. Lett. **62**(1), 28 (2003)
C.C. Canavier, Scholarpedia **1**(12), 1332 (2006)
B. Ermentrout, D. Saunders, J. Comput. Neuroscience **20**(2), 179 (2006)
Z. Guralnik, Chaos **18**, 033114 (2008)
K. Yoshimura, K. Arai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 154101 (2008)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The Memory-Centred Cognition perspective places an active association substrate at the heart of cognition, rather than as a passive adjunct. Consequently, it places prediction and priming on the basis of prior experience to be inherent and fundamental aspects of processing. Social interaction is taken here to minimally require contingent and co-adaptive behaviours from the interacting parties. In this contribution, I seek to show how the memory-centred cognition approach to cognitive architectures can provide an means of addressing these functions. A number of example implementations are briefly reviewed, particularly focusing on multi-modal alignment as a function of experience-based priming. While there is further refinement required to the theory, and implementations based thereon, this approach provides an interesting alternative perspective on the foundations of cognitive architectures to support robots engage in social interactions with humans.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'Bib.bib'
title: |
Memory-Centred Cognitive Architectures for\
Robots Interacting Socially with Humans
---
Introduction
============
The representation and handling of memory is an important feature of cognitive architectures, with a variety of symbolic and sub-symbolic representation schemes used (generally as passive storage), typically based on assumptions of modularity [@Sun2004]. As such, memory is generally considered to be structurally separable from the cognitive processing mechanisms, and functions to provide these ‘cognitions’ with the required data.
In the memory-centred cognition perspective, memory is instead considered to be a fundamentally active process that underlies cognitive processing itself rather than being a passive adjunct [@Baxter2011; @Wood2012]. Based on evidence and models in neuropsychology, e.g. [@Fuster1997], this approach necessitates a re-examination of the organisation and functions of cognitive architectures, as outlined below (section \[sec:arch\]).
Previously, I put forward the case for the greater consideration of memory in HRI developments [@Baxter2014]. I argued that memory is pervasive: fundamentally involved in all aspects of social behaviour, beyond mere passive storage of information in data structures. In this brief (and relatively introspective) contribution, I expand on this point, exploring specifically the requirements of social interaction for robots, and consequently what cognitive architectures need to encompass.
Facets of Social Interaction {#sec:social}
============================
Social interaction is a complex phenomena that entails a range of abilities on the part of the interactants; indeed, there are facets of human-human social interaction that are as yet not fully understood, with the neural substrates supporting these in the individual yet to be characterised. One aspect that is commonly emphasised is the requirement for social signal processing for the individual, where behavioural cues (such as gaze, intonation, gesture, etc) should be interpreted to inform the behaviour of the observer.
One central idea emerging in the behavioural sciences is the notion of ’social contingency’: the coupling and co-dependency of behaviours between interacting individuals [@DiPaolo2012]. This explicitly acknowledges the necessary role that the ’other’ plays to set up the contingent behaviours, and moves away from the emphasis on social signal processing (though not discounting it). Minimal interaction paradigms provide intriguing illustrations of this: even given a low bandwidth interaction environment, there are non-trivial dynamics set up that cannot be explained by observations of an individual [@DiPaolo2008].
For social interaction generally, and in particular for this latter interacting systems perspective, there is an important role for prediction [@Brown2012]. When interacting, there is an expectation that the interaction partner is also a social agent, and thus predicable in that context. Infants, for example, can use the gaze behaviour of a robot to infer that the robot is a psychological agent with which they can interact [@Meltzoff2010]. A previous study has further lent support to the idea that the imposition of expectations of social behaviour (and therefore the arising of socially contingent behaviours, in this case turn-taking) will come about if the interactants view each other as (potentially) social agents [@Baxter2013a]. If the interaction partner (whether it is human or robot) is attributed with social agency, initially as a result of anthropomorphism for example [@Duffy2003], then one fundamental characteristic of social interaction between humans that will be seen is the ‘chameleon effect’ [@Chartrand1999], or imitation/alignment, e.g. [@Dautenhahn1999; @Baxter2013; @Vollmer2015]. The presence of this within an interaction, as a type of contingency between the interactants (see above), could be seen as an indicator of sociality.
These phenomena, from attribution of social agency to alignment, illustrate a necessity for social robots (to a certain extent at least) to conform to human cognitive and behavioural features, as well as to their constraints, to enable predictability, consistency and contingency of robot behaviour with respect to the human(s) in the interaction.
Memory-Centred Cognitive Architecture {#sec:arch}
=====================================
From neurospychology, the Network Memory framework [@Fuster1997] emphasises the central role that distributed associative cortical networks play in the organisation and implementation of cognitive processing in humans. The role of associative networks serves not only as a learning system (through Hebbian-like learning), but also as a substrate for activation dynamics. The reactivation and adaptation of existing networks combine to generate behaviour that is inherently based on prior experience.
The Memory-Centred Cognition perspective, as applied to the domain of cognitive robotics [@Baxter2011], seeks to extend these principles of operation: associative networks supporting activation dynamics that bring prior experience to bear on the current situation. A developmental perspective is necessary in order to do so [@Baxter2010b]: the creation (and subsequent updating) of the associative networks must be done through the process of experience in order to form the appropriate associations between information in the present sensory and motor modalities of the robot (or system, in the case of a simulation).
Once an associative structure has been acquired, the principle mechanism at play is *priming* [@Baxter2011]. Priming in a memory-centred system occurs when some sub-set of the system is stimulated (from incoming sensory information for example), which causes activation to flow around the network, in turn causing parts of the network with no external stimulation to become active. Priming in this way fulfils a number of important functions. Firstly, it sets up cross-modal expectations, or the prediction of currently absent stimuli. Secondly, the priming process facilitates an integration of information across different modalities in a way that is explicitly based on prior experience (biased by the weights of the associative network).
A computational implementation of this has been applied to an account of the developmental acquisition of concepts [@Baxter2012a]: not only was the system able to complete the task with a high success rate, but also the errors it made were consistent with those made by humans. A similar computational implementation has also been used to demonstrate how word labels for real-world objects can facilitate further cognitive processing [@Morse2011]. These examples provide a glimpse of the range of cognitive processing (relevant to human cognitive processing) that can be accounted for using the memory-centred perspective.
Regarding social human-robot interaction, and in particular the notion that alignment is a fundamental feature of it (section \[sec:social\]), the memory-centred perspective provides an intuitive, and indeed effective, account. Using exactly the same mechanism as for the concept learning study, the structure of an associative network was learned based on human behaviour (across a number of different modalities), which could then be directly used to determine the characteristics of the robot behaviour [@Baxter2013]. Alignment is achieved as a by-product of the way the memory-centred cognitive system operated: the associations were learned through experience, and behaviour was generated from priming (i.e. recall).
Addressing Questions
====================
From the context outlined above, I now attempt to provide answers to a set of six questions relevant to the notion of social cognitive architectures. I particularly seek to emphasise a principled-basis (as opposed to computational mechanism-basis) for cognitive architectures and for the application to social interaction.
Why should you use cognitive architectures - how would they benefit your research as a theoretical framework, a tool and/or a methodology? {#sec:1}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefit would be in considering cognitive architectures as a set of principles (a theoretical framework), a methodology for assessing these principles, and as a tool for providing robots with autonomous intelligent behaviour.
There are in my view three specific contributions related to scientific development (as opposed to technical implementation) that cognitive architectures can make to HRI research and development, which are centred around the idea of a cognitive architecture being made up of a set of formalised hypotheses.
Firstly, in a principled manner, they allow data and theory from empirical human studies to be integrated into artificial systems. For example, if data from a psychology experiment is to be integrated, a framework for doing so is required (i.e. the architecture enables an interpretation of the data). This first point promotes the idea of a directly human-inspired/constrained architecture. Secondly, treating cognitive architectures as a set of formalised (through implementation) principles, they facilitate a comparison of different architectures at a level abstracted away from the computational systems/algorithms used, enabling a focus on the assumptions. In the presently considered case of social interaction, this is a useful facet given the as yet uncertain nature of what exactly constitutes social interaction (section \[sec:social\]). Thirdly, the application of cognitive architectures (in robotic systems for instance) provides a means of evaluating its constituent assumptions and principles. This is related to the first point, but is focused more on the integration of empirical evidence obtained from application/experimentation with the architecture itself.
Should cognitive architectures for social interaction be inspired and/or limited by models of human cognition? {#sec:2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following from the principles of social interaction outlined above, essentially, yes.
Taking the view that social interaction between humans is founded on the intrinsic tendency of humans to expect certain types of behaviour from their interaction partners (see section \[sec:social\]), it becomes important to ensure that the robot will not violate expectations. In order not to violate expectation, there must necessarily be some understanding (either on the part of the system designer or learned by the system itself) of what expected human behaviour would be.
In the memory-centred cognition perspective, prior interaction history of the robot with humans would constrain its future behaviour by this experienced behaviour.
What are the functional requirements for a cognitive architecture to support social interaction? {#sec:3}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion of social interaction (section \[sec:social\]) emphasised the importance of contingent behaviour, anticipation/prediction to support this, and adaptation/personalisation. In addition, it is necessary to specify appropriate timing, and embodiment-appropriate responses.
If socially-appropriate behaviour is in the eye of the (human) beholder, then the Keepon robot for example demonstrates the importance of coherence of behaviour and timing [@Kozima2006]. The minimally complex embodiment is convincingly responsive in a social manner, to the extent that it is seen as a communicative partner [@Peca2015]. Even though it doesn’t use language, only uses few degrees of freedom (in contrast to many other robots used in HRI), and is only minimally humanoid in appearance, the effect of apparent sociality is strong.
Integration of sensory and motor modalities in a temporally consistent and responsive manner (i.e. contingency), based on principles of prediction from prior experience (i.e. memory), and coherency with the robot embodiment used (c.f. Keepon example) are therefore fundamental functional requirements for a social cognitive architecture.
How would the requirements for social interaction inform your choice of the fundamental computational structures of the architecture (e.g. symbolic, sub-symbolic, hybrid, ...)? {#sec:4}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the commitment to the memory-centred cognition perspective in this work, there is a natural fit with sub-symbolic computational structures. This provides a number of inherent advantages (section \[sec:arch\]), such as the integration of predictive behaviour from prior experience, and priming effects (within and between modalities).
However, the nature of applications in human-robot interaction (relying on language for example) means that it is not yet possible to dispense with symbol-processing systems. Nevertheless, there is in principle an effort to push the limits of sub-symbolic processing mechanisms up the processing and representation hierarchy, as revisited below (section \[sec:discussion\]).
What is the primary outstanding challenge in developing and/or applying cognitive architectures to social HRI systems? {#sec:5}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the primary challenges in the application of cognitive architectures to social interaction lies in the general lack of understanding of what is precisely involved in human-human social interaction. To a certain extent it is an attempt to find a solution to a problem that is as yet not fully characterised. This reflects on the requirements for the cognitive architectures that should engage in social interaction: if a commitment to human-like cognition/behaviour is made (see section \[sec:2\]), then what precisely are the constraints that need to be incorporated?
A more practical concern that requires further development is the provision of sensory systems for robots that can provide sufficiently complex characterisations of the (social) environment for effective decision making. There is however, in my opinion, no clear distinction between sensory systems and cognitive processing, given the necessity for interpretation of raw sensory signals (e.g. camera images) at various levels of abstraction.
Can you devise a social interaction scenario that current cognitive architectures would likely fail, and why? {#sec:6}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is whether the application to a single domain can be generalised to other domains, which is where the benefits of cognitive architectures should come (section \[sec:1\]). As such, rather than a specific interaction scenario, I would suggest instead that autonomous sociality over variable time-scales poses challenges to current approaches and implementations.
In the short term, the challenge for social robots is to produce behaviour appropriate to the interaction context, informed by prior interaction experience, in a manner consistent with the expectations of the interacting humans. Furthermore, this socially interactive behaviour should adapt to the interaction partner over time, in terms of verbal and non-verbal behaviours for example. The technical challenges to support this in terms of sensory processing are outstanding, but there are also clear challenges in terms of the mechanisms of adaptation required (i.e. the ‘cognitive’ aspect). The memory-centred approach has ventured an implementation towards this problem, although the account is as yet incomplete.
Over extended periods of time, the challenges are compounded by requirements for stability. This is not just stability in terms of ensuring the system doesn’t fail, but also in resolving the apparent trade-off between adaptability to new situations and robustness of the cognitive system. From the perspective of the memory-centred cognition account, the resolution to this question lies in how the formation, maintenance and manipulation of memory is handled in the system in terms of parameters and structures.
Outlook {#sec:discussion}
=======
The nature of the discussion above is primarily principled and theoretical rather than focused on specific computational mechanisms. Naturally I believe memory-centred cognition perspective to have a consistency and coherence that merits consideration and further development. However, it is not in its current state able to practically support all aspects of real social interactions with real people.
This is a limitation shared with many ‘emergent’ cognitive architecture approaches [@Vernon2007]: theoretically interesting and coherent perhaps, but practically limited in terms of what can be done on real systems (use of language and dialogue being good examples of this). This is partly due to an implication of the theoretical perspective: by committing to a holistic approach that emphasises the integration and interplay of many different factors (including, for example, cognition, embodiment, culture, etc), the problem is made more difficult before a computational implementation is even begun. On a practical level, the types of dynamical system (be they neural network-based or other) used are typically not fully understood, or are at least highly complex [@Beer1995], e.g. in terms of conditions for stability (particularly when adaptation/learning is incorporated), which does not bode well for social robots that have to be reliable in real interactions with real people.
For these reasons, I do not believe that symbol-based approaches should (or can) be discarded, at least not for the foreseeable future. They provide the means of getting closer to actually achieving the desired behaviours in reality. Having said this, and as noted above (sec. \[sec:4\]), I remain intent on pushing the boundary between symbolic and sub-symbolic implementations ‘up’ the abstraction hierarchy, in a manner common with a range of other developmentally-oriented researchers [@Smith2005; @Cangelosi2010]. So, what does a memory-centred cognitive architecture look like if it is to be effectively applied to social interaction? And what does the memory-centred cognitive architecture enable in terms of social robots that would be difficult to achieve with an alternative approach? The functionality of developmental learning of cross-modal associations for prediction and action generation outlined above (section \[sec:arch\]) provides a technically difficult but in principle effective solution to the issue of learning from a vast array of potential multi-modal information in a way that is useful for action generation. This is not to say that this is the only approach (theoretical or computational) that would be capable of a similar functionality. However, this is where the second aspect, the requirement to fulfill social interaction with humans through conformity with human cognition (section \[sec:social\]), becomes a distinguishing characteristic of the memory-centred approach.
In developing the theory, I have applied it to a range of practical systems and applications, as reviewed above (section \[sec:arch\]). For example using the same mechanism, accounts have been made of concept acquisition [@Baxter2012a] and multi-modal robot behaviour alignment to an interaction partner [@Baxter2013]. Other systems using the same principles have been used to demonstrate the development of low-level sensory-motor coordination through experience [@Baxter2010b], and the role of words in supporting new cognitive capabilities [@Morse2011].
Whereas my commitment to the memory-centred cognition perspective for robotics is strong, my commitment to the specific mechanisms used is weak. I must acknowledge that there are a number of weaknesses with the various systems used, notably related to hierarchical structure/representation, and an incomplete account of temporal processing. However, in my view, this does not invalidate the theoretical approach, and merely serves to provide motivation to either find or develop a more appropriate computational implementation that fulfils all of the principles and constraints of the memory-centred cognition perspective.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the EU FP7 project DREAM (grant number 611391, http://dream2020.eu/).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Shige Peng[^1] and Detang Zhou[^2]'
title: Maximum principle for viscosity solutions on Riemannian manifolds
---
> [[**Abstract.** ]{} In this work we consider viscosity solutions to second order partial differential equations on Riemannian manifolds. We prove maximum principles for solutions to Dirichlet problem on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. Using a different method, we generalize maximum principles of Omori and Yau to a viscosity version. ]{}
>
> [ [*Key words*]{}: viscosity solution, maximum principle, Riemannian manifold]{}
Introduction
============
The theory of viscosity solutions on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$ has been an important area in analysis since the concept was introduced in the early 1980’s by Michael Crandall and Pierre-Louis Lions. As a generalization of the classical concept of what is meant by a “solution” to a partial differential equation, it has been found that the viscosity solution is the natural solution concept in many applications of PDE’s, including for example first order equations arising in optimal control (the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation), differential games (the Isaacs equation) or front evolution problems, as well as second-order equations such as the ones arising in stochastic optimal control or stochastic differential games(see [@cil] and references therein). It is a natural question to ask how to generalize the theory to problems on Riemannian manifolds. Some special cases have been discussed in comparison theory for Riemannian distance function and reduced distance function( see section 9.4 and 9.5 in [@ccg] and references therein). Up to now, little is known for general second order partial differential equations in the references. Recently Azagra, Ferrera and Sanz [@afs] published a paper in which among the other results they obtained a Hessian estimate for distance functions and generalized some of results in [@cil] to compact Riemannian manifold with some curvature conditions.
We will study the maxumum principles for viscosity solutions to second order partial differential equation of the form $$F(x, u, Du, D^2u)=0$$ where $u:M\to \mathbb{R}$ is a function and $M$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary or a complete Riemannian manifold. It is straightforward to generalize the comcepts of viscosity subsolution and supersolution to any Riemannian manifold. As is well known the classical maximum principle for Dirichlet problem on the domains in Euclidean space can be easily generalized to any compact Riemannian manifold without restrictions on curvature. If we follow the method used in [@cil] we see that even for the hyperbolic space the situation the proof does not go directly. The reason is that on $\mathbb{R}^n$, one need to compute the square of distance function $\frac12|x-y|^2$ and as a function on $\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^n$, its Hessian is $$\begin{pmatrix}
I_n & -I_n \\
-I_n & I_n \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ As for the Riemannian manifold, the square of distance function $\frac12{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$ is much more complicated. It may be non-differentiable at some points and even on hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^n(-1)$ of constant curvature $-1$, it is smooth and its Hessian can be written as $$\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&&-1&\\
&I_{n-1}{{\mathrm{d}}}\coth {{\mathrm{d}}}& &-\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}}{\sinh {{\mathrm{d}}}} I_{n-1}\\
-1&&1&\\
&-\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}}{\sinh {{\mathrm{d}}}}I_{n-1} && I_{n-1}{{\mathrm{d}}}\coth {{\mathrm{d}}}\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $I_{n-1}=\textrm{diag}(1,1,\cdots, 1)$ is $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ unit matrix. We will use $I$ instead of $I_n$ when the dimension is obvious.
When $M$ is compact Riemannian manifold with boundary, we consider the Dirichlet problem. From the proof in section 3 in [@cil] we can deal with problems in a sufficiently small neighborhood of the limit point where the function $\frac12{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$ is smooth. But to prove the comparison theorem we need to estimate the Hessian of $\frac12{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$. In section \[secComp\], we prove a sharp Hessian estimate for $\frac12{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$ for manifold with sectional curvature bounded below by a constant and a sharp estimate of Laplacian type for $\frac12{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$ for manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below a constant. According to these estimate we need to modify the proof in [@cil] to obtain the desired comparison theorem which does not require a curvature restriction. More precisely, we prove
(see Theorem \[thmDiri\]) Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with or without boundary $\partial M$, $F\in C(\mathcal{F}(M),{{\mathbb{R}}})$ a proper function satisfying $$\beta(r-s)\le F(x,r,p,X)-F(x,s,p,X) \textrm{ for } r\ge s,$$ for some positive constant $\beta$ and the following condition (H):
> there exists a function $\omega:[0,\infty]\to [0,\infty]$ satisfying $\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$F(y,r, \delta\iota(\gamma'(0)),X_{1})-F(x,r,
> \delta\iota(\gamma'(l)),X_{2})\le
> \omega(\delta{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y))$$ for $ X_1\in \mathcal{S}^2
> T_{{x}}^*M$ and $X_2\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{{y}}^*M$, satisfying $X_1\ge X_2\circ P_{\gamma}(l)$. Here $\iota$ is the dual map between the tangent and cotangent bundles and $\delta$ is a positive constant. Here $\mathcal{S}^2T^*M$ is the bundle of symmetric covariant tensors over $M$.
Let $u_1\in {{\mathrm{USC}}}(\bar
{M})$ and $u_2\in {{\mathrm{LSC}}}(\bar {M})$ be a subsolution and supersolution of $F=0$ respectively. Then $u_1-u_2$ cannot achieve a positive local maximum at any interior point. In particular if $M$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary $\partial M$ and if $u_1\le u_2$ on $\partial M$, then $u_1\le u_2$ on $\bar{ M}$.
When $M$ is a complete Riemannian manifold without boundary. Both the results and proofs are more interesting to us. We have not found a similar result in the Euclidean case. The new obstruction is that we may not have a limit point when $M$ is noncompact. We first generalize the maximum principle of Omori and Yau (see [@O] and [@Y]) to a viscosity-type. As is known, Yau’s maximum principle ( [@Y]) is stated as the following:
Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below by a constant. Let $u: M\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ is a $C^2$ function with $\inf u> -\infty$, then for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a point $x_{\varepsilon}\in M$ such that $$\begin{split}
& u(x_\varepsilon)<\inf u+\varepsilon, \\
& |\nabla u|(x_\varepsilon)<\varepsilon,\\
& \Delta u(x_\varepsilon)>-\varepsilon.
\end{split}$$
Its proof uses the gradient estimate of the distance function to a fixed point (see [@CY]) and for a viscosity solution we do not require the function is differentiable and we cannot use the gradient estimate. Besides overcoming the difficulties appeared in compact cases, we used a new penalty function to the corresponding maximum principles of Omori and Yau for viscosity solutions. Even for $C^2$ function, we provide a new proof of Omori and Yau’s theorems. We would like remark that such a viscosity version is also new for $\mathbb{R}^n$. We prove the following (see section \[secPri\] for the definitions of $\bar{J} ^{2,+}u(x) $ and $\bar{J} ^{2,-}u(x) $.)
(see Theorem \[thmOmori\]) Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature bounded below by a constant $-\kappa^2$. Let $u
\in{\mathrm{USC}}(M)$, $v\in{\mathrm{LSC}}(M)$ be two functions satisfying $$\label{}
\mu_0:=\sup_{x\in M}[u(x)-v(x)]< +\infty.$$ Assume that $u$ and $v$ are bounded from above and below respectively and there exists a function $\omega:\mathbb{R}_{+}\mapsto \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\omega(0)=\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$\label{}
u(x)-u(y)\le \omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)).$$ Then for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $x_{\varepsilon},
y_{\varepsilon}\in M$, such that $(p_{\varepsilon},X_{\varepsilon})\in \bar{J}^{2,+}u(x_{\varepsilon}),\ \ (q_{\varepsilon},Y_{\varepsilon})\in
\bar{J} ^{2,-}v(y_{\varepsilon}),$ such that $$u(x_{\varepsilon})-v(y_{\varepsilon})\geq \mu_{0}-\varepsilon,$$ and such that $${{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})<\varepsilon,\ \ \
|p_{\varepsilon }-q_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\gamma}(l)|<\varepsilon,\
\ X_{\varepsilon}\leq Y_{\varepsilon }\circ
P_{\gamma}(l)+\varepsilon P_{\gamma}(l),$$ where $l={{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})$ and $
P_{\gamma}(l)$ is the parallel transport along the shortest geodesic connecting $x_{\varepsilon}$ and $y_{\varepsilon}$.
and
(see Theorem \[thmYau\]) Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below by a constant $-(n-1)\kappa^2$. Let $u
\in{\mathrm{USC}}(M)$, $v\in{\mathrm{LSC}}(M)$ be two functions satisfying $$\label{}
\mu_0:=\sup_{x\in M}[u(x)-v(x)]< +\infty.$$ Assume that $u$ and $v$ are bounded from above and below respectively and there exists a function $\omega:\mathbb{R}_{+}\mapsto \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\omega(0)=\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$\label{}
u(x)-u(y)\le \omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)).$$ Then for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $x_{\varepsilon},
y_{\varepsilon}\in M$, $(p_{\varepsilon},X_{\varepsilon})\in \bar{J}^{2,+}u(x_{\varepsilon}),\ $ and $ \
(q_{\varepsilon},Y_{\varepsilon})\in \bar{J}
^{2,-}v(y_{\varepsilon}),$ such that $$u(x_{\varepsilon})-v(y_{\varepsilon})\geq \mu_{0}-\varepsilon,$$ and such that $${{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})<\varepsilon,\ \ \
|p_{\varepsilon }-q_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\gamma}(l)|<\varepsilon,\
\mathrm{tr} X_{\varepsilon}\leq \mathrm{tr} Y_{\varepsilon
}+\varepsilon,$$ where $l={{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})$ and $
P_{\gamma}(l)$ is the parallel transport along the shortest geodesic connecting $x_{\varepsilon}$ and $y_{\varepsilon}$.
One can see that if we take $u$ as a constant function in above theorems and $v$ is a $C^2$ function we can obtain the estimates about Hessian and Laplacian respectively. Therefore the above theorems generalizes Omori and Yau’s maximum principles. It is well known that Yau’s theorem has been applied to many geometrical problems and many functions in geometry problems are naturally non-differentiable.
We can follow the text of Users’ Guide by Crandall, Ishii and Lions[@cil] to obtain the corresponding results about existence, uniqueness of partial differential equations. We hope to apply the results to study more equations as well as some geometrical problems in the future.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section \[secPri\] we give some basic notations and definitions for viscosity solutions . In section \[secComp\], we prove the comparison theorems for distance function. The sections 4 and 5 deal with maximum principles for viscosity solutions on compact and complete Riemannian manifolds respectively. Finally we consider the parabolic equations in section \[secPara\].
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We wish to thank Xuehong Zhu who carefully read the entire manuscript and gave us helpful comments and suggestions.
Preliminaries {#secPri}
=============
Let $M$ denote a Riemannian manifold. $TM$ and $T^{*}M$ are tangent and cotangent bundles respectively. $\mathcal{S}^2T^*M$ is the bundle of symmetric covariant tensors over $M$. Denote by $\mathcal{F}(M)$ the bundle product of $M\times \mathbb{R}$, $T^{*}M$ and $\mathcal{S}^2 T^{*}M$.
Given a function $f\in C^2(M,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, the Hessian of $f$ is defined as $$D^2f(X,Y)=\left\langle\nabla_X\nabla
f,Y\right\rangle=X(Yf)-(\nabla_XY)f$$ where $X,Y$ are vector fields on $M$ and $\nabla$ is the Riemannian connection on $M$, hence $D^2f\in \mathcal{S}^2T^*M $. In this paper, we abuse the notations to write $A=D^2f$ for a matrix $A$ which means $\langle AX, Y\rangle=D^2f(X, Y)$ for all $X,Y\in TM$. For a differentiable map $\phi$ between two Riemannian manifolds $N$ and $M$ and a function $f\in C^2(M,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, we have $$\label{eq0.5}
D^2f\circ\phi(\xi,\eta)=\xi(\eta(f\circ\phi))-(\nabla^N_\xi\eta)(f\circ
\phi),$$ where $\xi,\eta$ are vector fields on $N$ and $\nabla^N$ is the Riemannian connection on $N$. As a special case, for any fixed point ${x_0}\in M$, we take $N$ as $T_{x_0}M$ and $\phi$ as the exponential map $\exp: T_{x_0}M\to M$, then in this normal coordinates the (\[eq0.5\]) implies, at point $O$, $$\label{eq0.6}
D^2f\circ\phi(\xi,\eta)=\xi(\eta(f\circ\phi)).$$ Besides this, it is well known that the differential of the exponential map $d\exp$ at $O$ gives an isomorphism between $T_0(T_{x_0}M)$ and $T_{x_0}M$.
The viscosity solution theory applies to certain partial differential equations of the form $F(x, u, Du, D^2u)=0$ where $F:\mathcal{F}(M)\to \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function. As in [@cil], we require $F$ to satisfy some fundamental monotonicity conditions called [*proper*]{} which are made up of the two conditions $$\label{eq0.9}
F(x,r,p,X)\le F(x,s,p, X) \quad\mathrm{ whenever }\quad r\le s ;$$ and $$\label{eq01}
F(x,r,p,X)\le F(x,r,p, Y) \quad\mathrm{ whenever }\quad Y\le X;$$ where $(x,r,p,X)\in \mathcal{F}(M)$ and $(x,s,p,Y)\in
\mathcal{F}(M)$.
For any function $u:M\to \mathbb{R}$, we define
$$\label{eq02}
J^{2,+}u(x_0)=\{(p,X)\in T_{x_0}^{*}M\times\mathcal{S}^2 T_{x_0}^{*}M, \quad\mathrm{satisfies}\quad (\ref{eq03}). \}$$
where (\[eq03\]) is $$\label{eq03}
u(x)\le
u(x_0)+p(\exp_{x_0}^{-1}x)+\frac12 X(\exp_{x_0}^{-1}x,\exp_{x_0}^{-1}x)+o(|\exp_{x_0}^{-1}x|^2),
\quad \mathrm{as}\quad x\to x_0,$$ where $\exp_{x_0}: T_{x_0}M\to M$ is the exponential map. And $J^{2,-}u(x_0)$ is defined as $$J^{2,-}u(x_0)=\{(p,X)\in
T_{x_0}^{*}M\times\mathcal{S}^2 T_{x_0}^{*}M\textrm{ such that }
(-p,-X)\in J^{2,+}(-u)(x_0)\}.$$
\[rk1\](\[eq03\]) is equivalent to that the function $\bar{u}$ on $T_{x_0}M$ defined by $\bar{u}(y)=u(\exp_{x_0}y)$ satisfies $$\label{eq03.5}
\bar{u}(y)\le
\bar{u}(0)+\left\langle p,y\right\rangle+\frac12 X(y,y)+o(|y|^2),
\quad \mathrm{as}\quad y\to 0.$$ So we can identify $T_0(T_{x_0}M)$ with $T_{x_0}M$ such that $(p,X)\in J^{2,+}u(x_0)$ if and only if $(p,X)\in
J^{2,+}\bar{u}(0)$.
We also use the following notations.
- ${{\mathrm{USC}}}(M)=\{\textrm {upper semicontinuous functions on
$M$}\},$
- ${{\mathrm{LSC}}}(M)=\{\textrm {lower semicontinuous functions on
$M$}\}.$
A viscosity subsolution of $F=0$ on $M$ is a function $u\in {{\mathrm{USC}}}(M)$ such that $$\label{eq04}
F(x,u,p,X)\le 0 \textrm{ for all }x\in M \textrm{ and }(p,X)\in
J^{2,+}u(x).$$ A viscosity supersolution of $F=0$ on $M$ is a function $u\in
{{\mathrm{LSC}}}(M)$ such that $$\label{eq05}
F(x,u,p,X)\ge 0 \textrm{ for all }x\in M \textrm{ and }(p,X)\in
J^{2,-}u(x).$$ $u$ is a viscosity solution of $F=0$ on $M$ if it is both a viscosity subsolution and a viscosity supersolution of $F=0$ on $M$.
Following [@cil], we can similarly define $\bar J^{2,+}u(x)$, $\bar J^{2,-}u(x)$ as $$\bar J^{2,+}u(x)=\left\{\begin{split}
& (p,X)\in T_{x_0}^{*}M\times\mathcal{S}^2 T_{x_0}^{*}M, \textrm{ such that } (x_0,u(x_0), p, X)
\textrm{ is a limit point of } \\ &(x_k,u(x_k),p_k, X_k)\in J^{2,+}u(x_k)
\textrm{ in the topology
of }\mathcal{F}(M),
\end{split}\right\}$$ and $$\bar J^{2,-}u(x)=\left\{\begin{split}
& (p,X)\in T_{x_0}^{*}M\times\mathcal{S}^2 T_{x_0}^{*}M, \textrm{ such that } (x_0,u(x_0), p, X)
\textrm{ is a limit point of } \\ &(x_k,u(x_k),p_k, X_k)\in J^{2,-}u(x_k)
\textrm{ in the topology
of }\mathcal{F}(M).
\end{split}\right\}$$
Hessian-type comparison Theorem for ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2$ {#secComp}
===========================================================
One of the key points to generalize the maximum principle to a complete Riemannian manifold is a new Hessian comparison theorem for Riemannian manifold. This is essentially an application of second variational formula for the arclength.
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold. We define the function of square of the distance function as $\varphi: M\times M\to \mathbb{R}$ as $$\varphi(x,y)={{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2.$$ It is well known that this function is smooth when ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)$ is small. We will prove
\[thmhess\]Let $M$ be a connected Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature bounded below by $-\kappa^2$. Given two points $x,
y\in M$ with ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)< \min\{i(x), i(y)\}$, $\gamma:[0,l]\to M$ is the unique geodesic of unit speed with $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(l)=y$. Denote by $P_{\gamma}(t):T_{\gamma(0)}M\to
T_{\gamma(t)}M$ the parallel transport along $\gamma$. Then any two vectors $V_1$ and $V_2$ satisfying $\langle V_1,
\gamma'(0)\rangle=\langle V_2, \gamma'(l)\rangle=0$, the Hessian of the square of distance function $\varphi$ on $M\times
M$ satisfies
$$\label{eq7}
\begin{split}
D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2)) \le &2l\kappa[\coth \kappa l\langle V_1,V_1\rangle+\coth \kappa l\langle
V_2,V_2\rangle]\\
&-2l\kappa[ \frac{2}{\sinh \kappa
l}\langle V_2, P_{\gamma}(l)V_1\rangle],
\end{split}$$
Particularly, $$\label{eq8}
\begin{split}
D^2\varphi((V_1,P_{\gamma}(l)V_1),(V_1,P_{\gamma}(l)V_1)) \le &4|V_1|^2\kappa l\tanh\frac{\kappa l}2
.
\end{split}$$
Before proving the theorem we give some remarks.
When $M$ is the hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^n(-\kappa^2)$, we can also write the $D^2\varphi$ on the subspace $\{\gamma(0)\}^{\bot}\times\{\gamma(l)\}^{\bot}\subset T_xM\times
T_yM$ as $$2l\kappa\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I\coth \kappa l & -\frac{1}{\sinh \kappa l} I\\
-\frac{1}{\sinh \kappa l}I & I\coth \kappa l \\
\end{array}
\right).$$
The estimates in theorem is sharp in sense that all inequalities becomes equalities for space forms. The theorem improves significantly Proposition 3.3 in [@afs] also part (1) of Proposition 3.1.
Note that we allow $\kappa$ to be an imaginary and in case that the curvature is bounded below by a positive constant, we can get a corresponding estimate.
We also prove a version similar to Laplacian comparison theorem when we have a Ricci curvature lower bound. We will see that it is useful in applications.
Let $M$ be a connected Riemannian manifold. Given two points $x,
y\in M$ with ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)< \min\{i(x), i(y)\}$, $\gamma:[0,l]\to M$ is the unique geodesic of unit speed with $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(l)=y$, then for any two vectors $V_1\in T_xM, V_2\in T_yM$ $D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2))$ satisfying $\langle V_1,
\gamma'(0)\rangle=\langle V_2, \gamma'(l)\rangle=0$ $$\label{eq0}
D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2)) =2l\int_0^l[|\nabla_{\gamma'}J|^2-\langle
R(\gamma',J)\gamma',J\rangle] dt,$$ where $J$ is the Jacobi field along $\gamma$ with $J(0)=V_1$ and $J(l)=V_2.$
Recall that given a $C^2$ curve $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$. A variation $\eta$ of $\gamma$ is a $C^2$ mapping $\eta:[a,b]\times
(-\epsilon_0, \epsilon_0)\to M$ for some $\epsilon_0>0,$ for which $\gamma(t)=\eta(t,0)$ for all $t\in [a,b]$. We write $\partial_t\eta,
\partial_{\epsilon}\eta $ for $\eta_{*}(\partial_t),
\eta_{*}(\partial_{\epsilon})$ respectively, and denote differentiation of vector field along $\eta$ with respect to $\partial_t$, $\partial_{\epsilon}$ by $\nabla_t, \nabla_{\epsilon}$ respectively. Then the length of $\eta_{\epsilon}$, namely $$L(\epsilon)=\int_a^b|\partial_t\eta(t,\epsilon)|dt,$$ is differentiable and $$\label{eq1}
\frac{dL}{d\epsilon}=\langle\partial_{\epsilon}\eta,\partial_t\eta/|\partial_t\eta|\rangle|_a^b-
\int_a^b\langle\partial_{\epsilon}\eta,\nabla_t(\partial_t\eta/|\partial_t\eta|)\rangle
dt.$$ In particular, if $\eta$ is parameterized with respect to arc length, and we set $V(t)=(\partial_\epsilon\eta)(t,0)$, then for the first derivative of $L$ we have $$\label{eq2}
\frac{dL}{d\epsilon}(0)=\langle\partial_{\epsilon}\eta,\gamma'\rangle
|_a^b- \int_a^b\langle\partial_{\epsilon}\eta,\nabla_t\gamma'\rangle
dt,$$ and for the second derivative of $L$ we have $$\begin{split}\label{eq3}
\frac{d^2L}{d\epsilon^2}(0)=&\langle\nabla_{\epsilon}\partial_{\epsilon}\eta|_{\epsilon=0},\gamma'\rangle |_a^b-\\
&\int_a^b[|\nabla_tV|^2+\langle
R(\gamma',V)\gamma',V\rangle-\langle\nabla_{\epsilon}\partial_{\epsilon}\eta,\nabla_t\gamma'\rangle-\langle\gamma',\nabla_tV\rangle^2]
dt.
\end{split}$$ Let $x,y$ be two non conjugate points connected by a unique minimizing geodesic $\gamma: [0,l]\to M$ with $l={{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)\le
\min\{i(x), i(y)\}$. Given two vectors $V_1\in T_xM, V_2\in T_yM$, there exist a unique Jacobi field $J:[0,l]\to TM$ such that $J(0)=V_1$ and $J(l)=V_2$. Thus we can construct a variation $\eta$ of $\gamma$, $\eta:[0,l]\times (-\epsilon_0, \epsilon_0)\to M$ for some $\epsilon_0>0,$ for which $\gamma(t)=\eta(t,0)$ for all $t\in
[0,l]$ and $\partial_{\epsilon}\eta(0,0)=V_1$ and $\partial_{\epsilon}\eta(l,0)=V_2$. We know from the properties of Jacobi field that $\eta(\cdot, \epsilon)$ is a geodesic for each $\epsilon\in (-\epsilon_0, \epsilon_0)$. So $$\label{eq4}
L(\epsilon)=\int_a^b|\partial_t\eta(t,\epsilon)|dt={{\mathrm{d}}}(\eta(0,\epsilon), \eta(l,\epsilon)).$$ Thus, by the first variational formula, we can calculate the differential of $\varphi$, $$\label{eq5}
D\varphi(V_1,V_2)=2l[\langle V_2,\gamma'(l)\rangle-\langle
V_1,\gamma'(0)\rangle].$$ To compute the second differential, we only need to compute $D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2))$ for $V_1$ and $V_2$ satisfying $\langle V_1, \gamma'(0)\rangle=\langle V_2, \gamma'(l)\rangle=0$. In this case, $J$ are normal Jacobi fields. Note that from the construction of variation from the Jacobi field, both $\eta(0,\cdot)$ and $\eta(l,\cdot)$ are geodesics and we are working in a convex neighborhood. So $$\label{eq6}\begin{split}
D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2)) &=2l\frac{d^2L}{d\epsilon^2}(0) \\
& =2l\int_0^l[|\nabla_tJ|^2-\langle
R(\gamma',J)\gamma',J\rangle] dt.
\end{split}$$
Since the Jacobi fields minimize the index form $I(X,X)$ with the same boundary conditions $X(0)=V_1$ and $X(l)=V_2$, where $$\label{eq7.1}
I(X,X)=\int_0^l[|\nabla_{\gamma'}X|^2-\langle
R(\gamma',X)\gamma',X\rangle] dt.$$ We can obtain vector fields $V_1(t)$ and $V_2(t)$ by parallel transport of $V_1$ and $V_2$ respectively. Choose $$X(t)=(\cosh\kappa t-\coth\kappa l\sinh\kappa t)V_1(t)+\frac{\sinh\kappa
t}{\sinh\kappa l}V_2(t).$$ Then $$\label{eqn8}
\begin{split}
I(X,X)&=\langle\nabla_{\gamma'}X,X\rangle|_0^l-\int_0^l[\langle\nabla_{\gamma'}\nabla_{\gamma'}X,X\rangle+\langle
R(\gamma',X)\gamma',X\rangle] dt \\
& \le \langle\nabla_{\gamma'}X,X\rangle|_0^l\\
&=\langle\kappa(\sinh\kappa l-\coth \kappa l\cosh\kappa
l)V_1(l),V_2\rangle+\\
&\qquad\langle\kappa\coth \kappa l V_2,
V_2\rangle-\langle-\kappa\coth \kappa l V_1+\frac{\kappa}{\sinh \kappa
l}V_2(0), V_1\rangle\\
&=\kappa\coth \kappa l\langle V_1,V_1\rangle+\kappa\coth \kappa l\langle
V_2,V_2\rangle- \frac{2\kappa}{\sinh \kappa
l}\langle V_2(0), V_1\rangle.
\end{split}$$ The theorem follows from $$D^2\varphi((V_1,V_2),(V_1,V_2))\le 2lI(X,X).$$ when $V_2=P_{\gamma}(l)V_1$, we have
$$\label{eq8.1}
\begin{split}
D^2\varphi((V_1,P_{\gamma}(l)V_1),(V_1,P_{\gamma}(l)V_1)) \le &2l\kappa[\coth \kappa l\langle V_1,V_1\rangle+\coth \kappa l\langle
P_{\gamma}(l)V_1),P_{\gamma}(l)V_1)\rangle]\\
&-2l\kappa[ \frac{2}{\sinh \kappa
l}\langle P_{\gamma}(l)V_1), P_{\gamma}(l)V_1\rangle]\\
=&4l\kappa\tanh\frac{\kappa l}2 |V_1|^2.
\end{split}$$
\[thmlaplace\]Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below by $-(n-1)\kappa^2$. Given two points $x,
y\in M$ with ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)< \min\{i(x), i(y)\}$, $\gamma:[0,l]\to M$ is the unique geodesic of unit speed with $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(l)=y$. For any normal base at $x$, $\{\gamma'(0),
e_2,\cdots,e_n \}$. $$\label{eq8.2}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=2}^{n-1}D^2\varphi((e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i),(e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i) \le &4(n-1)\kappa l\tanh\frac{\kappa l}2
.
\end{split}$$
Similar to the above proof, we use the property that the Jacobi field minimize the index form $I(X,X)$ with the same boundary conditions $X(0)=V_1$ and $X(l)=V_2$. We can obtain vector fields $e_i(t)$ by parallel transport of $e_i$. For any function $\psi\in C^2[0,l]$ with $\psi(0)=\psi(l)=1$, we choose $$X_i(t)=\psi(t)e_i(t).$$ Then $$\begin{split}
D^2\varphi((e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i),(e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i))&\le 2l\int_0^l[|\nabla_{\gamma'}X_i|^2-\langle
R(\gamma',X_i)\gamma',X_i\rangle] dt \\
&=2l\int_0^l[|\psi'|^2-\psi^2K(\gamma',e_i)] dt,
\end{split}$$ where $K(X,Y)$ is the sectional curvature of the plane spanned by vectors $X,Y$. Then we have $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=2}^nD^2\varphi((e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i),(e_i,P_{\gamma}(l)e_i))
&\le2l\int_0^l[(n-1)|\psi'|^2-\psi^2{{\mathrm{Ric}}}(\gamma',\gamma')] dt\\
&\le 2(n-1)l\int_0^l[|\psi'|^2+\kappa^2\psi^2] dt.
\end{split}$$ where ${{\mathrm{Ric}}}$ denotes the Ricci curvature. Let $$\psi(t)=\cosh \kappa t+\frac{1-\cosh\kappa l}{\sinh\kappa
l}\sinh \kappa t.$$ The claimed result follows from a direct computation.
The maximum principle for viscosity solutions
=============================================
Dirichlet problem case
----------------------
The same proof of Lemma 3.1 in [@cil] gives the following lemma.
Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with or without boundary, $u\in {{\mathrm{USC}}}(M)$ $v\in {{\mathrm{LSC}}}(M)$ and $$\label{eq9}
\mu_{\alpha}=\sup\{u(x)-v(y)-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2, x,y\in M \}$$ for $\alpha>0.$ Assume that $\mu_{\alpha}<+\infty$ for large $\alpha$ and $(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ satisfy $$\label{eq10}
\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}[\mu_{\alpha}-(u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2)]=0.$$ Then the following holds: $$\label{eq11}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(i)\quad\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2=0,\quad and & \hbox{} \\
(ii)\quad \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\mu_{\alpha}=u(x_0)-v(x_0)=\sup(u(x)-v(x)), & \hbox{} \\
\textrm{ where } x_0=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}x_{\alpha}. & \hbox{}
\end{array}
\right.$$
From Remark \[rk1\] we can deduce from Theorem 3.2 in [@cil] the following lemma.
Let $M_1$, $M_2$ be Riemannian manifolds with or without boundary, $u_1\in {{\mathrm{USC}}}(M_1)$, $u_2\in {{\mathrm{LSC}}}(M_2)$ and $\varphi\in C^2(M_1\times M_2)$. Suppose $(\hat{x},\hat{y})\in
M_1\times M_2$ is a local maximum of $u_1(x)-u_2(y)-\varphi(x,y)$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $X_1\in \mathcal{S}
T_{\hat{x}}^*M_1$ and $X_2\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{\hat{y}}^*M_2$ such that $$(D_{x_i}\varphi(\hat{x},\hat{y}), X_i)\in \bar
J^{2,+}u_i(\hat{x}_i), \textrm{ for } i=1,2,$$ and the block diagonal matrix satisfies $$\label{eq12}
-\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}+\|A\|\right)I\le\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X_1 & 0 \\
0 & -X_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\le A+\varepsilon A^2$$ where $A=D^2\varphi(\hat{x},\hat{y})\in\mathcal{S}^2T^*(M_1\times
M_2)$ and $$\label{eq12.5}
\|A\|=\sup\{| A(\xi,\xi)|, \xi\in T_{(\hat{x},\hat{y})}M_1\times
M_2, |\xi|=1\}.$$
Now we are in a position to prove our comparison theorem.
\[thmDiri\] Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with or without boundary $\partial M$, $\mathcal{F}(M)\in C(F,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ a proper function satisfying $$\label{eq12.6}
\beta(r-s)\le F(x,r,p,X)-F(x,s,p,X) \textrm{ for } r\ge s,$$ for some positive constant $\beta$ and the following condition (H):
> there exists a function $\omega:[0,\infty]\to [0,\infty]$ satisfying $\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$\label{eq12.7}
> F(y,r, -\alpha l\iota(\gamma'(l)),X_{2})-F(x,r, -\alpha
> l\iota(\gamma'(0)),X_{1})\le \omega(\alpha{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y))$$ for $ X_1\in \mathcal{S}
> T_{{x}}^*M$ and $X_2\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{{y}}^*M$, satisfying $X_1\le X_2\circ P_{\gamma}(l)$. Here $\iota$ is the dual map between the tangent and cotangent bundles.
Let $u_1\in {{\mathrm{USC}}}(\bar
{M})$ and $u_2\in {{\mathrm{LSC}}}(\bar {M})$ be a subsolution and supersolution of $F=0$ respectively. Then $u_1-u_2$ cannot achieve a positive local maximum at any interior point. In particular if $M$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary $\partial M$ and if $u_1\le u_2$ on $\partial M$, then $u_1\le u_2$ on $\bar{ M}$.
For the sake of a contradiction we assume that $2\delta:=\sup_{x\in M}\{u_1(x)-u_2(x)\}>0$. Then for $\alpha$ large, $$ 0<2\delta\le\mu_{\alpha}:=\sup\{u_1(x)-u_2(y)-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2), x,y\in M
\}<+\infty.$$ There exists $(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ such that $$ \mu_{\alpha}-(u_1(x_{\alpha})-u_2(y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2)=0.$$ Then the following holds: $$ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(i)\quad\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\alpha{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2=0,\quad and & \hbox{} \\
(ii)\quad \lim_{\alpha\to\infty}\mu_{\alpha}=u_1(x_0)-u_2(x_0)=2\delta, & \hbox{} \\
\textrm{ where } x_0=\lim_{\alpha\to\infty}x_{\alpha}. & \hbox{}
\end{array}
\right.$$ We can suppose that there exists a convex neighborhood $D$ of $x_0$ such that $x_{\alpha}\in D$ and $y_{\alpha}\in D$ for all $\alpha$ large. So there exists a constant $\kappa$ such that the sectional curvature of $M$ is bounded below by a constant $-\kappa^2$. Without loss of generality, we assume the diameter $L(D)$ of D is small such that $\cosh \kappa L(D)\le 2$. Let $\gamma_{\alpha}:[0,l_{\alpha}]\to D$ be the unique normal geodesic joining $x_{\alpha}$ and $y_{\alpha}$, where $l_{\alpha}={{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha})$. In this case $$\nabla\varphi=(-2l\gamma'(0),2l\gamma'(l_{\alpha})).$$ We can decompose $T_xM\times T_yM$ as $(\gamma'(0){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\gamma'(0)\}^{\bot})\times(\gamma'(0){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\gamma'(l_{\alpha})\}^{\bot})$. According this decomposition and from Theorem \[thmhess\], we know $A_{\alpha}:=D^2(\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2)$ satisfies $$A_{\alpha}\le \alpha \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&&-1&\\
&Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} & &-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}} I\\
-1&&1&\\
&-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}}I && Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $I$ is $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ unit matrix. Then $$\|A_{\alpha}\|\le \alpha\frac{\kappa l_{\alpha}}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}}(\cosh kl_{\alpha}+1)\le 3\alpha,$$ Here we have assumed that $\kappa l_\alpha$ is not big. For any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $X_{1\alpha}\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{x_{\alpha}}^*M$ and $X_{2\alpha}\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{y_{\alpha}}^*M$ such that the block diagonal matrix satisfies $$\label{eq13}
-\left(\frac1{\varepsilon}+\|A_{\alpha}\|\right)I\le\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X_{1\alpha} & 0 \\
0 & -X_{2\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\le A_{\alpha}+\varepsilon A^2_{\alpha}.$$ Choosing $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{\alpha(\cosh \kappa L(D)+1)}$ we have the following $$\label{eq14}
-4\alpha I\le\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X_{1\alpha} & 0 \\
0 & -X_{2\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\le 4\alpha \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&&-1&\\
&Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} & &-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}} I\\
-1&&1&\\
&-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}}I && Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ Let us denote $\iota$ the dual map between the tangent and cotangent bundles. We have proved that for a sufficiently large $\alpha$ at a maximum $(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ of $u_1(x)-u_2(y)-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2$ there exist $(-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma_{\alpha}'(0)), X_{1\alpha})\in
\bar{J}_M^{2,+}(u_1(x_{\alpha})$ and $(-\alpha
l_\alpha\iota(\gamma_{\alpha}'(l_{\alpha})), X_{2\alpha})\in
\bar{J}_M^{2,-}(u_2(y_{\alpha})$ such that $X_{2\alpha}\ge
X_{1\alpha}\circ P_{\gamma}(l)- 4\alpha
l_{\alpha}^2\kappa^2 Id$ holds.
Since $u_1$ and $u_2$ are subsoltion and supersoltion we have $$\label{eq15}
F(x_{\alpha},u_1(x_{\alpha}),
-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(0)),X_{1\alpha})\le 0\le F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),
-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha}).$$ Then for $\alpha$ sufficiently large $$\begin{split}
0<\beta\delta & <\beta(u_1(x_{\alpha})-u_2(y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})) \\
&\le F(x_{\alpha},u_1(x_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(0)),X_{1\alpha})-F(x_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(0)),X_{1\alpha})-\frac{\beta\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\\
&=F(x_{\alpha},u_1(x_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(0)),X_{1\alpha})-F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{1\alpha}\circ P_{\gamma}(0))+\\
&\qquad F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha})-F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha})+\\
&\qquad F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{1\alpha}\circ P_{\gamma}(0))-F(x_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(0)),X_{1\alpha})-\frac{\beta\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\\
&\le\omega(\alpha{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}))-\frac{\beta\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})+\\
&\qquad
-F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{1\alpha}\circ P_{\gamma}(0))+F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha})\\
&\le\omega(\alpha{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}))-\frac{\beta\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}^2(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})+\\
&\qquad
-F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha}+4\alpha
l_{\alpha}^2\kappa^2I)+F(y_{\alpha},u_2(y_{\alpha}),-\alpha l_\alpha\iota(\gamma'_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})),X_{2\alpha}).
\end{split}$$ Let $\alpha\to +\infty$. Since $F$ is continuous in $X$, the left hand side goes to zero and we have arrived at a contradiction.
Viscosity maximum principle on complete Riemannian manifolds
============================================================
Maximum principles for $C^2$ functions on complete Riemannian manifolds were already done by Omori [@O] and Yau [@Y], but our approach and the spirit of the results are quite different. In [@Y], Yau developed gradient estimate for $C^2$ functions satisfing some inequalities and proved a maximum principle which is well known and has many important applications in geometry. In this section we will generalize both Omori and Yau’s maximum principle to non-differentiable functions. The approach is quite different. Even for $C^2$ function we present here a new proof for Omori-Yau’s maximum principle.
\[thmOmori\] Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature bounded below by a constant $-\kappa^2$. Let $u
\in{\mathrm{USC}}(M)$, and $v\in{\mathrm{LSC}}(M)$ be two functions satisfying $$\label{}
\mu_0:=\sup_{x\in M}[u(x)-v(x)]< +\infty.$$ Assume that $u$ and $v$ are bounded from above and below respectively and there exists a function $\omega:\mathbb{R}_{+}\mapsto \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\omega(0)=\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$\label{}
u(x)-u(y)\le \omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)).$$ Then for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $x_{\varepsilon},
y_{\varepsilon}\in M$, such that $(p_{\varepsilon},X_{\varepsilon})\in \bar{J}^{2,+}u(x_{\varepsilon}),\ \ (q_{\varepsilon},Y_{\varepsilon})\in
\bar{J} ^{2,-}v(y_{\varepsilon}),$ such that $$u(x_{\varepsilon})-v(y_{\varepsilon})\geq \mu_{0}-\varepsilon,$$ and such that $${{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})<\varepsilon,\ \ \
|p_{\varepsilon }-q_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\gamma}(l)|<\varepsilon,\
\ X_{\varepsilon}\leq Y_{\varepsilon }\circ
P_{\gamma}(l)+\varepsilon P_{\gamma}(l),$$ where $l={{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})$ and $
P_{\gamma}(l)$ is the parallel transport along the shortest geodesic connecting $x_{\varepsilon}$ and $y_{\varepsilon}$.
We divide the proof into two parts.
[**Part 1.**]{} Without loss of generality, we assume that $\mu_0>0$. Otherwise we replace $u$ by $u-\mu_0+1$. For each $\alpha>0$, we take $\hat{x}_{\alpha}\in M$ such that $$u(\hat{x}_{\alpha})-v(\hat{x}_{\alpha})+\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})\geq
\mu_0.$$ Let $\lambda_{\alpha}=-\frac{1}{\ln
\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})}$. We consider the following maximization $$\label{}
\sigma_{\alpha}=\sup_{x,y\in
M}[u(x)-v(y)-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2-\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x)^2-\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y)^2]$$ Taking $\alpha$ large if necessary, we have $(x_{\alpha},
y_{\alpha})$ satisfying $$\sigma_{\alpha}=u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2-\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})^2-\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2$$ Let $$\label{}
\sigma^o_{\alpha}=\sup_{x,y\in
M}[u(x)-v(x)-\lambda_{\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x)^2]$$ It is straightforward to see that $$\label{}
\sigma_{\alpha}\ge\sigma^o_{\alpha}\ge u(\hat{x}_{\alpha})-v(\hat{x}_{\alpha})\geq
\mu_0-\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})$$ and it follows from the boundedness of $u$ and $v$ that $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is bounded from below by some constant $\sigma_{*}\leq \sigma^o_{\alpha}$. Then there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\label{eqt5}
\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2\le C$$ and $$\label{eqt6}
\begin{split}
\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2+&\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2= u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\sigma_{\alpha} \\
& \le
u(x_{\alpha})-u(y_{\alpha})+u(y_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\mu_0+\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})\\
& \le
\omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}) )+u(y_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\mu_0+\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})\\
& \le
\omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}))+\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})\rightarrow
0.
\end{split}$$ So (\[eqt5\]) can be improved as $\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2\le \frac{\mu_0}2$. Using the same process of (\[eqt6\]), we have $$\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2\le
2\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}}).$$
Thus, when $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$, $$\label{}
\begin{split}
&{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^{2}\leq
\frac{4\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{0} }{\alpha}})}{\alpha}\rightarrow0,\\
&{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},\hat{x}_{\alpha})^{2}+{{\mathrm{d}}}(y_{\alpha
},\hat{x}_{\alpha})^{2}\leq
\frac{4\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{0}}{\alpha}} )}{ \lambda_{\alpha}}
\rightarrow0.
\end{split}$$
[**Part 2.**]{} We apply now Theorem 3.2 in [@cil] to $\varphi_{\alpha}(x,y)=\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x)^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y)^2$. We have for any $\delta>0$ there exist $X_{\alpha}\in \mathcal{S}
T_{{x_{\alpha}}}^{\ast}M$ and $Y_{\alpha}\in \mathcal{S}
T_{y_{\alpha}}^{\ast}M$ such that $$(D_{x}\varphi_{\alpha}({x_{\alpha}},{y_{\alpha}}),X_{\alpha})\in
\bar{J}^{2,+}u(x_{\alpha}),\text{ and }
(-D_{y}\varphi_{\alpha}({x_{\alpha}},{y_{\alpha}}),Y_{\alpha})\in
\bar{J}^{2,-}v(y_{\alpha}),$$ and the block diagonal matrix satisfies $$-\left( \frac{1}{\delta}+\Vert A_{\alpha}\Vert \right) I\leq
\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}X_{\alpha} & 0\\
0 & -Y_{\alpha}\end{array}
\right) \leq A_{\alpha}+\delta A^{2}_{\alpha},\label{eqt12}$$ where $A_{\alpha}=D^{2}\varphi_{\alpha}({x}_{\alpha},{y}_{\alpha})\in
\mathcal{S}^2T^{\ast}(M\times M)$ and $$\Vert A_{\alpha}\Vert=\sup \{|A_{\alpha}(\xi,\xi)|,\xi \in
T_{({x_{\alpha}},{y_{\alpha}})}M\times
M,|\xi|=1\}.\label{eqt12.5}$$ We denote $$P_{\alpha}=\frac{\alpha}2D^{2}{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2, \text{
and
}Q_{\alpha}=\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2D^{2}[{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})^2+{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2].$$ Hence $A_{\alpha}=P_{\alpha}+Q_{\alpha}$. Since $\lim_{\alpha\to
+\infty}x_{\alpha}=\lim_{\alpha\to
+\infty}y_{\alpha}=\lim_{\alpha\to +\infty}\hat{x}_{\alpha}$, we can assume $\alpha$ large enough so that all $x_{\alpha}$ and $y_{\alpha}$ are in a small convex neighborhood $D_{\alpha}$ of $\hat{x}_{\alpha}$. Let $\gamma$ be the minimal geodesic connecting $x_{\alpha}$ and $y_{\alpha}$. We decompose $T_{x_{\alpha}}M\times
T_{y_{\alpha}}M$ as $(\gamma'(0){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\gamma'(0)\}^{\bot})\times(\gamma'(0){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\gamma'(l_{\alpha})\}^{\bot})$. According this decomposition and from Theorem \[thmhess\], we know $P_{\alpha}$ satisfies $$P_{\alpha}\le \alpha \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&&-1&\\
&Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} & &-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}} I\\
-1&&1&\\
&-\frac{l_{\alpha}\kappa}{\sinh \kappa l_{\alpha}}I && Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $I$ is $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ unit matrix. Then $$\|P_{\alpha}\|\le \alpha\frac{\kappa l_{\alpha}}{\sinh \kappa
l_{\alpha}}(\cosh \kappa l_{\alpha}+1).$$ We decompose $T_{x_{\alpha}}M\times T_{y_{\alpha}}M$ as $(\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},\cdot){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},\cdot)\}^{\bot})\times(\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},\cdot){{\mathbb{R}}}\oplus\{\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},\cdot)\}^{\bot})$. According this decomposition, the classical Hessian comparison Theorem implies that $Q_{\alpha}$ satisfies $$Q_{\alpha}\le \lambda_{\alpha} \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&&&\\
&Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} & &\\
&&1&\\
& && Il_{\alpha}\kappa\coth \kappa l_{\alpha} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$
Since the ${{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha}, y_{\alpha})$, ${{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})$, and ${{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ tend to zero as $\alpha\to +\infty$, we can assume the diameter of the convex neighborhood $D_{\alpha}$ is small so that both $\Vert P_{\alpha}\Vert$ and $\Vert
Q_{\alpha}\Vert$ are bounded by $4\alpha$ and $2\lambda_{\alpha}$ respectively.
So for any $V\in T_{x_{\alpha}}M$ and $V\bot \gamma'$, $$\begin{split}
\langle X_{\alpha}V,V\rangle-\langle
Y_{\alpha}P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V,P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V\rangle &
\le (P_\alpha+Q_\alpha+\delta P_\alpha^2+\delta Q_\alpha^2+\delta P_\alpha
Q_\alpha+Q_\alpha P_\alpha)(V, P_\gamma(l_\alpha)V)^2\\
&\le P_\alpha (V, P_\gamma(l_\alpha)V)^2+[\|Q_\alpha\|+2\delta(\|P_\alpha^2\|+\|Q_\alpha^2\|](V, P_\gamma(l_\alpha)V)^2 .
\end{split}$$ Since $\|P_\alpha\|\le 4\alpha, $ $\|Q_\alpha\|\le
2\lambda_\alpha$, we have $$\langle X_{\alpha}V,V\rangle-\langle
Y_{\alpha}P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V,P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V\rangle
\le 2\kappa^2\alpha
l_\alpha^2|V|^2+4\lambda_\alpha|V|^2+16\delta(16\alpha^2+4\lambda_\alpha^2)|V|^2.$$
For any $\varepsilon>0$, we can choose $\delta=\frac{\varepsilon}{64(4\alpha^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2)}$. Since $\alpha
l_{\alpha}^2\to 0$ and , then there exists $\alpha_1>0$ such that when $\alpha>\alpha_1$ $$\langle X_{\alpha}V,V\rangle-\langle
Y_{\alpha}P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V,P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})V\rangle\le
\frac{\varepsilon}2 |V|^2.$$ For any $V\in T_{x_{\alpha}}M$, we have $$\begin{split}
D_x\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})(V)&= \alpha l_{\alpha}\langle-\gamma'(0),V\rangle+\lambda_{\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})\langle\nabla {{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha}),V\rangle \\
D_y\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})(P_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})V)&=
\alpha
l_{\alpha}\langle\gamma'(l_{\alpha}),P_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})V\rangle+\lambda_{\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\langle\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}),V\rangle,
\end{split}$$ then we have $$\begin{split}
D_x\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})(V)+&D_y\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})(P_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})V)=\\
&\lambda_{\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})\langle\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha}),V\rangle+\lambda_{\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\langle\nabla
{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}),V\rangle,
\end{split}$$ Since $\lim_{\alpha\to +\infty}\lambda_{\alpha}=0$ and $\lim_{\alpha\to +\infty}{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})=0$, then there exists $\alpha_2>0$ such that when $\alpha>\alpha_2$, $$|D_x\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})+D_y\varphi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\circ P_{\alpha}(l_{\alpha})|<\varepsilon.$$ There exists $\alpha_3>0$ such that when $\alpha>\alpha_3$, $\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})<\varepsilon.$ Therefore $$\begin{split}
u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})= & \sigma_{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})^2+\frac{\lambda_{\alpha}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}(\hat{x}_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^2 \\
\ge&
\mu_0-\omega(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\alpha}})>\mu_0-\varepsilon.
\end{split}$$ Finally we choose $\bar{\alpha}=\max\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\}$ such that all the inequalities in the theorem are satisfied. The proof is complete.
\[thmYau\] Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below by a constant $-(n-1)\kappa^2$. Let $u
\in{\mathrm{USC}}(M)$, $v\in{\mathrm{LSC}}(M)$ be two functions satisfying $$\label{}
\mu_0:=\sup_{x\in M}[u(x)-v(x)]< +\infty.$$ Assume that $u$ and $v$ are bounded from above and below respectively and there exists a function $\omega:\mathbb{R}_{+}\mapsto \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\omega(0)=\omega(0+)=0$ such that $$\label{}
u(x)-u(y)\le \omega({{\mathrm{d}}}(x,y)).$$ Then for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $x_{\varepsilon},
y_{\varepsilon}\in M$, $(p_{\varepsilon},X_{\varepsilon})\in \bar{J}^{2,+}u(x_{\varepsilon}),\ \ (q_{\varepsilon},Y_{\varepsilon})\in
\bar{J} ^{2,-}v(y_{\varepsilon}),$ such that $$u(x_{\varepsilon})-v(y_{\varepsilon})\geq \mu_{0}-\varepsilon,$$ and such that $${{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})<\varepsilon,\ \ \
|p_{\varepsilon }-q_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\gamma}(l)|<\varepsilon,\
\mathrm{tr} X_{\varepsilon}\leq \mathrm{tr} Y_{\varepsilon
}+\varepsilon,$$ where $l={{\mathrm{d}}}(x_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})$ and $
P_{\gamma}(l)$ is the parallel transport along the shortest geodesic connecting $x_{\varepsilon}$ and $y_{\varepsilon}$.
Part 1 is the same as the above theorem. We start our proof from the Part 2. Let $D_{\alpha}$ be the convex neighborhood of $\hat{x}_{\alpha}$ chosen in the proof of the last theorem and $-\kappa^2_{\alpha}$ is the lower bound of the sectional curvature in $D_{\alpha}$. We can assume the diameter of $D_{\alpha}$ is small such that both $\Vert P_{\alpha}\Vert$ and $\Vert Q_{\alpha}\Vert$ are bounded by $2\alpha$ and $2\lambda_{\alpha}$ respectively. By Theorem 3.8, we have, for any orthonormal base $\{e_1, e_2, \cdots,
e_n\}$ at $x_{\alpha}$ with $e_1=\gamma'(0)$, $$\sum_{i=1}^n\langle X_{\alpha}e_i, e_i\rangle-\sum_{i=1}^n\langle Y_{\alpha}P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})e_i,
P_{\gamma}(l_{\alpha})e_i\rangle\le 2 (n-1)\kappa\alpha
l_{\alpha}\frac{\sinh\frac{\kappa l_{\alpha}}2}{\cosh\frac{\kappa l_{\alpha}}2}+4(n-1)\delta(\alpha^2+\lambda_{\alpha}^2).$$ Here we may change the base if necessary since we are computing the traces of $X_\alpha$ and $Y_\alpha$ respectively. Therefore we have $\alpha_1>0,$ such that when $\alpha>\alpha_1$, $$\mathrm{tr}X_{\alpha}- \mathrm{tr}Y_{\alpha}\le
\frac{\varepsilon}2<\varepsilon.$$ The rest of the proof is the same as that of the preceding theorem.
As a corollary we have the famous Yau’s maximum principle.
Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below by a constant $-(n-1)\kappa^2$ and $f$ a $C^2$ function on $M$ bounded from below. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a point $x_{\varepsilon}\in M$ such that $$f(x_{\varepsilon})\le \inf f+\varepsilon, |\nabla
f|(x_{\varepsilon})<\varepsilon, \Delta f(x_{\varepsilon}) >-\varepsilon.$$
Let $u=\inf f$ and $v=f$. $\omega$ can be chosen to be constant function. It is straightforward to verify that all conditions in Theorem are satisfied.
The maximum principle for parabolic PDE {#secPara}
=======================================
For any function $u:[0,T]\times M\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define
We define $$P_{M}^{2,+}u(t_{0},x_{0})=\{(a,p,X)\in \mathbb{R}\times T_{x_{0}}^{\ast}M\times \mathcal{S}^2T_{x_{0}}^{\ast}M,\quad
\mathrm{satisfies}\quad(\ref{p-eq03}).\}$$ where (\[p-eq03\]) is$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}u(t,x)\leq u(t_{0},x_{0})+a(t-t_{0})+(p(\exp_{x_{0}}^{-1}x)\\
\\
+\frac{1}{2}X(\exp_{x_{0}}^{-1}x,\exp_{x_{0}}^{-1}x)+o(|\exp_{x_{0}}^{-1}x|^{2}),\quad \mathrm{as}\quad x\rightarrow x_{0}, t\rightarrow
t_0.
\end{array}
\label{p-eq03}$$
We also set $P_{M}^{2,-}u(t_{0},x_{0})=-P_{M}^{2,+}(-u)(t_{0},x_{0})$.
Correspondingly, we set $$\bar{P}_{M}^{2,+}u(t_{0},x_{0})=\left \{
\begin{split}
& (a,p,X)\in \mathbb{R}\times T_{x_{0}}^{\ast}M\times \mathcal{S}
T_{x_{0}}^{\ast
}M,\text{ such that }(t_{0},x_{0},u(t_0, x_0),a,p,X)\text{ }\\
& \text{is a limit point of }(t_{k},x_{k},u(t_k,
x_k),a_{k},p_{k},X_{k}), (a_{k},p_{k},X_{k})\in P_{M}
^{2,+}u(t_{k},x_{k})\text{.}
\end{split}
\right \}$$ as well as $\bar{P}_{M}^{2,-}u(t_{0},x_{0})=-\bar{P}_{M}^{2,+}(-u)(t_{0},x_{0})$.
A viscosity subsolution of $\partial_{t}u+F=0$ on $(0,T)\times M$ is a function $u\in \mathrm{USC}((0,T)\times M)$ such that $$a+F(x,u,p,X)\leq0\text{ }$$ for all $(t,x)\in(0,T)\times M$ and $(a,p,X)\in P_{M}^{2,+}u(t,x)$. A viscosity supersolution of $\partial_{t}u+F=0$ on $(0,T)\times M$ is a function $u\in \mathrm{LSC}((0,T)\times M)$ such that $$a+F(x,u,p,X)\geq0\text{ }$$ for all $(t,x)\in(0,T)\times M$ and $(a,p,X)\in P_{M}^{2,-}u(t,x)$. $u$ is a viscosity solution of $\partial_{t}u+F=0$ on $(0,T)\times
M$ if it is both a viscosity subsolution and a viscosity supersolution of $\partial_{t}u+F=0$.
\[Lm8.2\]Let $u_{i}\in \mathrm{USC}((0,T)\times M_{i})$, $i=1,2$ and let $\varphi \in C^{1,2}((0,T)\times M_{1}\times M_{2})$. Suppose that $\hat{t}\in(0,T)$ and $\hat{x}_{1}\in M_{1}$, $\hat{x}_{2}\in M_{2}$ satisfy: $$u_{1}(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{1})+u_{2}(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{2})-\varphi(\hat{t},\hat
{x}_{1},\hat{x}_{2})\geq
u_{1}(t,x_{1})+u_{2}(t,x_{2})-\varphi(t,x_{1},x_{2})$$ for $t\in(0,T)$ and ${x}_{1}\in M_{1}$, ${x}_{2}\in M_{2}$. Assume that there exists an $r>0$ such that for every $K>0$ there exists a $C$ such that for $i=1,2$: there are $b_{1},b_{2}\in \mathbb{R}$ and $X_{i}\in \mathcal{S}^2T_{\hat{x}_{i}}^{\ast}M_{i}$ such that$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}b_{i}\leq C\text{ whenever }(b_{i},q_{i},X_{i})\in P_{M_{i}}^{2,+}u(t,x_{i})\text{,}\\
\mathrm{d}(x_{i},\hat{x}_{i})+|t-\hat{t}|\leq r\ \text{and\ }|u_{i}(t,x_{i})|+|q_{i}|+\left \Vert X_{i}\right \Vert \leq K.
\end{array}$$ Then for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $X_{i}\in \mathcal{S}
T_{\hat{x}}^{\ast
}M_{i}$ such that$$\begin{array}
[c]{clc}\mathrm{(i)} & (b_{i},D_{x_{i}}\varphi(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{1},\hat{x}_{2}),X_{i})\in \bar{P}_{M_{i}}^{2,+}u(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{i})\text{,} &
\text{for
}i=1,2\\
\mathrm{(ii)} & -\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\Vert A\Vert \right)
I\leq \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}X_{1} & 0\\
0 & X_{2}\end{array}
\right) \leq A+\varepsilon A^{2}. & \\
\mathrm{(iii)} &
b_{1}+b_{2}=\partial_{t}\varphi(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{1},\hat {x}_{2}) &
\end{array}$$ where $A=D_{(x_{1},x_{2})}^{2}\varphi(\hat{t},\hat{x}_{1},\hat{x}_{2})$.
Now we are in a position to assert our comparison theorem for parabolic situation.
Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary $\partial M$, $F\in C([0,+\infty)\times \mathcal{F}(M),\mathbb{R})$ be a proper function such that there exists a function $\omega:[0,\infty]\rightarrow \lbrack0,\infty]$ satisfying (\[eq12.7\]). Let $u\in \mathrm{USC}([0,T]\times \bar{M})$ and $v\in {\mathrm{LSC}}([0,T]\times \bar{M})$ be a subsolution and supersolution of $$\partial_{t}u+F=0$$ respectively such that $u\leq v$ on $[0,T]\times \partial M$ and $u|_{t=0}\leq v|_{t=0}$ on $M$. Then $u\leq v$ on $[0,T]\times
\bar{M}$.
We first observe that for each $\varepsilon>0$, $\tilde{u}=u-\varepsilon /(T-t)$ satisfies $$\partial_{t}\tilde{u}+F(t, x,\tilde{u}+\varepsilon /(T-t),D\tilde{u},D^{2}\tilde{u})+\frac
{\varepsilon}{(T-t)^{2}}\leq0.$$ We thus only need to prove $\tilde{u}\leq v$. In fact it suffices to prove the comparison theorem for the subsolution $u$ satisfying$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\mathrm{(i)\ }\partial_{t}u+F(t, x,u+\varepsilon /(T-t),Du,D^{2}u)+\frac{\varepsilon}{(T-t)^{2}}\leq0\\
\mathrm{(ii)\ }\lim_{t\uparrow T}u(t,x)=-\infty,\ \
\text{uniformly on }M.
\end{array}
\label{eq8.7}$$ We can see that $u$, $-v$ be bounded above. For the sake of a contradiction we assume that $$\delta:=\sup_{(t,x)\in \lbrack0,T)\times M}\{u(t,x)-v(t,x)\}>0. \label{eq8.9}$$ Then for $\alpha$ large, $$0<\delta \leq \mu_{\alpha}:=\sup_{t\in \lbrack0,T),\ x,y\in M}\{u(t,x)-v(t,y)-\frac{\alpha}{2}{\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{2})\}<+\infty.$$ There exists $(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ such that $$\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow
\infty}[\mu_{\alpha}-(u(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha
})-v(t_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}{2}{\mathrm{d}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha
})^{2})]=0.$$ Then the following holds: $$\left \{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}(i)\quad \lim_{\alpha \rightarrow
\infty}\alpha{\mathrm{d}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha
})^{2}=0,\quad \text{and} & \\
(ii)\quad \lim_{\alpha \rightarrow \infty}\mu_{\alpha}=u(\hat{t},\hat{x})-v(\hat{t},\hat{x})=\delta, & \hbox{}\\
\text{ where }(\hat{t},\hat{x})=\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow
\infty}(t_{\alpha },x_{\alpha}). & \hbox{}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let $(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})$ be a maximum point of $u(t,x)-v(t,y)-(\alpha/2){\mathrm{d}}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^{2})$ over $[0,T)\times \bar{M}\times \bar{M}$ for $\alpha>0$. Such a maximum exists in view of the assumed bounded above on $u$, $-v$, the compactness of $\bar{\Omega}$, and (\[eq8.7\])(ii). The purpose of the term $(\alpha /2)\mathrm{d}(x,y)^{2}$ is as the elliptic case. Set $$M_{\alpha}=u(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha})-v(t_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})-\frac{\alpha}{2}d(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})^{2}.$$ By (\[eq8.9\]), $M_{\alpha}\geq \delta$. If $t_{\alpha}=0$, we have$$0<\delta \leq M_{\alpha}\leq \sup_{x,y\in \bar{M}}[u(0,x)-u(0,y)-\frac{\alpha}{2}d(x,y)^{2}].$$ But the right hand side tends to zero as $\alpha \rightarrow
\infty$, so when $\alpha$ is large we have $t_\alpha>0$. Similarly, since $u\leq v$ on $[0,T)\times \partial M$ we have $x_\alpha$, $y_\alpha\in \Omega$.
We now apply Lemma \[Lm8.2\] at $(t_\alpha,x_\alpha,y_\alpha)$: there are $a,b\in \mathbb{R}$ and $X\in
\mathcal{S}^2T_{x_{\alpha}}^{\ast}M$, $Y\in \mathcal{S}
T_{y_{\alpha}}^{\ast}M$ such that$$\begin{aligned}
(a,D_{x}\varphi(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}),X) & \in \bar{P}_{M}^{2,+}u(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha}),\ \
(b,-D_{y}\varphi(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha
},y_{\alpha}),Y)\in \bar{P}_{M}^{2,-}v(t_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}),\\
a & =b\end{aligned}$$ and $$-\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\Vert A\Vert \right) I\leq \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}X & 0\\
0 & -Y
\end{array}
\right) \leq A+\varepsilon A^{2}.$$ The relation $$\begin{aligned}
a+F(t_{\alpha},x_{\alpha},u(t_{\alpha}+\varepsilon
/(T-t_\alpha),x_{\alpha}),\alpha \iota(\gamma_{\alpha
}^{\prime}(0)),X) & \leq-c,\\
b+F(t_{\alpha},y_{\alpha},v(t_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}),\alpha
\iota(\gamma_{\alpha }^{\prime}(l_{\alpha})),Y) & \geq0.\end{aligned}$$ We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
c &
\leq-a-F(t_\alpha,x_\alpha,u(t_\alpha,x_\alpha),-l_\alpha\alpha
\iota(\gamma_{\alpha}^{\prime}(0)),X_\alpha)\\
& \leq F(t_\alpha,y_\alpha,v(t_\alpha,y_\alpha),-l_\alpha\alpha
\iota
(\gamma_{\alpha}^{\prime}(l_{\alpha})),Y_\alpha)-F(t_\alpha,x^{\alpha
},u(t_\alpha,x_\alpha),-l_\alpha\alpha
\iota(\gamma_{\alpha}^{\prime}(0)),X_{\alpha
})\\
& \leq \omega(\alpha
d(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)^{2}+d(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ we have arrived at a contradiction.
[99]{}
D. Azagra, J. Ferrera, B. Sanz, [Viscosity solutions to second order partial differential equations I, ]{} J. Differential Equations 245(2008) 307–336.
S.Y. Cheng and S.T. Yau, [Differential equations on Riemannian manifolds and their geometric applications, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975) 333–354.]{}
B. Chow, S. Chu, D. Glickenstein, C. Guenther, J. Isenberg, T. Ivey, D. Knopf, p. Lu, F. Luo, L. Ni, [Ricci flow: techniques and applications, Part I: geometric aspects. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 135, AMS, Providence, RJ, 2007.]{}
M.G. Crandall, H. Ishii, P.L. Loins, [User’s guide to viscosity solutions of second order partial differential equations,]{}, Bull. Amer Math. Soc. [**27**]{}(1992), 1–67.
H. Omori, Isometric immersions of Riemannian manifolds, J. Math. Soc. Japan 19 (1967), 205-214. MR 35:6101 S.T. Yau, Harmonic functions on complete Riemannian manifolds, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975), 201-228. MR 55:4042
Shige PengSchool of MathematicsShandong UniversityJinan, Shandong 250100China email: [email protected]
Detang ZhouInsitituto de MatemáticaUniversidade Federal Fluminense- UFFCentro, Niterói, RJ 24020-140Brazil email: [email protected]
[^1]: This author thanks the partial support from The National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) grant No. 2007CB814900.
[^2]: Partially supported by CNPq and FAPERJ of Brazil.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
œ[õe ]{}
[^1]
[**Prem P. Srivastava**]{} [^2]\
\
and\
[*Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fsicas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}
A review is made on some recent studies which support the point of view that the relativistic field theory quantized on the light-front (LF), as proposed by Dirac, seems to be more transparent compared to the conventional equal-time quantized one. Some ideas following from these studies may be of some relevance in the context of the quantization of gravitation theory. It is argued on general grounds that the LF quantization is [*equally appropriate*]{} as the conventional equal-time one and that the two should lead, assuming the microcausality principle, to the same physical content. This is shown to be true by considering several model field theories. The description on the LF of the spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), (tree level) Higgs mechanism, of the [*condensate*]{} or $\theta$-vacua in the Schwinger model (SM), of the absence of such vacua in the Chiral SM (CSM), and of the BRS-BFT quantization of the [*front form*]{} CSM are among the topics discussed.
The LF phase space is strongly constrained and is different from the one in the conventional theory. The removal of the constraints by following the Dirac procedure results in a substantially reduced number of independent operators. The discussion of the physical Hilbert space and the vacuum becomes more tractable.
Some comments on the irrelevance, in the quantized field theory, of the fact that the hyperplanes $x^{\pm}=0$ constitute characteristic surfaces of the hyperbolic partial differential equation are also made. The LF theory quantized on, say, the $x^{+}=const.$ hyperplanes seems to contain in it the information on the equal-$x^{-}$ commutators as well.
A theoretical reaffirmation of the universally accepted notion that the experimental data is to be confronted with the predictions of a classical theory model only after it has been upgraded through its quantization seems to emerge. The LF quantization promises to be a powerful tool, complementary to the functional integral method, for handling the nonperturbative calculations.
\
Dirac [@dir], in his paper, in 1949, discussed the unification, in a relativistic theory, of the principles of the quantization and the special relativity theory. The Light-Front (LF) quantization which studies the relativistic quantum dynamics of physical system on the hyperplanes : $x^{0}+x^{3}\equiv {\sqrt{2}}x^{+}=const.$, called the [*front form*]{} theory, was also proposed there. The [*instant form*]{} or the conventional equal-time theory on the contrary uses the $x^{0}=const.$ hyperplanes. The LF coordinates $x^{\mu}: (x^{+},x^{-},x^{\perp}
)$, where $x^{\pm}=(x^{0}{\pm} x^{3})
/{\sqrt 2}=x_{\mp}$ and $ x^{\perp} =
(x^{1}, x^{2})$, are convenient to use in the [*front form*]{} theory. They are [*not related by a Lorentz transformation*]{} to the coordinates $(x^{0}\equiv t,x^{1},x^{2},x^{3})$ usually employed in the [*instant form* ]{} theory and as such the descriptions of the same physical content of a dynamical theory on the LF may come out to be different from that given in the conventional treatment. The LF quantized field theory may hence be of some relevance in the understanding of the unification of the principles of the quantization with that of the general covariance[^3].
We will make the [*convention*]{} to regard[^4] $x^{+}\equiv \tau$ as the LF-time coordinate while $x^{-}\equiv x$ as the [*longitudinal spatial*]{} coordinate. The temporal evolution in $x^{0}$ or $x^{+}$ of the system is generated by Hamiltonians which are different in the two [*forms*]{} of the theory. The LF components, with $\mu=+,-,1,2$, of any tensor are defined likewise.
Consider [@pre] the invariant distance between two spacetime points : $ (x-y)^{2}=(x^{0}-y^{0})^{2}-(\vec x-\vec y)^2= 2
(x^{+}-y^{+}) (x^{-}-y^{-}) - (x^{\perp}-y^{\perp})^{2}$. On an equal $x^{0}=y^{0}=const. $ hyperplane the points have spacelike separation except for if they are [*coincident*]{} when it becomes lightlike one. On the LF with $x^{+}=y^{+}=const.$ the distance becomes [*independent of*]{} $(x^{-}-y^{-})$ and the seperation is again spacelike; it becomes lightlike one when $x^{\perp}=y^{\perp}$ but with the difference that now the points need [*not*]{} necessarily be coincident along the longitudinal direction. The LF field theory hence need not necessarily be local in $x^{-}$, even if the corresponding [*instant form*]{} theory is formulated as a local one. For example, the commutator $[A(x^{+},x^{-},{x^{\perp}}),B(0,0,0^{\perp})]_{x^{+}=0}$ of two scalar observables would vanish on the grounds of microcausality principle if $ x^{\perp}\ne
0$ when $x^{2}\vert_{x^{+}=0}$ is spacelike. Its value would hence be proportional to $\,\delta^{2}(x^{\perp})\, $ and a finite number of its derivatives, implying locality only in $x^{\perp}$ but not necessarily so in $x^{-}$. Similar arguments in the [*instant form*]{} theory lead to the locality in all the three spatial coordinates. In view of the microcausality both of the commutators $[A(x),B(0)]_{x^{+}=0}$ and $[A(x),B(0)]_{x^{0}=0}$ are nonvanishing only on the light-cone.
We remark that in the LF quantization we time order with respect to $\tau$ rather than $t$. The microcausality principle, however, ensures that the retarded commutators $[A(x),B(0)]\theta(x^{0})$ and $[A(x),B(0)]\theta(x^{+})$, which appear [@ryd] in the S-matrix elements of relativistic field theory, do not lead to disagreements in the two formulations. In the regions $x^{0}>0, x^{+}<0$ and $x^{0}<0, x^{+}>0$, where the commutators seem different the $x^{2}$ is spacelike and both of them vanish. Hence, admitting the [*microcausality principle*]{} to hold, the LF hyperplane seems [*equally appropriate*]{} as the conventional one of the [*instant form*]{} theory for the canonical quantization.
The structure of the [*LF phase space*]{}, however, is different from that of the one in the conventional theory. Consequently, we may require on the LF a different description of to the same physical content as found in the conventional treatment. For example, the SSB needs a different description [@pre] or mechanism on the LF when compared with the conventional one. The broken continuous symmetry is now inferred from the study of the residual unbroken symmetry of the LF Hamiltonian operator while the symmetry of the LF vacuum remains intact. The expression which counts the number of Goldstone bosons present in the theory, a physical content, comes out to be the same as that found in the equal-time quantized theory. A new proof of the Coleman’s theorem [@col] on the absence of the Goldstone bosons in two dimensional theory also emerges [@pre] easily on the LF. The LF vacuum is generally found to be simpler [@bro; @ken] and in many cases the interacting theory vacuum is seen to coincide[^5].
An important advantge pointed out by Dirac of [*front form*]{} theory is that here [*seven*]{} out of the ten Poincaré generators are [*kinematical*]{}, e.g., they leave the plane $x^{+}=0 $ invariant [@dir]. They are $P^{+},P^{1},P^{2},\,
M^{12}=-J_{3},\, M^{+-}= M^{03}= -K_{3},\,
M^{1+}=(K_{1}+J_{2})/\sqrt{2}$ and $ M^{+2}=(K_{2}-J_{1})/\sqrt{2}$. In the conventional theory only six such ones, [*viz.*]{}, ${\vec P}$ and $M^{ij}=-M^{ij} $, leave the hyperplane $x^{0}=0$ invariant. In fact, in the standard notation $K_{i}=-M^{0i}, J_{i}=-(1/2)\epsilon_{ijk}
M^{kl}, i,j,k=1,2,3$ and the generator $K_{3}$ is dynamical one in the [*instant form*]{} theory. It is in contrast kinematical in the [*front form*]{} theory where it generates the scale transformations of the LF components of $x^{\mu}$, $P^{\mu}$ and $M^{\mu\nu}$, with $\mu,\nu=+,-,1,2$. It is also worth remarking that the $\,+\,$ component of the Pauli-Lubanski pseudo-vector $W^{\mu}$ is special in that it contains only the LF kinematical generators. This suggests us to define the [*LF Spin operator*]{} by ${\cal J}_{3}=-W^{+}/P^{+}$. The other two components of $\vec {\cal J}$ are shown to be ${\cal J}_{a}=-({\cal J}_{3}P^{a}
+W^{a})/\sqrt{P^{\mu}P_{\mu}}, \, a=1,2$, which, however, do carry[^6] in them also the LF [*dynamical generators*]{} $P^{-}, M^{1-}, M^{2-} $.
Another distinguishing feature of the [*front form*]{} theory is that it gives rise generally to a (strongly) constrained dynamical system [@dir1] which leads to an appreciable reduction in the number of independent operators on the phase space. The vacuum structure, for example, then becomes more tractable and the computation of physical quantities simpler. This is verified in the recent study of the LF quantized SM [@pre1] and the Chiral SM (CSM) discussed below where we are led directly to the [*physical Hilbert space*]{}, once the constraints are taken into account by following the Dirac procedure [@dir1].
We recall that the LF field theory was rediscovered in 1966 by Weinberg [@wei] in his Feynman rules adapted for infinite momentum frame. It was demonstrated [@kog] latter that these rules, in fact, correspond to the [*front form*]{} quantized theory. It was also employed successfully in the [*nonabelian bosonization* ]{} of the field theory of N free Majorana fermions, where the corresponding LF current algebra was compared [@wit] with the one in the bosonized theory described by the WZNW action at the critical point. The interest in LF quantization has been revived [@bro; @ken] also due to the difficulties encountered in the computation, in the conventional framework, of the nonperturbative effects in the context of QCD and the problem of the relativistic bound states of light fermions [@ken; @bro] in the presence of the complicated vacuum. Studies show that the application of Light-front Tamm-Dancoff method may be feasible here. The technique of the regularization on the lattice has been quite successful for some problems but it cannot handle, for example, the light ( chiral) fermions and has not been able yet to demonstrate, for example, the confinenment of quarks. The problem of reconciling the standard constituent quark model and the QCD to describe the hadrons is also not satisfactorily resolved. In the former we employ few valence quarks while in the latter the QCD vacuum state itself contains, in the conventional theory, an infinite sea of constituent quarks and gluons ( partons) with the density of low momentum constituents getting very large in view of the infrared slavery. The [*front form*]{} dynamics may serve as a complementary tool to study such probelms since we have a simple vacuum here while the complexity of the problem is now transferred to the LF Hamiltonian. In the case of the scalar field theory, for example, the corresponding LF Hamiltonian is, in fact, found [@pre] to be nonlocal due to the appearence of [*constraint equations*]{} on the [*LF phase space*]{}.
We discuss here only some of the interesting conclusions reached from the detailed study of some model relativistic theories on the LF and where the standard Dirac procedure for constrained dynamical systems is followed in order to build the self-consistent Hamiltonian formulation. Among some of the results obtained we find that
- The LF hyperplane is [*equally appropriate*]{} as the conventional equal-time one for the field theory quantization.
- The hyperplanes $x^{\pm}=0$ define the characteristic surfaces of a hyperbolic partial differential equation. From the mathematical theory of classical partial differential equations [@sne] it is known that the Cauchy initial value problem would require us to specify the data on both the hyperplanes. From our studies we conclude that it is sufficient in the [*front form*]{} theory to choose, as proposed by Dirac [@dir], one of the two LF hyperplanes for canonically quantizing the theory.
- In the quantized theory the equal-$\tau$ commutators of the field operators, at a fixed initial LF-time, form now a part of the initial data instead and we deal with operator differential equations.
- The studies show that the information on the commutators on the other characteristic hyperplane are already contained [@pre1] in the quantized theory and need not thus be specified separately.
- The inherent symmetry with regard to equal-$x^{\pm}$ commtators along with the reduced number of independent field operators which survive after the constraints are taken care of seem to be responsible for the very transparent discussion on the LF.
- The physical content following from the [*front form*]{} theory is the same, even though arrived at through different description on the LF, when compared with the one in the [*instant form*]{} case.
- In the conventional treatment we sometimes are required to introduce external constraints in the theory based on physical considerations, say, when describing the spontaneous symmetry breaking. Many of the analogous constraints may be shown to be already icorporated in the quantized theory considered on the LF.
- A theoretical demonstration of the well accepted notion that a classical model field theory must be upgraded first through its quantization before we confront it with the experimental data, seems to emerge.
- The recently proposed BRS-BFT [@bat] quantization procedure is extended straightforwardly on the LF as well as is illustrated below in the context of CSM (Appendix D).
- Topological considerations often employed in the context of the functional integral techniques, where the Euclidean theory action is ususally employed, also seem to have their counterpart, though now interpreted differently. This is suggested, for example, from the studies of the LF quantized SM and CSM.
For illustration purposes we discuss in the following Sections the description on the LF of the spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) and of the structure of the vacuum state in the CSM while some other topics related to the [*front form*]{} theory are collected in the Appendices.
\
On the canonical quantization of the [*instant form*]{} scalar field Lagrangian theory we obtain as well known the Hamiltonian and the commutation relations among the field operators. The description of, say, the tree level SSB emerges when we require also (e.g., introduce [*external*]{} constraints ), based on physical considerations, that the $\phi_{classical}\equiv \omega$ corresponds to the minimum of the Hamiltonian functional. The [*front form*]{} of the same theory describes [@pre] a constrained dynamical system and the canonical Hamiltonian framework, which may be quantized by the correspondence principle, is shown to contain in it a new ingredient in the form of the [*constraint equations*]{}, in addition to the Hamiltonian and commmutators among the field operators. The constraint equations may also be derived from the Lagrange equations of motion [^7]. The new ingredient permits us to describe [@pre] SSB on the LF without requiring us to deal with the difficult task of introducing constraints on the LF based on physical considerations. Some of them may be shown to be already incorporated [@pre] in the formulation itself due to the requirement of the selfconsistency [@dir1].
The existence of the continuum limit of the Discretized Light Cone Quantized (DLCQ) [@pauli] theory, the nonlocal nature of the LF Hamiltonian, and the description of the SSB on the LF were clarified [@pre; @pre2] only recently.
Consider first the two dimensional case of single real scalar theory with the Lagrangian ${\cal L}= \; \lbrack
{\dot\phi}{\phi^\prime}-V(\phi)\rbrack$. Here $\tau\equiv x^{+}=(x^0+x^1)/{\sqrt2}$, $x\equiv x^{-}=(x^0-x^1)/{\sqrt2}$, $\partial_{\tau}\phi=\dot\phi ,
\partial_{x}\phi={\phi}'$, and $d^2x=d\tau dx$. It is the simplest example of a constrained field theory. The eq. of motion, $\,\dot{\phi^\prime}=(-1/2)\delta V(\phi)/\delta \phi $, shows that $\phi=const. $ is a possible solution. We propose to make the following [*separation*]{}[^8] $\;\phi(\tau,x)=\omega(\tau)+\varphi(\tau,x)$ where the $\omega(\tau)$ is the [*dynamical variable*]{} representing the [*bosonic condensate*]{} and $\varphi(\tau,x)$ describes (quantum) [*fluctuations*]{} above it. We set $\int dx^{-} \varphi(\tau,x)=0$ so that the fluctuation field carries no zero momentum mode in it. Subsequently, we apply the standard Dirac procedure in order to construct a selfconsistent Hamiltonian formulation which may be quantized canonically.
We are led [@pre] to
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\varphi(x,\tau),\varphi(y,\tau)\right]&=&-{i\over 4}\epsilon(x-y),\\
\nonumber \\
\left[\omega(\tau),\varphi(x,\tau)\right] &=&0,\end{aligned}$$
and $${H^{lf}\equiv
P^{-}}= \int dx \,\Bigl [\omega(\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi+
{1\over 2}(3\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi^2+
\lambda\omega\varphi^3+{\lambda\over 4}\varphi^4
\Bigr],$$ along with the (second class) constraint equation $$\begin{aligned}
lim_{R\to\infty}
{1\over R}\int_{-R/2}^{R/2} dx \,V'(\phi)
& \equiv & \omega(\lambda\omega^2-m^2)+ lim_{R\to\infty}
\nonumber \\
& &{1\over R}
\int_{-R/2}^{R/2} dx \Bigl[ \,(3\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi +
\lambda (3\omega\varphi^2+\varphi^3 ) \,
\Bigr]=0 \end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed $V(\phi)=
(\lambda/4)(\phi^{2}-m^{2}/\lambda)^{2}$, $\lambda \geq 0$, $m\neq 0$.
Eliminating $\omega$ would lead to a nonlinear and nonlocal Hamiltonian in the [*front form*]{} theory even when the scalar theory is written above a local one in the conventional [*instant form*]{} formulation.
At the tree or classical level $\varphi$ are bounded ordinary functions in $x^{-}$ and only the first term survives in the constraint equation leading to $V'(\omega)=0$, which is the same as found in the conventional theory. There it is essentially added to the theory, on the physical considerations which require the energy functional to attain is minimum (extremam) value. The stability property, say, of a particular constant solution may be inferred as usual from the classical partial differential equation of motion. For example, $\omega=0$ is shown to be an unstable solution for the potential $V$ considered above while the other two solutions with $\omega\neq 0$ give rise to the stable phases[^9].
The construction of the Hamiltonian formulation using the Dirac method [@dir1] is a straightforward exercise. We may use [@pre] the continuum formulation directly or proceed from the DLCQ [@pauli], and take its infinitie volume limit [@pre2] to obtain the same results. The canonical quantization is performed via the correspondence which relates the final Dirac brackets with the commutators (or anticommutators). We note that the Dirac procedure when applied to the scalar theory written in the continuum shows that the variable $\omega$ is a c-number or a background field; in the theory described in finite volume, however, its commutator with $\varphi$ is nonvanishing [@pre] and as such it is a q-number operator. We stress that in our discussion the condensate variable is introduced as a dynamical variable and we let the Dirac procedure decide if it comes out as a c- or q-number. In the SM it comes out to be an operator rather than a background field.
In the quantized theory the constraint equation above shows that the value of $\omega$ would be altered from its tree level value due to the quantum corrections arising from the other terms. It is, in fact, straightforward to renormalize the theory, say, up to one-loop order by employing the Dyson-Wick expansion. We do not need to solve the constraint first which would give rise to a very complicated LF Hamiltonian. It is more convenient to derive [@pre] the renormalized constraint eqn. which together with the expression of mass renormalization condition give us two eqns. which may be used to study [@pre] the phase transition as conjectured by Simon and Griffiths [@simon].
In view of the LF commutator above the scalar field has the LF momentum space expansion : $\varphi(x,\tau)= {(1/{\sqrt{2\pi}})}\int dk\;
{\theta(k)}\;
[a(k,\tau)$ $e^{-ikx}+{a^{\dag}}(k,\tau)e^{ikx}]/(\sqrt {2k})$, were $a(k,\tau)$ and ${a^{\dag}}(k,\tau)$ satisfy the canonical equal-$\tau$ commutation relations, $[a(k,\tau),{a(k^\prime,\tau)}^{\dag}]=\delta(k-k^\prime)$ etc.. The vacuum state is defined by $\,a(k,\tau){\vert vac\rangle}=0\,$, $k> 0$ and the tree level description of the [*SSB*]{} is given as follows. The values of $\omega=
\,{\langle\vert \phi\vert\rangle}_{vac}\;$ obtained from $V'(\omega)=0 $ characterize the different vacua in the theory. Distinct Fock spaces corresponding to different values of $\omega$ are built as usual by applying the creation operators on the corresponding vacuum state. The $\omega=0$ corresponds to a [*symmetric phase*]{} since the Hamiltonian operator is then symmetric under $\varphi\to -\varphi$. For $\omega\ne0$ this symmetry is violated and the system is in a [*broken or asymmetric phase*]{}.
The extension to $3+1$ dimensions and to the global continuous symmetry is straightforward[^10]. Consider real scalar fields $\phi_{a} (a=1,2,..N)\,$ which form an isovector of global internal symmetry group $O(N)$. We now write[^11] $\phi_{a}(x,x^{\perp},\tau)
=\omega_{a}+\varphi_{a}(x,x^{\perp},\tau)$ and the Lagrangian density is ${\cal L}=[{\dot\varphi_{a}}{\varphi'_{a}}-
{(1/ 2)}(\partial_i\varphi_{a})(\partial_i\varphi_{a})-V(\phi)]$, where $i=1,2$ indicate the transverse space directions. The Taylor series expansion of the constraint equations $\beta_{a}=0$ gives a set of coupled equations $R\,V'_a(\omega)+
\,V''_{ab}(\omega)\int dx \varphi_{b}+\,
V'''_{abc}(\omega)\int dx \varphi_b\varphi_c/2+...=0$. Its discussion at the tree level leads to the conventional theory results. The LF symmetry generators are found to be $G_{\alpha}(\tau)=
-i\int d^{2} {x^{\perp}} dx \varphi'_{c}(t_{\alpha})_{cd}\varphi_{d}$ $=\,\int d^{2}{k^{\perp}}\,dk \, \theta(k)\,
{a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})
^{\dag}} (t_{\alpha})_{cd} a_{d}(k,{k^{\perp}})$ where $\alpha,\beta=1,2,..,N(N-1)/2\, $, are the group indices, $t_{\alpha}$ are hermitian and antisymmetric generators of $O(N)$, and ${a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})^{\dag}}$ ($ a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})$) is creation ( destruction) operator contained in the momentum space expansion of $\varphi_{c}$. These are to be contrasted with the generators in the equal-time theory, $ Q_{\alpha}(x^{0})=\int d^{3}x \, J^{0}
=-i\int d^{3}x (\partial_{0}\varphi_{a})(t_{\alpha})_{ab}\varphi_{b}
-i(t_{\alpha}\omega)_{a}\int d^{3}x
({{d\varphi_{a}}/ dx_{0}})$. All the symmetry generators thus annihilate the LF vacuum and the SSB is now seen in the broken symmetry of the quantized theory Hamiltonian. The criteria for the counting of the number of Goldstone bosons on the LF is found to be the same as in the conventional theory. In contrast, the first term on the right hand side of $Q_{\alpha}(x^{0})$ does annihilate the conventional theory vacuum but the second term gives now non-vanishing contributions for some of the (broken) generators. The symmetry of the conventional theory vacuum is thereby broken while the quantum Hamiltonian remains invariant. The physical content of SSB in the [*instant form*]{} and the [*front form*]{}, however, is the same though achieved by different descriptions. Alternative proof on the LF, in two dimensions, can be given of the Coleman’s theorem related to the absence of Goldstone bosons; we are unable [@pre] to implement the second class constraints over the phase space. We remark that the simplicity of the LF vacuum is in a sense compensated by the involved nonlocal Hamiltonian. The latter, however, may be treatable using advance computational techniques. Also in connection with renormalization it may not be necessary[^12] first to solve all the constraint equations.
To summarize, the simple procedure of separating first the condensate variable $\omega$ in the scalar field before applying the Dirac procedure is found to be successful also in describing [@pre] the phase transition in two dimensional scalar theory, the SSB of continuous symmetry, a new proof of the Coleman’s theorem and the tree level Higgs mechanism. It is again found successful in showing [@pre1] the emergence on the LF of the $\theta$-vacua along with their continuum normalization in the bosonized SM while explaining at the same time their absence in the CSM. The condensate variable, we remind, is introduced as a dynamical variable and we let the Dirac procedure decide if it comes out to be a c-number (background field) or a q-number operator in the quantized field theory. It is shown [@pre] to be c-number in the scalar theory studied in the continuum while it is an operator in the SM whose eigenvalues characterize the $\theta$-vacua. In the next Sec. we discuss in some detail the vacuum structure in the CSM which illustrates the remarkable transparency attained in the discussion on the LF.
It is worth remarking that the LF formulation is inherently symmetrical with respect to $x^{+}$ and $x^{-}$ and it is a matter of convention that we take the plus component as the LF [*time*]{} while the other as a spatial coordinate. The theory quantized at $x^{+}=const.$ hyperplanes seems already to incorporate in it the information on the equal-$x^{-}$ commutation relations. We need to quantize the theory, as suggested by Dirac, only on one of the LF hyperplanes. Consider, for example, the free scalar theory for which
$$\varphi(x^{+},x^{-})= {1\over{\sqrt{2\pi}}}\int_{k^{+}>0}^{\infty}\,
{dk^{+}\over{\sqrt{2k^{+}}}}
\Bigl [ a(k^{+}) e^{-i(k^{+}x^{-}+k^{-}x^{+})} +
a^{\dag}(k^{+}) e^{i(k^{+}x^{-}+k^{-}x^{+})} \Bigr ]$$
with $\left [a(k^{+}),{a(l^{+})}^{\dag}\right]=\delta(k^{+}-l^{+})$ etc. and $2k^{+}k^{-}=m^{2}$. We find easily
$$\left[\varphi(x^{+},x^{-}),
\varphi(y^{+},x^{-})\right ]={1\over{2\pi}} \int_{k^{+}>0}^{\infty}
{dk^{+}\over {2k^{+}}}\Bigl [e^{ik^{-}(y^{+}-x^{+})}-
e^{-ik^{-}(y^{+}-x^{+})} \Bigr ].$$
We may change the integration variable to $k^{-}$ by making use of $k^{-}dk^{+}+k^{+}dk^{-}=0$ and employ the integral representation $\epsilon(x)= (i/\pi){\cal P}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (d\lambda/\lambda) \,
e^{(-i\lambda x)}$ to arrive at the equal-$x^{-}$ commutator
$$\left[\varphi(x^{+},x^{-}),
\varphi(y^{+},x^{-})\right]= -{i\over 4} \epsilon(x^{+}-y^{+})$$
The above field expansion on the LF, in contrast to the equal-time case, does not involve the mass parameter $m$ and the same result follows in the massless case also if we assume that $k^{+}=l^{+}$ implies $k^{-}=l^{-}$. Defining the right and the left movers by $\varphi(0,x^{-})\equiv \varphi^{R}(x^{-})$, and $\varphi(x^{+},0)\equiv \varphi^{L}(x^{+})$ we obtain $\left [\varphi^{R}(x^{-}),\varphi^{R}(y^{-})\right]=(-i/4)\epsilon(x^{-}-y^{-})$ while $\left[\varphi^{L}(x^{+}),\varphi^{L}(y^{+})\right]=
(-i/4)\epsilon(x^{+}-y^{+})$. The symmetry under discussion is responsible for an appreciable simplification found in the recent study of the gauge theory SM and the CSM on the LF discussed in the next Sec..
[@pre5]\
The Lagrangian density of the chiral $QED_{2}$ or CSM model is
$${\cal L}= -{1\over 4}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}
+ {\bar\psi}_{R}\,i\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}
\psi_{R}+ {\bar\psi}_{L}\,\gamma^{\mu}(i\partial_{\mu}+2e\sqrt{\pi}
A_{\mu})\psi_{L},$$
where[^13]. $\psi= \psi_{R}+\psi_{L}$ is a two-component spinor field and $A_{\mu}$ is the abelian gauge field, $\gamma_{5}\psi_{L}=-\psi_{L}$, and $\gamma_{5}\psi_{R}=\psi_{R}$. The classical Lagrangian is invariant under the local $U(1)$ gauge transformations $A_{\mu}\to
A_{\mu}+\partial_{\mu}\alpha/(2\sqrt{\pi}e)$, $\psi\to [P_{R}+
e^{i\alpha}P_{L}] \psi $ and under the global $U(1)_{5}$ chiral transformations $\psi\to exp(i\gamma_{5}
\alpha)\,\psi $.
The model under study can be solved completely using the technique of bosonization. The latter consists in the replacement of a known system of fermions with a theory of bosons which has a completely equivalent physical content, including, for example, identical spectra, the same current commutation relations and the energy-momentum tensor when expressed in terms of the currents. The bosonized version is convenient to study the vacuum structure and it was shown [@jac] to be given by $$S = \int d^2x \left[ -{{1}\over {4}}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}
+{{1}\over{2}}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi
+eA_{\nu}(\eta^{\mu \nu}
-\epsilon^{\mu \nu})\partial_{\mu}\phi
+{{1}\over{2}}ae^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}\right]$$ Here the explicit mass term for the gauge field parametrized by the constant parameter $a$ represents a regularization ambiguity and the breakdown of $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. The action may be derived by the functional integral method or by the canonical quantization.
We make the [*separation*]{}: $\,\phi(\tau,x^{-})= \omega (\tau)+\varphi(
\tau,x^{-})$ and follow it through the application of the Dirac method as done with the SSB above. On the other hand in the bosonized SM on the LF we recall [@pre1] that $\omega(\tau)$ turned out to be q-number operator and its eigenvalues were shown [@pre1] to characterize the [*condensate*]{} or $\theta$-vacua [@low], which were shown also to emerge naturally with a continuum normalization in contrast to what found in the conventional equal-time treatment. We remind [@pre1] also that the [*chiral transformation*]{} is defined by:$\omega\to \omega+const., \; \varphi\to \varphi$, and $A_{\mu}\to A_{\mu}$. This ensures that the [*boundary conditions*]{} on the $\varphi$ are kept unaltered under such transformations and our mathematical framework may be considered [*well posed*]{}, before we proceed to build the canonical Hamiltonian framework.
Written explicitly the action takes the following form on the LF $$S = \int\, d^2x \;\left[{\dot\varphi}\varphi'+
{1\over 2}({\dot A}_{-}-{A'_{+}})^{2}+ a e^{2}[A_{+}+{2\over {ae}}(
\dot\omega+\dot\varphi)] A_{-} \right]$$ where an overdot (a prime) indicates the partial derivative with respect to $\tau$ ( $x$). In order to suppress the finite volume effects we work in the [*continuum formulation*]{} and require, based on physical considerations, that the fields satisfy the boundary conditions needed for the existence of their Fourier transforms in the spatial variable $x^{-}$.
We note now that $A_{+}$ appears in the action as an [*auxiliary*]{} field, without a kinetic term. It is clear that the condensate variable may thus be subtracted out from the theory using the frequently adopted procedure of [*field redefinition*]{} [@nie] on it: $\;\;A_{+}\to A_{+}-2\dot\omega/(ae)$, obtaining thereby
$${\cal L}_{CSM}={\dot\varphi}\varphi'+
{1\over 2}({\dot A}_{-}-{A'_{+}})^{2}+ 2e {\dot\varphi} A_{-}+
a e^{2} A_{+} A_{-},$$
which signals the emergence of a [*different structure*]{} of the Hilbert space compared to that of the SM where we had instead [@pre1] $$L= \int\, dx^{-}\;\Bigl[{\dot\varphi}\varphi'+{1\over 2}
({\dot A}_{-}-{A'_{+}})^{2}-({e\over \sqrt {\pi}})
(A_{+}\varphi'-A_{-}{\dot\varphi})\Bigr]+
({e\over \sqrt {\pi}}){\dot\omega}{ h(\tau)} \nonumber$$ with $ h(\tau)=\int dx^{-} A_{-}(\tau,x^{-})$, the zero mode associated with the gauge field $A_{-}$. We recall that the [*condensate*]{} or $\theta$-vacua in SM emerged due to the presence in the theory of [*three*]{} linearly independent operators: the condensate $\omega$, its canonically conjugate $h(\tau)$ and $\varphi$ with the vanishing commutator with the other two while the $H^{lf}$ contained in it only the field $\varphi$. The Hilbert space could be described in two fashions. Selecting $\varphi$ abd $ h$ as forming the complete set of operators led to the chiral vacua while $\varphi$ together with $\omega$ led to the description in terms of the condensate or $\theta$-vacua. The [*Lagrange equations in the CSM*]{} follow to be
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{+}\partial_{-}\varphi~&=&~-e \partial_{+}A_{-}, \nonumber \\
\partial_{+}\partial_{+}A_{-}-\partial_{+}\partial_{-}A_{+} ~&=&~
a e^{2} A_{+} +2 e \partial_{+}\varphi, \nonumber \\
\partial_{-}\partial_{-}A_{+}-\partial_{+}\partial_{-}A_{-}
~&=&~ a e^{2} A_{-}. \end{aligned}$$
and for $ a\neq 1 $ they lead to: $$\begin{aligned}
\Box G(\tau,x)& = & 0 \nonumber\\
\left[ \Box + {e^2a^2\over (a-1) }\right] E(\tau,x) & =& 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $E=(\partial_{+}A_{-}-\partial_{-}A_{+})$ and $G= (E-ae\varphi)$. Both the massive and massless scalar excitations are present in the theory and the tachyons would be absent in the specrtum if $a>1$; the case considered in this paper. We will confirm in the Hamiltonian framework below that the $E$ and $G$ represent, in fact, the two independent field operators on the LF phase space. The [*Dirac procedure*]{} [@dir1] as applied to the very simple action of the CSM is straightforward. The canonical momenta are $ \pi^{+}\approx 0, \pi^{-}\equiv E=
\dot{A}_{-}- A'_{+}, \pi_{\varphi}= {\varphi}'+2e A_{-}$ which result in two primary weak constraints $ \pi^{+} \approx 0 $ and $ \Omega_1 \equiv (\pi_{\varphi}-\varphi'-2eA_{-})\approx 0$. A secondary constraint $ \Omega_2 \equiv \partial_{-} E +
a e^{2} A_{-} \approx 0$ is shown to emerge when we require the $\tau$ independence (persistency) of $\pi^{+}\approx 0$ employing the preliminary Hamiltonian $$H' = {H_c}^{lf} + \int dx~u_{+}\pi^{+}+\int dx~u_{1}\Omega_1 ,$$ where $u_{+}$ and $u_{1}$ are the Lagrange multiplier fields and ${H_c}^{lf}$ is the canonical Hamiltonian $${H_c}^{lf} = \int\; dx~\left[~
\frac{1}{2}{E}^{2} + E A_{+}'
-ae^{2} A_{+}A_{-}
\right].$$ and we assume initially the standard equal-$\tau$ Poisson brackets : $\{E^{\mu}(\tau,x^{-}),A_{\nu}(\tau,
y^{-}) \}=-\delta_{\nu}^{\mu}\delta (x^{-}-y^{-})$, $\{\pi_{\varphi}(\tau,x^{-}),\varphi(\tau,y^{-}) \}
=-\delta(x^{-}-y^{-})$ etc.. The persistency requirement for $\Omega_{1} $ results in an equation for determining $u_{1}$. The procedure is repeated with the following extended Hamiltonian which includes in it also the secondary constraint $${H_e}^{lf} = {H_c}^{lf} + \int dx~u_{+}\pi^{+}+\int dx~u_{1}\Omega_1
+\int dx~u_{2}\Omega_{2}.$$ No more secondary constraints are seen to arise; we are left with the persistency conditions which determine the multiplier fields $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ while $u_{+}$ remains undetermined. We also find[^14] $(C)_{ij}=\{\Omega_{i},\Omega_{j}\}~=~D_{ij}~$ $ (-2
\partial_{x} \delta(x-y))$ where $i,j =1,2$ and $~D_{11}=1,~D_{22}=a
e^2, ~D_{12}=~D_{21}= -e$ and that $\pi^{+}$ has vanishing brackets with $\Omega_{1,2}$. The $\pi^{+}\approx 0 $ is first class weak constraint while $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2 $, which does not depend on $A_{+}$ or $\pi^{+}$, are second class ones.
We go over from the Poisson bracket to the Dirac bracket $\{,\}_{D}$ constructed in relation to the pair, $\Omega_1\approx 0$ and $\Omega_2\approx 0 $
$$\{f(x),g(y)\}_{D}=\{f(x),g(y)\}-\int\int du dv\;\{f(x),\Omega_{i}(u)\}
(C^{-1}(u,v))_{ij}\{\Omega_{j}(v), g(y)\}.$$
Here $C^{-1}$ is the inverse of $C$ and we find $(C^{-1}(x,y))_{ij}=B_{ij}$ $K(x,y)$ with $~B_{11}=a/(a-1)$,$
~B_{22}=1/[(a-1)e^2]$, $~B_{12}=B_{21}$$= 1/[(a-1)e],$ and $K(x,y)=-\epsilon(x-y)/4$. Some of the Dirac brackets are $\{\varphi,\varphi\}_{D}= B_{11} ~K(x,y);
~\{\varphi,E\}_{D} = e B_{11} ~K(x,y);
~\{E,E\}_{D} = ae^{2} B_{11} ~K(x,y);
~\{\varphi, A_{-}\}_{D}=-B_{12}~\delta(x-y)/2;
~\{A_{-},E\}_{D}=B_{11}~\delta (x-y)/2;
~\{A_{-},A_{-}\}_{D}=B_{12}\partial_{x}~\delta(x-y)/2$ and the only nonvanishing one involving $A_{+}$ or $\pi^{+}$ is $\{A_{+},\pi^{+}\}_{D}= \delta(x-y)$.
The eqns. of motion employ now the Dirac brackets and inside them, in view of their very construction [@dir1], we may set $\Omega_1=0$ and $\Omega_2=0 $ as strong relations. The Hamiltonian is therefore effectively given by $H_{e}$ with the terms involving the multipliers $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ dropped. The multiplier $u_{+}$ is not determined since the constraint $\pi^{+}\approx 0$ continues to be first class even when the above Dirac bracket is employed. The variables $\pi_{\varphi}$ and $A_{-}$ are then removed from the theory leaving behind $\varphi$, $E$, $A_{+}$, and $\pi^{+}$ as the remaining independent variables. The canonical Hamiltonian density reduces to ${\cal H}_{c}^{lf}= E^2/2 +\partial_{-}(A_{+}E)$ while $\dot A_{+}=
\{A_{+}, H_{e}^{lf}\}_{D}=u_{+}$. The surface term in the canonical LF Hamiltonian may be ignored if, say, $E (=F_{+-})$ vanishes at infinity. The variables $\pi^{+}$ and $A_{+}$ are then seen to describe a decoupled (from $\varphi$ and $E$) free theory and we may hence drop these variables as well. The effective LF Hamiltonian thus takes the simple form
$$H_{CSM}^{lf} = {1\over {2}} \int dx \; E^{2},$$
which is to be contrasted with the one found in the conventional treatment [@bas; @abd]. $E$ and $G$ (or $E$ and $\varphi$) are now the independent variables on the phase space and the Lagrange equations are verified to be recovered for them, which assures us of the selfconsistency [@dir1]. We stress that in our discussion we do [*not*]{} employ any gauge-fixing. The same result for the Hamiltonian could be alternatively obtained[^15], however, if we did introduce the gauge-fixing constraint $A_{+}\approx 0$ and made further modification on $\{,\}_{D}$ in order to implement $A_{+}\approx 0,
\pi^{+}\approx0$ as well. That it is accessible on the phase space to take care of the remaining first class constraint, but not in the bosonized Lagrangian, follows from the Hamiltons eqns. of motion. We recall [@pre1] that in the SM $\varphi$, $\omega$, and $\pi_{\omega}=
(e/\sqrt {\pi})\int dx A_{-}$ were shown to be the independent operators and that the matter field $\varphi$ appeared instead in the LF Hamiltonian.
The [*canonical quantization*]{} is peformed via the correspondence $i\{f,g\}_{D}\to [f,g] $ and we find the following equal-$\tau$ commutators $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ E(x),E(y) \right]&=& i K(x,y){ a^2 e^2/ (a-1)},\nonumber\\
\left[ G(x),E(y)\right]& =& 0, \nonumber\\
\left[ G(x),G(y)\right]& =& {ia^2 e^2} K(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ For $a>1$, when the tachyons are absent as seen from (6), these commutators are also physical and the independent field operators $E$ and $G$ generate the Hilbert space with a tensor product structure of the Fock spaces $F_{E}$ and $F_{G}$ of these fields with the positive definite metric.
We can make, in view of (12), the following LF momentum space expansions $$\begin{aligned}
E(x,\tau)&=&{ae\over {{\sqrt{(a-1)}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk
\;{{\theta(k)}\over{\sqrt{2k}}}
\left[d(k,\tau)e^{-ikx}~+~d^{\dag}(k,\tau)e^{ikx}\right],\nonumber\\
G(x,\tau) &=& {{ae}\over {\sqrt{2\pi}}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk\;{{\theta(k)}\over{\sqrt{2k}}}
\left[g(k,\tau)e^{-ikx}~+~g^{\dag}(k,\tau)e^{ikx}\right], \end{aligned}$$ where the operators ($d, g, d^{\dag},g^{\dag}$) satisfy the canonical commutation relations of two independent harmonic oscillators; the well known set of Schwinger’s bosonic oscillators, often employed in the angular momentum theory. The expression for the Hamiltonian becomes $$H_{CSM}^{lf}= \delta(0){{a^2e^2}\over {2(a-1)}}~\int_{k>0}^\infty
{{dk}\over {2k}}
\; N_{d}(k,\tau)
$$ where we have dropped the infinite zero-point energy term and note that [@ryd] $\left[d^{\dag}(k,\tau),d(l,\tau)\right]=
-\delta(k-l)$, $d^{\dag}(k,\tau)d(k,\tau)=
\delta(0) N_{d}(k,\tau)$ etc. with similar expressions for the independent g-oscillators. We verify that $\left [N_{d}(k,\tau),N_{d}(l,\tau)\right]=0$, $\left [N_{d}(k,\tau),N_{g}(l,\tau)\right]=0$, $\left [N_{d}(k,\tau),d^{\dag}(k,\tau)\right]= d^{\dag}(k,\tau) $ etc..
The Fock space can hence be built on a basis of eigenstates of the hermitian number operators $N_{d}$ and $N_{g}$. The ground state of CSM is degenerate and described by $\vert 0> = \vert E=0)\otimes \vert G\}$ and it carries vanishing LF energy in agreement with the conventional theory discusion [@bas; @abd]. For a fixed $k$ these states, $ \vert E=0)\otimes
{({g^{\dag}(k,\tau)}^{n}/\sqrt {n!})}\vert 0\}$, are labelled by the integers $n=0,1,2,\cdots $. The $\theta$-vacua are absent in the CSM. However, we recall [@pre1] that in the SM the degenerate [*chiral vacua*]{} are also labelled by such integers. We remark also that on the LF we work in the Minkowski space and that in our discussion we do [*not*]{} make use of the Euclidean space theory action, where the (classical) vacuum configurations of the Euclidean theory gauge field, belonging to the distinct topological sectors, are useful, for example, in the functional integral quantization of the gauge theory.
\
The LF hyperplane is seen to be [*equally appropriate*]{} as the conventional one for quantizing field theory. The [*front form*]{} formulation is found to be quite transparent and the physical contents following from the [*quantized*]{} theory agree with those known in the conventional [*instant form*]{} treatment. Evidently, they should not depend on whether we employ the conventional or the LF coordinates to span the Minkowski space and study the temporal evolution of the quantum dynamical system in $t$ or $\tau$ respectively.
We note that in our context the (LF) hyperplanes $x^{\pm}=0$ define the characteristic surfaces of hyperbolic partial differential equation. It is known from their mathematical theory [@sne] that a solution exists if we specify the initial data on both of the hyperplanes. From the present discussion and the earlier works [@pre; @pre1] we conclude that it is sufficient in the [*front form*]{} treatment to choose one of the hyperplanes, as proposed by Dirac [@dir], for canonically quantizing the theory. The equal-$\tau$ [*commutators of the field operators*]{}, at a fixed initial LF-time, form now a part of the initial data instead and we deal with operator differential equations. The information on the commutators on the other characteristic hyperplane seems to be already contained [@pre1] in the quantized theory and need not be specified separately. As a side comment, the well accepted notion that a classical model field theory must be upgraded first through quantization, before we confront it with the experimental data, finds here a theoretical re-affirmation.
The [*physical*]{} Hilbert space is obtained in a direct fashion in the LF quantized CSM and SM gauge theories, once the constraints are eliminated and the appreciably reduced set of independent operators on the LF phase space identified. CSM has in it both the massive and the massless scalar excitations while only the massive one appears in the SM. There are no condensate or $\theta$-vacua in CSM but they both have degenerate vacuum structure. In the conventional treatment [@low] an extended phase space is employed and suitable constraints are required to be imposed in order to define the [*physical*]{} Hilbert space which would then lead to the description of the physical vacuum state. The functional integral method together with the LF quantization may be an efficient tool for handling the nonperturbative calculations.
A discussion parallel to the one given here can also be made in the [*front form*]{} theory of the gauge invariant formulation [@abd] of the CSM. In an earlier work [@pre4], where the BRST-BFV functional integral quantization was employed, it was demonstrated that this formulation and the gauge noninvariant one in fact lead to the same effective action. Also the BRS-BFT quantization method proposed [@bat] recently can be extended to the [*front form*]{} theory as illustrated in the Appendix D for the CSM on the LF and where different equivalent actions are obtained following the method.
[**Appendix A: Poincaré Generators on the LF**]{}
The Poincaré generators in coordinate system $\,(x^{0},x^{1},x^{2},x^{3})$, satisfy $[M_{\mu\nu},P_{\sigma}]=-i(P_{\mu}g_{\nu\sigma}-P_{\nu}g_{\mu\sigma})$ and $[M_{\mu\nu},M_{\rho\sigma}]=i(M_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}+
M_{\nu\sigma}g_{\mu\rho}-M_{\nu\rho}g_{\mu\sigma}-M_{\mu\sigma}g_{\nu\rho})
\,$ where the metric is $g_{\mu\nu}=diag\,(1,-1,-1,-1)$, $\mu=(0,1,2,3)$ and we take $\epsilon_{0123}=\epsilon_{-+12}=1$. If we define $J_{i}=-(1/2)\epsilon_{ikl}M^{kl}$ and $K_{i}=M_{0i}$, where $i,j,k,l=1,2,3$, we find $[J_{i},F_{j}]=i\epsilon_{ijk}F_{k}\,$ for $\,F_{l}=J_{l},P_{l}$ or $ K_{l}$ while $[K_{i},K_{j}]=-i \epsilon_{ijk}J_{k}, \, [K_{i},P_{l}]=-iP_{0}g_{il},
\, [K_{i},P_{0}]=iP_{i},$ and $[J_{i},P_{0}]=0$.
The LF generators are $P_{+}$, $P_{-}$, $P_{1} $, $P_{2}$, $M_{12}=-J_{3}$, $M_{+-}=-K_{3}$, $M_{1-}=
-(K_{1}+J_{2})/{\sqrt 2}\,
\equiv {-B_{1}}$, $M_{2-}=-(K_{2}-J_{1})/{\sqrt 2}
\equiv {-B_{2}}$, $M_{1+}=-(K_{1}-J_{2})/{\sqrt 2}\equiv -S_{1}$ and $M_{2+}=-(K_{2}+J_{1})/{\sqrt 2}\equiv -S_{2}$. We find $[B_{1},B_{2}]=0$, $[B_{a},J_{3}]=-i\epsilon_{ab} B_{b}$, $[B_{a},K_{3}]=iB_{a}$, $[J_{3},K_{3}]=0$, $[S_{1},S_{2}]=0$, $[S_{a},J_{3}]=-i\epsilon_{ab} S_{b}$, $[S_{a},K_{3}]=-iS_{a}$ where $a,b=1,2$ and $\epsilon_{12}=-\epsilon_{21}=1$. Also $[B_{1},P_{1}]=[B_{2},P_{2}]=i P^{+}$, $[B_{1},P_{2}]=[B_{2},P_{1}]=
0$, $[B_{a},P^{-}]=iP_{a}$, $[B_{a},P^{+}]=0$, $[S_{1},P_{1}]=[S_{2},P_{2}]=i P^{-}$, $[S_{1},P_{2}]=[S_{2},P_{1}]=
0$, $[S_{a},P^{+}]=iP_{a}$, $[S_{a},P^{-}]=0$, $[B_{1},S_{2}]= - [B_{2},S_{2}]=-iJ_{3}$, $[B_{1},S_{1}]=[B_{2},S_{2}]=-iK_{3} $. For $ P_{\mu}=i\partial_{\mu}$, and $M_{\mu\nu}\to L_{\mu\nu}= i(x_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}-x_{\nu}\partial_{\mu})$ we find $B_{a}=(x^{+}P^{a}-x^{a}P^{+})$, $S_{a}=(x^{-}P^{a}-x^{a}P^{-})$, $K_{3}=(x^{-}P^{+}-x^{+}P^{-})$ and $ \quad J_{3}=(x^{1}P^{2}-x^{2}P^{1})$. Under the conventional [*parity*]{} operation ${\cal P}$: ($\;x^{\pm}\leftrightarrow x^{\mp}, x^{1,2}\to
-x^{1,2}$) and $( p^{\pm}\leftrightarrow p^{\mp}, p^{1,2}\to
-p^{1,2}),$ we find $\vec J\to \vec J,\, \vec K \to -\vec K $, $B_{a}\to -S_{a}$ etc.. The six generators $\,P_{l}, \, M_{kl}\,$ leave $x^{0}=0$ hyperplane invariant and are called [*kinematical*]{} while the remaining $P_{0},\,M_{0k}$ the [*dynamical* ]{} ones. On the LF there are [*seven*]{} kinematical generators : $P^{+},P^{1},
P^{2}, B_{1}, B_{2}, J_{3}$ and $K_{3} $ which leave the LF hyperplane, $x^{0}+x^{3}=0$, invariant and the three [*dynamical*]{} ones $S_{1},S_{2}$ and $P^{-}$ form a mutually commuting set. The $K_{3}$ which was dynamical becomes now a kinematical; it generates scale transformations of the LF components of $x^{\mu}$, $P^{\mu}$ and $M^{\mu\nu}$. We note that each of the set $\{B_{1},B_{2},J_{3}\}$ and $\{S_{1},S_{2},J_{3}\}$ generates an $E_{2}\simeq SO(2)\otimes T_{2} $ algebra; this will be shown below to be relevant for defining the [*spin*]{} for massless particle. Including $K_{3}$ in each set we find two subalgebras each with four elements. Some useful identities are $e^{i\omega K_{3}}\,P^{\pm}\,e^{-i\omega K_{3}}= e^{\pm \omega}\,P^{\pm},
\, e^{i\omega K_{3}}\,P^{\perp}\,e^{-i\omega K_{3}}= P^{\perp},
e^{i\bar v.\bar B}\,P^{-}\,e^{-i\bar v.\bar B}=
P^{-}+\bar v.\bar P + {1\over 2}{\bar v}^{2}P^{+},
e^{i\bar v.\bar B}\,P^{+}\,e^{-i\bar v.\bar B}= P^{+},
e^{i\bar v.\bar B}\,P^{\perp}\,e^{-i\bar v.\bar B}=
P^{\perp}+v^{\perp} P^{+},
e^{i\bar u.\bar S}\,P^{+}\,e^{-i\bar u.\bar S}=
P^{+}+\bar u.\bar P + {1\over 2}{\bar u}^{2}P^{-},
e^{i\bar u.\bar S}\,P^{-}\,e^{-i\bar u.\bar S}= P^{-},
e^{i\bar u.\bar S}\,P^{\perp}\,e^{-i\bar u.\bar S}=
P^{\perp}+u^{\perp} P^{-}$ where $P^{\perp}\equiv\bar P=(P^{1},P^{2}), \, v^{\perp}\equiv {\bar v}
= (v_{1},v_{2})\, $ and $(v^{\perp}. P^{\perp})\equiv(\bar v.\bar P)=v_{1}P^{1}+v_{2}P^{2}$ etc. Analogous expressions with $P^{\mu}$ replaced by $X^{\mu}$ can be obtained if we use $\,[P^{\mu},X_{\nu}]\equiv [i\partial^{\mu},x_{\nu}]= i\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}\,$.
[**Appendix B:LF Spin Operator. Hadrons in LF Fock Basis**]{}
The Casimir generators of the Poincaré group are : $P^{2}\equiv
P^{\mu}P_{\mu}$ and $W^{2}$, where $W_{\mu}=(-1/2)\epsilon_{\lambda\rho\nu\mu}
M^{\lambda\rho}P^{\nu}$ defines the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector. It follows from $[W_{\mu},W_{\nu}]=i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} W^{\lambda}P^{\rho},
\quad [W_{\mu},P_{\rho}]=0\;$ and $\;W.P=0$ that in a representation charactarized by particular eigenvalues of the two Casimir operators we may simultaneously diagonalize $P^{\mu}$ along with just one component of $W^{\mu}$. We have $ W^{+} =-[J_{3} P^{+}+B_{1} P^{2}-B_{2} P^{1}],
W^{-} =J_{3} P^{-}+S_{1} P^{2}-S_{2} P^{1},
W^{1} =K_{3} P^{2}+ B_{2} P^{-}- S_{2} P^{+},$ and $W^{2} =-[K_{3} P^{1}+ B_{1} P^{-}- S_{1} P^{+}]$ and it shows that $W^{+}$ [*has a special place*]{} since it contains only the kinematical generators [@pre1]. On the LF we define ${\cal J}_{3}= -W^{+}/P^{+}$ as the [*spin operator*]{}. It may be shown to commute with $P_{\mu}, B_1,B_2,J_3,$ and $K_3$. For $m\ne 0$ we may use the parametrizations $p^{\mu}:( p^{-}=(m^{2}+
{p^{\perp}}^{2})/(2p^{+}),
p^{+}=(m/{\sqrt 2})e^{\omega},
p^{1}=-v_{1}p^{+}, p^{2}=-v_{2}p^{+})$ and ${\tilde p}^{\mu}: (1,1,0,0)(m/{\sqrt 2})$ in the rest frame. We have $P^{2}(p)= m^{2} I$ and $W(p)^{2}=
W(\tilde p)^{2}= -m^{2} [J_{1}^2+J_{2}^2+J_{3}^2] = -m^{2} s(s+1) I$ where $s$ assumes half-integer values. Starting from the rest state $\vert \tilde p; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle $ with ${J}_{3}\, \vert\tilde p; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle
= \lambda \,\vert \tilde p; m,s, \lambda, ..\rangle $ we may build an arbitrary eigenstate of $P^{+}, P^{\perp}, {\cal J}_{3} $ (and $ P^{-}$ ) on the LF by
$$\vert p^{+},p^{\perp}; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle= e^{i(\bar v. \bar B)}
e^{-i\omega K_{3}} \vert \tilde p; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle$$
If we make use of the following [*identity*]{} [@pre]
$${\cal J}_{3}(p)=\;J_{3}+v_{1}B_{2}-v_{2}B_{1}=\quad
e^{i(\bar v. \bar B)} \;
J_{3} \;e^{-i(\bar v. \bar B)}$$
we find ${\cal J}_{3}\, \vert p^{+},p^{\perp}; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle
= \lambda \,\vert p^{+},p^{\perp};m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle $. Introducing also the operators ${\cal J}_{a}=
-({\cal J}_{3} P^{a} + W^{a})/{\sqrt{P^{\mu}P_{\mu}}}$, $a=1,2$, which do, however, contain dynamical generators, we verify that $\;[{\cal J}_{i},{\cal J}_{j}]=i\epsilon_{ijk} {\cal J}_{k}$.
For $m=0$ case when $p^{+}\ne0$ a convenient parametrization is $p^{\mu}:( p^{-}=p^{+} {v^{\perp}}^{2}/2, \,p^{+},
p^{1}=-v_{1}p^{+}, p^{2}=-v_{2}p^{+})$ and $\tilde p:
(0, p^{+}, 0^{\perp})$. We have $W^{2}(\tilde p) = -(S_{1}^{2}+S_{2}^{2}){p^{+}}^{2}$ and $[W_{1},W_{2}](\tilde p)=0, \,
[W^{+},W_{1}](\tilde p)=-ip^{+}W_{2}(\tilde p),
\, [W^{+}, W_{2}](\tilde p)=ip^{+}W_{1}(\tilde p)$ showing that $W_{1}, W_{2}$ and $W^{+}$ generate the algebra $SO(2)\otimes T_{2}$. The eigenvalues of $W^{2}$ are hence not quantized and they vary continuously. This is contrary to the experience so we impose that the physical states satisfy in addition $W_{1,2}
\vert \, \tilde p;\,m=0,..\rangle=0$. Hence $ W_{\mu}=-\lambda P_{\mu}$ and the invariant parameter $\lambda $ is taken to define as the [*spin*]{} of the massless particle. From $-W^{+}(\tilde p)/{\tilde p}^{+}=J_{3}$ we conclude that $\lambda$ assumes half-integer values as well. We note that $W^{\mu}W_{\mu}=\lambda^{2} P^{\mu}P_{\mu}=0$ and that on the LF the definition of the spin operator appears unified for massless and massive particles. A parallel discussion based on $p^{-}\ne0$ may also be given. As an illustration consider the three particle state on the LF with the total eigenvalues $p^{+}$, $\lambda$ and $p^{\perp}$. In the [*standard frame* ]{} with $p^{\perp}=0\;$ it may be written as ($\vert x_{1}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{1}; \lambda_{1}\rangle
\vert x_{2}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{2}; \lambda_{2}\rangle
\vert x_{3}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{3}; \lambda_{3}\rangle$ ) with $\sum_{i=1}^{3} \,x_{i}=1$, $\sum_{i=1}^{3}\,k^{\perp}_{i}=0$, and $\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^{3}\,\lambda_{i}$. Aplying $e^{-i{(\bar p.\bar B)/p^{+}}}$ on it we obtain ($\vert x_{1}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{1}+x_{1}p^{\perp}; \lambda_{1}\rangle
\vert x_{2}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{2}+x_{2}p^{\perp}; \lambda_{2}\rangle
\vert x_{3}p^{+},k^{\perp}_{3}+x_{3}p^{\perp}; \lambda_{3}\rangle $ ) now with $p^{\perp}\ne0$. The $x_{i}$ and $k^{\perp}_{i}$ indicate relative (invariant) parameters and do not depend upon the reference frame. The $x_{i}$ is the fraction of the total longitudinal momentum carried by the $i^{th} $ particle while $k^{\perp}_{i}$ its transverse momentum. The state of a pion with momentum ($p^{+},p^{\perp}$), for example, may be expressed as an expansion over the LF Fock states constituted by the different number of partons [@bro]
$$\vert \pi : p^{+},p^{\perp} \rangle=
\sum_{n,\lambda}\int {\bar \Pi}_{i}{{dx_{i}d^{2}{k^{\perp}}_{i}}\over
{{\sqrt{x_{i}}\,16\pi^{3}}}} \vert n:\,x_{i}p^{+},x_{i}p^{\perp}+
{k^{\perp}}_{i},
\lambda_{i}\rangle\;\psi_{n/\pi}(x_{1},{k^{\perp}}_{1},
\lambda_{1}; x_{2},...)$$
where the summation is over all the Fock states $n$ and spin projections $\lambda_{i}$, with ${\bar\Pi}_{i}dx_{i}={\Pi}_{i} dx_{i}\; \delta(\sum x_{i}-1), $ and ${\bar\Pi}_{i}d^{2}k^{\perp}_{i}={\Pi}_{i} dk^{\perp}_{i} \;
\delta^{2}(\sum k^{\perp}_{i})$. The wave function of the parton $\psi_{n/\pi}(x,k^{\perp})$ indicates the probability amplitude for finding inside the pion the partons in the Fock state $n$ carrying the 3-momenta $(x_{i}p^{+}, x_{i}p^{\perp}+ k^{\perp}_{i}) $. The Fock state of the pion is also off the energy shell : $\,\sum k^{-}_{i} > p^{-}$. The [*discrete symmetry*]{} transformations may also be defined on the LF Fock states [@bro; @pre1] For example, under the conventional parity ${\cal P} $ the spin operator ${\cal J}_{3}$ is not left invariant. We may rectify this by defining [*LF Parity operation*]{} by ${\cal P}^{lf}=e^{-i\pi J_{1}}{\cal P}$. We find then $B_{1}\to -B_{1}, B_{2}\to B_{2}, P^{\pm}\to P^{\pm}, P^{1}\to
-P^{1}, P^{2}\to P^{2}$ etc. such that ${\cal P}^{lf}\vert p^{+},p^{\perp}; m,s,\lambda, ..\rangle
\simeq \vert p^{+},-p^{1}, p^{2}; m,s,\,-\lambda, ..\rangle $. Similar considerations apply for charge conjugation and time inversion. For example, it is straightforward to construct the free [*LF Dirac spinor*]{} $\chi(p)=
[\sqrt{2}p^{+}\Lambda^{+}+(m-\gamma^{a}p^{a})\,\Lambda^{-}]\tilde \chi/
{ {\sqrt{\sqrt {2}p^{+}m}}}$ which is also an eigenstate of ${\cal J}_{3}$ with eigenvalues $\pm 1/2$. Here $\Lambda^{\pm}= \gamma^{0}\gamma^{\pm}/{\sqrt 2}=
\gamma^{\mp}\gamma^{\pm}/2=({\Lambda^{\pm}})^{\dagger}$, $ (\Lambda^{\pm})^{2}=\Lambda^{\pm}$, and $\chi(\tilde p)\equiv \tilde \chi\,$ with $\gamma^{0}
\tilde \chi= \tilde \chi$. The conventional (equal-time) spinor can also be constructed by the procedure analogous to that followed for the LF spinor and it has the well known form $ \chi_{con}(p)= (m+\gamma.p)\tilde \chi/
{\sqrt{2m(p^{0}+m)}}$. Under the conventional parity operation ${\cal P}:
\chi'(p')=c \gamma^{0} \chi(p)$ (since we must require $\gamma^{\mu}={L^{\mu}}_{\nu}\,S(L)\gamma^{\nu}{S^{-1}}(L)$, etc.). We find $\chi'(p)=c
[\sqrt{2}p^{-}\Lambda^{-}+(m-\gamma^{a}p^{a})\,\Lambda^{+}]\,\tilde \chi
/{\sqrt{\sqrt {2}p^{-}m}}$. For $p\neq\tilde p$ it is not proportional to $\chi(p)$ in contrast to the result in the case of the usual spinor where $\gamma^{0}\chi_{con}(p^{0},-\vec p)=\chi_{con}(p)$ for $E>0$ (and $\gamma^{0}\eta_{con}(p^{0},-\vec p)=-\eta_{con}(p)$ for $E<0$). However, applying parity operator twice we do show $\chi''(p)=c^{2}\chi(p)$ hence leading to the usual result $c^{2}=\pm 1$. The LF parity operator over spin $1/2$ Dirac spinor is ${\cal P}^{lf}= c \,(2J_{1})\,\gamma^{0}$ and the corresponding transform of $\chi$ is shown to be an eigenstate of ${\cal J}_{3}$.
[**Appendix C: SSB Mechanism. Continuum Limit of Discretized LF Quantized Theory. Nonlocality of LF Hamiltonian**]{}.
In order to keep the discussion[^16] simple we would assume $\omega$ to be a consant background field. so that ${\cal L}={\dot\varphi}{\varphi}^\prime-V(\phi)$. Dirac procedure is applied now to construct Hamiltonian field theory which may be quantized. We may avoid using distribuitions if we restrict $x$ to a finite interval from $\,-R/2\,$ to $\,R/2\,$. The [*limit to the continuum ($R\to\infty\,$)*]{}, however, must [@parisi] be taken later to remove the spurious finite volume effects. Expanding $\varphi$ by Fourier series we obtain $\phi(\tau,x) \equiv \omega +\varphi(\tau,x)
= \omega+{1\over\sqrt{R}} {q_{0}(\tau)}+
{1\over\sqrt{R}}\;{{\sum}'_{n\ne 0}}\;\;
{q}_n(\tau)\;e^{-ik_n x}$ where $\,k_n=n(2\pi/R)$, $\,n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, ...\,$ and the [*discretized theory*]{} Lagrangian becomes $\;i{{\sum}_{n}}\;k_n \,{q}_{-n}\;{{\dot q}}_{n}-
\int dx \; V(\phi)$. The momenta conjugate to ${q}_n$ are ${p}_n=ik_n{q}_{-n}$ and the canonical LF Hamiltonian is found to be $\int \,
dx \,V(\omega+\varphi(\tau,x))$. The primary constraints$^{}$ are thus ${p}_0 \approx 0\;$ and $\;{\Phi}_n \equiv
\;{p}_n-ik_n{q}_{-n}\approx 0\;$ for $\,n\ne 0\,$. We follow the [*standard*]{} Dirac procedure \[5\] and find three weak constraints $\,p_{0}\approx 0$, $\,\beta
\equiv \int dx \,V'(\phi) \approx 0$, and $\,\Phi_{n}\approx 0\,$ for $\,n\ne 0\,$ on the phase space and they are shown to be second class. We find for $n\ne 0$ and $m\ne 0$: $\{{\Phi}_n, {p}_0\}=0$, $\{{\Phi}_n,{\Phi}_m\} = -2ik_n \delta_{m+n,0}$, $\{{\Phi}_n,\beta\} = \{{p}_n,\beta\}
= -{(1/ \sqrt{R})}\int dx\;\lbrack \,V''(\phi)-V''([{\omega +
q_{0}]/
\sqrt{R}})\,\rbrack \,e^{-ik_nx}\,
\equiv \,-{{\alpha}_{n}/\sqrt{R}}$, $\{{p}_0,{p}_0\} = \{\beta,\beta\,\} = 0$, $\{{p}_0,\beta\}=-{(1/\sqrt{R})} \break \int dx\;V''(\phi)
\equiv -{\alpha/\sqrt{R}}$. Implement first the pair of constraints $\;{p}_0\approx 0$, $\beta \approx 0$ by modifying the Poisson brackets to the star bracket $\{\}^*$ defined by $\{f,g\}^* =\{f,g\} - \lbrack \{f,{p}_0\}\;
\{\beta,g\}- (p_0 \leftrightarrow
\beta)\rbrack ({\alpha/\sqrt{R}})^{-1}$. We may then set ${p}_0\,=0$ and $\beta \,=0$ as strong equalities. We find by inspection that the brackets $\{\}^*\,$ of the remaining variables coincide with the standard Poisson brackets except for the ones involving $q_{0}$ and $\,p_{n}\,$ ($n\ne0$): $\,\{q_0,{p}_n\}^*\,=
\{q_0,{\Phi}_n\}^*\,=-({\alpha^{-1}}{\alpha}_n)\,$. For example, if $V(\phi)=\,({\lambda/4})\,{(\phi^2-{m^2}/\lambda)}^2\;$, $\lambda\ge 0, m\ne 0\,$ we find $\;\{q_0,{p}_n\}^*\;
[\{\,3\lambda\,({\omega+q_{0}/\sqrt{R}})^{2}-m^{2}\,\}R\,+
6\lambda(\omega+q_{0}/{\sqrt R})\int\, dx \varphi +
\,3\lambda \,\int\,dx\,\varphi^{2}\,]=
-\,3\lambda\,[\,2(\omega+q_{0}/{\sqrt R})\,{\sqrt R}
q_{-n}
+\int \,dx\,\varphi^{2}
\,e^{ -ik_{n}x} \,] $.
Implement next the constraints $\,\Phi_{n}\approx 0$ with $n\neq 0$. We have $ C_{nm}=\{\Phi_{n},\Phi_{m}\}^*
\break = -2ik_{n}\delta_{n+m,0}$ and its inverse is given by ${C^{-1}}_{nm} =(1/{2ik_{n}})
\delta_{n+m,0} $. The Dirac bracket which takes care of all the constraints is then given by
$$\{f,g\}_{D}\,= \,\{f,g\}^{*}\,-\,{{\sum}'_{n}}\,{1\over {2ik_{n}}}
\{f,\,\Phi_{n}\}^*\,\{\Phi_{-n},\,g\}^*$$
where we may now in addition write $\,p_{n}\,=\,ik_{n}
q_{-n}\,$. It is easily shown that $\{q_0,{q}_0\}_{D}\,=0,
\{q_0,{p}_n\}_{D}\,=\{q_0,\,ik_{n}
q_{-n}\}_{D}\,={1\over 2}\,\{q_0,{p}_n\}^*,
\{q_{n},p_{m}\}_{D}\,={1\over 2}\delta_{nm}$.
The limit to the continuum, $R\to\infty$ is taken as usual: $\Delta=2 ({\pi/{R}})\to dk$, $k_{n}=n\Delta\to k$, $\sqrt{R}
q_{-n}\to lim_{R\to\infty}
\int_{-R/2}^{R/2}{dx}\,\varphi(x)\,e^{ik_{n}x}\equiv\,\int_{-\infty}^
{\infty}\,dx\, \varphi(x)\,e^{ikx} = \sqrt{2\pi}{\tilde\varphi(k)}$ for all $\,n $, $\sqrt{2\pi}
\varphi(x) =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk \,\tilde\varphi(k) e^{-ikx}$, and $(q_{0}/{\sqrt{R}})\to 0$. From $\{\sqrt{R}\,q_{m},\sqrt{R}\,q_{-n}\}_{D} =
R\,\delta_{nm}/({2ik_{n}})\,$ following from $\{q_{n},p_{m}\}_{D}$ for $n,m\ne 0$ we derive, on using $\,R\delta_{nm}\to \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx e^{i(k-k')x}=
\,{2\pi\delta(k-k')}$, that $\{\tilde\varphi(k),\tilde\varphi(-k')\}_{D}\,=\,\delta
(k-k')/(2ik)\,$ where $ k,k'\,\ne 0$. If we use the integral representation of the sgn function the well known LF Dirac bracket $\{\varphi(x,\tau),\varphi(y,\tau)\}_{D}=-{1\over 4}\epsilon(x-y)$ is obtained. The expressions of $\{q_{0},p_{n}\}_{D}$ (or $\{q_{0},\varphi'\}_{D}$) show that the DLCQ is harder to work with here[^17]. The continuum limit of the [*constraint eq.*]{} $\beta=0$ is
$$\omega(\lambda\omega^2-m^2)+lim_{R\to\infty} {1\over R}
\int_{-R/2}^{R/2} dx \Bigl[ \,(3\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi +
\lambda (3\omega\varphi^2+\varphi^3 ) \,
\Bigr]=0$$
while that for the LF Hamiltonian
$${ P^{-}\,=\int dx \,\Bigl [\omega(\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi+
{1\over 2}(3\lambda\omega^2-m^2)\varphi^2+
\lambda\omega\varphi^3+{\lambda\over 4}\varphi^4
\Bigr ]\,}$$
These results follow immediately if we worked directly in the continuum formulation; we do have to handle generalized functions now. In the LF Hamiltonian theory we have an additional new ingredient in the form of the [*constraint equation*]{}. Elimination of $\omega $ using it would lead to a [*nonlocal LF Hamiltonian*]{} corresponding to the local one in the equal-time formulation. At the tree or classical level the integrals appearing in in the constraint eq. are convergent and when $R\to\infty$ it leads to $V'(\omega)=0$. In equal-time theory this is essentially [*added*]{} to it as an external constraint based on physical considerations. In the renormalized theory [@pre2] the constraint equation describes the high order quantum corrections to the tree level value of the condensate.
The quantization is performed via the correspondence$^{}$ $i\{f,g\}_{D}\to [f,g]$. Hence $\varphi(x,\tau)= {(1/{\sqrt{2\pi}})}\int dk\;
{\theta(k)}\;
[a(k,\tau)$ $e^{-ikx}+{a^{\dag}}(k,\tau)e^{ikx}]/(\sqrt {2k})$, were $a(k,\tau)$ and ${a^{\dag}}(k,\tau)$ satisfy the canonical equal-$\tau$ commutation relations, $[a(k,\tau),{a(k^\prime,\tau)}^{\dag}]=\delta(k-k^\prime)$ etc.. The vacuum state is defined by $\,a(k,\tau){\vert vac\rangle}=0\,$, $k> 0$ and the tree level description of the [*SSB*]{} is given as follows. The values of $\omega=
\,{\langle\vert \phi\vert\rangle}_{vac}\;$ obtained from $V'(\omega)=0$ the different vacua in the theory. Distinct Fock spaces corresponding to different values of $\omega$ are built as usual by applying the creation operators on the corresponding vacuum state. The $\omega=0$ corresponds to a [*symmetric phase*]{} since the Hamiltonian is then symmetric under $\varphi\to -\varphi$. For $\omega\ne0$ this symmetry is violated and the system is in a [*broken or asymmetric phase*]{}.
The extension to $3+1$ dimensions and to global continuous symmetry is straight-forward[^18]. Consider real scalar fields $\phi_{a} (a=1,2,..N)\,$ which form an isovector of global internal symmetry group $O(N)$. We now write $\phi_{a}(x,x^{\perp},\tau)
=\omega_{a}+\varphi_{a}(x,x^{\perp},\tau)$ and the Lagrangian density is ${\cal L}=[{\dot\varphi_{a}}{\varphi'_{a}}-
{(1/ 2)}(\partial_i\varphi_{a})(\partial_i\varphi_{a})-V(\phi)]$, where $i=1,2$ indicate the transverse space directions. The Taylor series expansion of the constraint equations $\beta_{a}=0$ gives a set of coupled equations $R\,V'_a(\omega)+
\,V''_{ab}(\omega)\int dx \varphi_{b}+\,
V'''_{abc}(\omega)\int dx \varphi_b\varphi_c/2+...=0$. Its discussion at the tree level leads to the conventional theory results. The LF symmetry generators are found to be $G_{\alpha}(\tau)=
-i\int d^{2} {x^{\perp}} dx \varphi'_{c}(t_{\alpha})_{cd}\varphi_{d}$ $=\,\int d^{2}{k^{\perp}}\,dk \, \theta(k)\,
{a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})
^{\dag}} (t_{\alpha})_{cd} a_{d}(k,{k^{\perp}})$ where $\alpha,\beta=1,2,..,N(N-1)/2\, $, are the group indices, $t_{\alpha}$ are hermitian and antisymmetric generators of $O(N)$, and ${a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})^{\dag}}$ ($ a_{c}(k,{k^{\perp}})$) is creation ( destruction) operator contained in the momentum space expansion of $\varphi_{c}$. These are to be contrasted with the generators in the equal-time theory, $ Q_{\alpha}(x^{0})=\int d^{3}x \, J^{0}
=-i\int d^{3}x (\partial_{0}\varphi_{a})(t_{\alpha})_{ab}\varphi_{b}
-i(t_{\alpha}\omega)_{a}\int d^{3}x
({{d\varphi_{a}}/ dx_{0}})$. All the symmetry generators thus annihilate the LF vacuum and the SSB is now seen in the broken symmetry of the quantized theory Hamiltonian. The criteria for the counting of the number of Goldstone bosons on the LF is found to be the same as in the conventional theory. In contrast, the first term on the right hand side of $Q_{\alpha}(x^{0})$ does annihilate the conventional theory vacuum but the second term gives now non-vanishing contributions for some of the (broken) generators. The symmetry of the conventional theory vacuum is thereby broken while the quantum Hamiltonian remains invariant. The physical content of SSB in the [*instant form*]{} and the [*front form*]{}, however, is the same though achieved by different descriptions. Alternative proofs on the LF, in two dimensions, can be given of the Coleman’s theorem related to the absence of Goldstone bosons; we are unable to implement the second class constraints over the phase space.
[**Appendix D: BRS-BFT Quantization on the LF of the CSM**]{}\
Recently, it was shown [@pre1] that the well known [*condensate*]{} or $\theta$-vacua in the SM could be obtained by a straightforward quantization of the theory on the light-front (LF). The procedure adopted was the one proposed earlier in connection with the [*front form*]{} description of the SSB as described earlier in these lectures. The scalar field of the equivalent bosonized SM is separated, based on physical considerations, into the [*dynamical bosonic condensate*]{} and the quantum fluctuation fields. The Dirac procedure is then followed in order to construct the Hamiltonian formulation and the quantized theory. The $\theta$-vacua were shown [@pre1] to come out naturally along with their continuum normalization. It is then rather important to understand as to how and why the vacuum structure in the LF quantized CSM should come out to be quite different; as is known from the rather elaborate studies on CSM in the conventional framework. We could work with the standard Dirac method but the recently proposed BFT procedure which is elegant and avoids the computation of Dirac brackets. It would thus get tested on the LF as well and it also allows for constructing (new) effective Lagrangian theories.
We convert the two second class constraints of the bosonized CSM with $a>1$ into first class constraints according to the BFT formalism. We obtain then the first class Hamiltonian from the canonical Hamiltonian and recover the DB using Poisson brackets in the extended phase space. The corresponding first class Lagrangian is then found by performing the momentum integrations in the generating functional.
[**(a) Conversion to First Class Constrained Dynamical System** ]{}
The bosonized CSM model (for $a>1$) is described by the action
$$S_{CSM} ~=~ \int d^2x~\left[
-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}
+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi
+eA_{\nu}(\eta^{\mu \nu}
-\epsilon^{\mu \nu})\partial_{\mu}\phi
+\frac{1}{2}ae^{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}~\right],$$
where $a$ is a regularization ambiguity which enters when we calculate the fermionic determinant in the fermionic CSM. The action in the LF coordinates takes the form
$$S_{CSM}~=~\int d^2x^{-}\;\left[{1\over 2} (\partial_{+}A_{-}-\partial_{-}A_{+})^{2}
+\partial_{-}\phi\,\partial_{+}\phi +2 e A_{-}{\partial_{+} \phi}
+a e^{2} A_{+}A_{-}\right],$$
We now make the [*separation*]{}, in the scalar field (a generalized function) :$\phi(\tau,x^{-})= \omega (\tau)+\varphi(
\tau,x^{-})$. The Lagrangian density then becomes $${\cal L}={1\over 2} (\partial_{+}A_{-}-\partial_{-}A_{+})^{2}
+\partial_{-}\varphi\,\partial_{+}\varphi
+a e^{2} [A_{+}+{2\over
{ae}}(\partial_{+}\varphi+\partial_{+}\omega)] A_{-},$$ We note that the dynamical fields are $A_{-}$ and $\varphi$ while $A_{+}$ has no kinetic term. On making a redefinition of the (auxiliary) field $A_{+}$ we can recast the action on the LF in the following form $$S_{CSM}~=~ \int dx^{-}\;\left[{\dot\varphi}\varphi'
+{1\over 2}({\dot A}_{-}-{A_{+}}')^{2}
- 2e {\dot A_{-}}\varphi
+a e^{2} A_{+}A_{-}\right],$$
The canonical momenta are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^{+}~&=&~0, \nonumber \\
\pi^{-}~&=&~ \dot{A}_{-}~-~ A_{+}'-2e\varphi, \nonumber \\
\pi_{\varphi}~&=&~ {\varphi}'.\end{aligned}$$ We follow now the Dirac’s standard procedure in order to build an Hamiltonian framework on the LF. The definition of the canonical momenta leads to two primary constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^{+} \approx 0, \\
\Omega_1 \equiv (\pi_{\varphi}-\varphi')\approx 0\end{aligned}$$ and we derive one secondary constraint $$\Omega_2 \equiv \partial_{-} \pi^{-} + +2e \varphi'+
a e^{2} A_{-} \approx 0.$$ This one follows when we require the $\tau$ independence (e.g., the persistency) of the primary constraint $\pi^{+}$ with respect to the preliminary Hamiltonian
$$H' = {H_c}^{l.f.} + \int dx~u_{+}\pi^{+}+\int dx~u_{1}\Omega_1 ,$$
where $H_c$ is the canonical Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
{H_c}^{l.f.} &=& \int\!dx~\left[~
\frac{1}{2}(\pi^{-}+2e\varphi)^2 + (\pi^{-}+2e\varphi) A_{+}'
-ae^{2} A_{+}A_{-}
\right],
$$ and we employ the standard equal-$\tau$ Poisson brackets. The $u_{+}$ and $u_{1}$ denote the Lagrange multiplier fields. The persistency requirement for $\Omega_{1} $ give conditions to determine $u_{1}$. The Hamiltonian is next extended to include also the secondary constraint $${H_e}^{l.f.} = {H_c}^{l.f.} + \int dx~u_{+}\pi^{+}+\int dx~u_{1}\Omega_1
+\int dx~u_{2}\Omega_{2}$$ and the procedure is now repeated with respect to the extended Hamiltonian. For the case $a>1$, no more secondary constraints are seen to arise and we are left only with the persistency conditions which determine the multipliers $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ while $u_{+}$ is left undetermined. We also find[^19] $\{\Omega_{i},\Omega_{j}\}~=~D_{ij}~$ $ (-2
\partial_{x} \delta(x-y))$ where $i,j =1,2$ and $~D_{11}=1,~D_{22}=a
e^2, ~D_{12}=~D_{21}= -e$ and $\pi^{+}$ is shown to have vanishing brackets with $\Omega_{1,2}$. The $\pi^{+}\approx 0 $ constitutes a first class constraint on the phase space; it generates local transformations of $A_{+}$ which leave the $H_{e}$ invariant, $\{\pi^{+}, H_{e}\}= \Omega_{2}\approx 0$. The $\Omega_1,\Omega_2 $ constitute a set of second class constraints and do not involve $A_{+}$ or $\pi^{+}$. It is very convenient, though not necessary, to add to the set of constraints on the phase space the (accessible) gauge fixing constraint $A_{+}\approx 0$. It is evident from that such a gauge freedom is [*not*]{} available at the Lagrangian level. We will also implement (e.g., turn into strong equalities) the (trivial) pair of weak constraints $A_{+}\approx 0,\; \pi^{+}\approx 0$ by defining the Dirac brackets with respect to them. It is easy to see that for the other remaining dynamical variables the corresponding Dirac brackets coincide with the standard Poisson brackets. The variables $A_{+}, \pi^{+}$ are thus removed from the discussion, leaving behind a constrained dynamical system with the two second class constraints $\Omega_{1},
\;\Omega_{2}$ and the light-front Hamiltonian $$H^{l.f.} = \frac{1}{2} \int\!dx~
(\pi^{-}+2e\varphi)^2 +
\int dx~u_{1}\Omega_1 +\int dx~u_{2}\Omega_{2}$$ which will be now handled by the BFT procedure.
We introduce the following linear combinations $\top_{i}$, $i=1,2$, of the above constraints
$$\begin{aligned}
\top_{1}=c_1 (\Omega_1+\frac{1}{M}\Omega_2)\nonumber \\
\top_{2}=c_2 (\Omega_1-\frac{1}{M}\Omega_2)\end{aligned}$$
where $c_1={1}/{\sqrt{2(1-e/M)}}$, $c_2={1}/{\sqrt{2(1+e/M)}}$, $M^2=a e^2$, and $a>1$. They satisfy $$\{\top_i,\top_j\}=\delta_{ij} (-2\partial_{x}\delta(x-y))$$ and thus diagonalize the constraint algebra.
We now introduce new auxiliary fields $\Phi^{i}$ in order to convert the second class constraint $\top_{i}$ into first class ones in the extended phase space. Following BFT [@bat] we require these fields to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\{A^{\mu}(\mbox{or}~ \pi_{\mu}), \Phi^{i} \} &=& 0,~~~
\{\varphi(\mbox{or}~ \pi_{\varphi}), \Phi^{i} \} = 0, \\ \nonumber
\{ \Phi^i(x), \Phi^j(y) \} &=& \omega^{ij}(x,y) =
-\omega^{ji}(y,x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega^{ij}$ is a constant and antisymmetric matrix. The strongly involutive modified constraints $\widetilde{\top}_{i}$ satisfying the abelian algebra $$\begin{aligned}
\{\widetilde{\top}_{i}, \widetilde{\top}_{j} \}=0\end{aligned}$$ as well as the boundary conditions, $\widetilde{\top}_i \mid_{\Phi^i = 0} = \top_i$ are then postulated to take the form of the following expansion $$\widetilde{\top}_i( A^\mu, \pi_\mu, \varphi, \pi_{\varphi}; \Phi^j)
= \top_i + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \widetilde{\top}_i^{(n)},
~~~~~~\top_i^{(n)} \sim (\Phi^j)^n.$$ The first order correction terms in this infinite series are written as $$\widetilde{\top}_i^{(1)}(x) = \int dy X_{ij}(x,y)\Phi^j(y).$$ The first class constraint algebra of $\widetilde{\top}_i$ then leads to the following condition: $$\{\top_i,\top_j\} + \{ \widetilde{\top}_i^{(1)},
\widetilde{\top}_i^{(1)}\}=0$$ or $$(-2\partial_x\delta(x-y)) \delta_{ij} +
\int dw~ dz~
X_{ik}(x,w) \omega^{kl}(w,z) X_{jl}(y,z)
= 0.$$ There is clearly some arbritrariness in the appropriate choice of $\omega^{ij}$ and $X_{ij}$ which corresponds to the canonical transformation in the extended phase space. We can take without any loss of generality the simple solutions, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{ij}(x,y)
&=& - \delta^{ij} \epsilon(x-y) \nonumber \\
X_{ij}(x,y)
&=& \delta_{ij} \partial_{x}\delta ( x- y),\end{aligned}$$ Their inverses are easily shown to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\omega^{-1}}_{ij}(x,y)
&=& -\frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \partial_x\delta(x-y) \nonumber \\
({X^{-1}})^{ij}(x,y)
&=& \frac{1}{2} \delta^{ij} \epsilon( x- y),\end{aligned}$$
With the above choice, we find up to the first order $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{ \top}_{i}&=&\top_{i}+\widetilde\top^{(1)}_{i} \\ \nonumber
&=&\top_{i} +\partial \Phi^{i},\end{aligned}$$ and a strongly first class constraint algebra $$\{\top_{i}+ \widetilde{\top}^{(1)}_{i},
\top_{j}+ \widetilde{\top}^{(1)}_{j} \} = 0.$$ The higher order correction terms (suppressing the integration operation ) $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\top}^{(n+1)}_{i} =- \frac{1}{n+2} \Phi^{l}
{\omega^{-1}}_{lk} ({X^{-1}})^{kj}
B_{ji}^{(n)}~~~~~~~(n \geq 1)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
B^{(n)}_{ji} \equiv \sum^{n}_{m=0}
\{ \widetilde{\top}^{(n-m)}_{j},
\widetilde{\top}^{(m)}_{i} \}_{(A, \pi, \varphi, \pi_{\varphi} )}+
\sum^{n-2}_{m=0}
\{ \widetilde{\top}^{(n-m)}_{j},
\widetilde{\top}^{(m+2)}_{i} \}_{(\Phi)}\end{aligned}$$ automatically vanish as a consequence of the proper choice of $\omega^{ij}$ made above. The Poisson brackets are to be computed here using the standard canonical definition for $A_\mu$ and $\varphi$ as postulated above. We have now only the first class constraints in the extended phase space and in view of the proper choice only $\widetilde\top_{i}^{(1)}$ contributes in the infinite series above.
[**(b)- First Class Hamiltonian and Dirac Brackets**]{}
We next introduce modified (“gauge invariant”) dynamical variables $\widetilde{F} \equiv (\widetilde{A}_{\mu},\widetilde{\pi}^{\mu},
\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{\pi}_{\varphi} )$ corresponding to $F \equiv (A_{\mu},\pi^{\mu},\varphi, \pi_{\varphi} )$ over the phase space by requiring the the following strong involution condition for $\widetilde{F}$ with the first class constraints in our extended phase space, viz, $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \widetilde{\top}_{i}, \widetilde{F} \} =0\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{F}(A_{\mu}, \pi^{\mu}, \varphi, \pi_{\varphi}; \Phi^{j} ) &=&
F + \sum^{\infty}_{n=1} \widetilde{F}^{ (n)},
~~~~~~~ \widetilde{F}^{(n)} \sim (\Phi^{j})^{n}\end{aligned}$$ and which satisfy the boundary conditions, $\widetilde{F}\mid_{\Phi^i = 0} = F$.
The first order correction terms are easily shown to be given by $$\widetilde{F}^{(1)}(x) = -\int~ du\, dv\, dz~ \Phi^{j}(u) {{\omega}^{-1}}_{jk}
(u,v) {X^{-1}}^{kl}(v,z)~
\{ \top_{l}(z), F(x) \}_{(A, \pi, \varphi, \pi_{\varphi})}.$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_{-}^{(1)}~&=&~
\frac{1}{2M} \partial(c_1 \Phi^{1}-c_2 \Phi^{2}) \nonumber \\
\widetilde{\pi}^{-{(1)}}~&=&~ \frac {M}{2} (c_1\Phi^{1}-c_2 \Phi^{2})
\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\varphi}^{(1)} ~&=&~
- \frac{1}{2} (c_1 \Phi^{1}+c_2 \Phi^{2}),\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\pi}_{\varphi}^{(1)} ~&=&~ \frac{1}{2} \partial
\left[c_1 (1-\frac{2e}{M})\Phi^{1}+c_2 (1+\frac{2e}{M}) \Phi^{2}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where only the combinations $(c_1 \Phi^{1}\pm c_2 \Phi^{2})$ of the auxiliary fields are seen to occur. Furthermore, since the modified variables $\widetilde F= F+\widetilde
F^{(1)}+...$, up to the first order corrections, are found to be strongly involutive as a consequence of the proper choice made above, the higher order correction terms $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{F}^{(n+1)} &=&
-\frac{1}{n+1}
\Phi^{j}\omega_{jk} X^{kl} G^{(n)}_{l},\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(n)}_{l} &=& \sum^{n}_{m=0}
\{ \top_{i}^{(n-m)},
\widetilde{F}^{(m)}\}_{(A, \pi, \phi, \pi_{\phi} )}
+ \sum^{n-2}_{m=0}
\{ \top_{i}^{(n-m)}, \widetilde{F}^{(m+2)}\}_{(\Phi)}
+ \{ \top_{i}^{(n+1)}, \widetilde{F}^{(1)} \}_{(\Phi)}
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ again vanish. In principle we may follow similar procedure for any functional of the phase space variables; it may get, however, involved.
We make a side remark on the Dirac formulation for dealing with the systems with second class constraints by using the Dirac bracket (DB), rather than extending the phase space. In fact, the Poisson brackets of the modified (gauge invariant) variables $\widetilde F$ in the BFT formalism are related [@bat] to the DB, which implement the constraints $\top_i\approx 0$ in the problem under discussion, by the relation $\{f,g\}_{D}= \{\widetilde f,\widetilde g\}\mid_{\Phi^{i}=0}$. In view of only the linear first order correction in CSM the computation of the right hand side is quite simple. We list some of the Dirac brackets
$$\begin{aligned}
\{\pi^{-},\pi^{-}\}_{D}&=&\{\widetilde{\pi^{-}},
\widetilde{\pi^{-}}\} |_{\Phi=0} \nonumber \\
& = & \{\widetilde{\pi^{-}}^{(1)}, \widetilde{\pi^{-}}^{(1)} \}
= \frac{a^2 e^2}{(a-1)} (-\frac{1}{4} \epsilon(x-y)),
\nonumber \\
\{\varphi,\varphi\}_{D} & = &
\{\widetilde{\varphi}, \widetilde{\varphi}\} |_{\Phi=0} \nonumber \\
& = & \{\widetilde{\varphi}^{(1)}, \widetilde{\varphi}^{(1)} \}
= \frac{a}{(a-1)} (-\frac{1}{4} \epsilon(x-y))
\nonumber \\
\{\varphi,\pi^{-}\}_{D}&=& \{\widetilde{\varphi}^{(1)}, \widetilde{\pi^{-}}^
{(1)}\} = \frac{ae}{(a-1) } (-\frac{1}{4} \epsilon(x-y)).\end{aligned}$$
The other ones follow on using the now strong relations $\Omega_1=\Omega_2=0$ with respect to $\{,\}_{D}$ and from $H^{l.f}$ it follows that the LF Hamiltonian reduces effectively to $$H_D^{l.f.}= \frac{1}{2}\int dx \, (\pi^{-}+2e\varphi)^{2}.$$ The first class LF Hamiltonian $\widetilde H$ which satisfies the boundary condition $\widetilde H\mid_{\Phi^{i}=0}=H_D^{l.f.}$ and is in strong involution with the constraints $\widetilde \top_{i}\;$, e.g., $\{\widetilde \top_{i},\widetilde H\}=0 $, may be constructed following the BT procedure or simply guessed for the CSM. It is given by $$\widetilde H= \frac{1}{2}\int dx(\widetilde \pi^{-}+2e\widetilde\varphi)^2$$ which is just the expression in of $H_D^{l.f.}$ with field variables $F$ replaced by the $\widetilde F$ variables, which already commute with the constraints $\widetilde T_{i}$. We do also check that $\{\widetilde H,\widetilde H\}=0$ and we may identify $\widetilde H$ with the BRS Hamiltonian. This completes the operatorial conversion of the original second class system with the Hamiltonian $H_{c}$ and constraints $\Omega_{i}$ into the first class one with the Hamiltonian $\widetilde H$ and (abelian) constraints $\widetilde T_{i}$.
[**(c)- First Class Lagrangian**]{}
We consider now the partition function of the model in order to construct the Lagrangian corresonding to $\widetilde H$ in the canonical Hamiltonian formulation discussed above.
We start by representing each of the auxiliary field $\Phi^{i}$ by a pair of fields $\pi^{i}, \theta^{i},\; i=1,2\; $ defined by $$\Phi^{i}=\frac{1}{2}\pi^{i}-\int du\;\; \epsilon(x-u)\;\theta^{i}(u)$$ such that $\pi^{i}, \theta^{i}$ satisfy $$\{\pi^{i},\theta^{j}\}=-\delta^{ij}\delta(x-y)\ \ \ etc.,$$ e.g., the (standard Heisenberg type) canonical Poisson brackets.
The phase space partition function is given By the Faddeev formulae
$$Z= \int {\cal D} A_{-}
{\cal D} \pi^{-}
{\cal D} \varphi
{\cal D} \pi_{\varphi}
{\cal D} \theta^{1}
{\cal D} \pi^{1}
{\cal D} \theta^{2}
{\cal D} \pi^{2}
\prod_{i,j = 1}^{2} \delta(\widetilde{\top}_i)
\delta(\Gamma_j)
\mbox{det} \mid \{ \widetilde{\top}_i, \Gamma_j \} \mid
e^{iS},$$
where $$S = \int d^2x \left(
\pi^{-} {\dot A_{-}} +\pi_{\varphi} {\dot \varphi}
+ \pi^{1} {\dot \theta^{1}} +\pi^{2} {\dot \theta^{2}} - \widetilde {\cal H}
\right)\equiv \int d^{2}x \; {\cal L},$$ with the Hamiltonian density $\widetilde {\cal H}$ corresponding to the Hamiltonian $\widetilde H$ which is now expressed in terms of $(\theta^{i}, \pi_{i})$ rather than in terms of $\Phi^i$. The gauge-fixing conditions $\Gamma_i$ are chosen such that the determinants occurring in the functional measure are nonvanishing. Moreover, $\Gamma_i$ may be taken to be independent of the momenta so that they correspond to the Faddeev-Popov type gauge conditions.
We will now verify in the [*unitary gauge*]{}, defined by the original second class constraints:$\Gamma_i\equiv
\Omega_i=0$, i=1,2 being employed in the partition function, do in fact lead to the original Lagrangian. We check that the determinants in the functional measure are non-vanishing and field independent while the product of delta functionals reduces to $$\delta(\pi_{\varphi}-\varphi')\delta({\pi^{-}}'+2e\varphi'+M^2 A_{-})
\delta({\pi^{1}}'-4\theta^{1})\delta({\pi^{2}}'-4\theta^{2})$$ Since $\pi_{\varphi}$ is absent from $\widetilde H$ we can perform functional integration over it using the first delta functional. The second delta functional is exponentiated as usual and we name the integration variable as $A_{+}$ for convenience. The functional integral over $\theta^{1}$ and $\theta^{2}$ are easily performed due to the presence of the delta functionals and it also reduces $\widetilde {\cal H}$ to $(\pi^{-}+2e\varphi)^{2}/2$. The functional integrations over the then decoupled variables $\pi^{1}$ and $\pi^{2}$ give rise to constant factors which are absorbed in the normalization. The partition function in the unitary gauge thus becomes $$Z= \int {\cal D} A_{-}
{\cal D} \pi^{-}
{\cal D} \varphi
{\cal D} A_{+}
e^{iS},$$ with $$S = \int d^2x \left[
\pi^{-} {\dot A_{-}} +{\varphi}' {\dot \varphi}
+({\pi^{-}}'+2e\varphi'+M^{2}A_{-}) A_{+} -\frac{1}{2}(\pi^{-}+2e\varphi)^{2}
\right],$$ Performing the shift $\pi^{-}\rightarrow \pi^{-}-2e\varphi$ and doing subsequently a Gaussian integral over $\pi^{-}$ we obtain the original bosonized Lagrangian with $\omega$ eliminated by the field redefinition of $A_{+}$. It is interesting to recall that while constructing the LF Hamiltonian framework we eliminated the variable $A_{+}$ making use of the gauge freedom on the LF phase space and it gave rise to appreciable simplification. However, on going over to the first class Lagrangian formalism using the partition functional this variable reappears as it should, since the initial bosonized action is not gauge invariant due to the presence of the mass term for the gauge field. Making other acceptable choices for gauge-functions we can arrive at different effective Lagrangians for the system under consideration. It is interesting to recall that in the fermionic Lagrangian the right-handed component of the fermionic field describes a free field and only the left-handed one is gauged. field while only the left component is gauged. It is also clear from our discussion that $\widetilde H$ proposed above is not unique and we could modify it so that it still lead to the original Lagrangian in the unitary gauge. The corresponding first class Lagrangian would produce still other gauge-fixed effective Lagrangians. It will be interesting to study the models on the LF with more flavours and accompanying non-abelian gauge symmetry using the BFT-BFV formalism.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
The author would like to thank the organizing committee of BSCG and Prof. Mario Novello for the invitation which offered him the valuable opportunity to interact with very active researchers in Cosmology and Gravitation. Acknowledgement with thanks are due to Werner Israel and Stan Brodsky for constructive discussions and for the hospitality offered to him at the SLAC.
[30]{}
P.A.M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (1949) 392.
P.P. Srivastava, [*Lightfront quantization of field theory*]{} in [*Topics in Theoretical Physics*]{}, [*Festschrift for Paulo Leal Ferreira*]{}, eds., V.C. Aguilera-Navarro et. al., pgs. 206-217, IFT-São Paulo, SP, Brasil (1995); hep-th/9610044; [*Lectures on light-front quantized field theory*]{}:, Proc. XIV Encontro Nacional de Partículas e Campos, Caxambú, MG, pp. 154-192, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 1993; hep-th/ 9312064; Nuovo Cimento [**A107**]{} (1994) 549; Nuovo Cimento [**A108**]{} (1995) 35.
see for example S.S. Schweber, [ *Relativistic Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Row, Peterson and Co., New York, 1961; L.H. Ryder, [*Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition, 1996.
S. Coleman, Commum. Math. Phys., 31 (1973) 259.
S.J. Brodsky, [*Light-Cone Quantized QCD and Novel Hadron Phenomenology*]{}, SLAC-PUB-7645, 1997; S.J. Brodsky and H.C. Pauli, [*Light-Cone Quantization and QCD*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 396, eds., H. Mitter et. al., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
K.G. Wilson, Nucl. Phys. B (proc. Suppl.) 17 (1990). R.J. Perry, A. Harindranath, and K.G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2959; K.G. Wilson et. al., Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6720.
P.A.M. Dirac, [*Lectures in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1964; Sudarshan, E.C.G., Mukunda, N., [*Classical Dynamics: a modern perspective*]{}, Wiley, New York 1974; Hanson, A., Regge T., Teitelboim, C., [*Constrained Hamiltonian Systems*]{}, Acc. Naz. dei Lincei, Roma 1976.
P.P. Srivastava, Mod. Phys. Letts. A13 (1998) 1223; [*Lecture on $\theta$-vacua in the LF quantized Schwinger model*]{}, in [*Geometry, Topology and Physics*]{}, pgs. 260-275, Eds,: Apanasov, Bradlow, Rodrigues, and Uhlenbeck, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, New York, 1997; hep-th/9610149.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 150 (1966) 1313. J.B. Kogut and D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D1 (1970) 2901. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 92 (1984) 455; Nucl. Phys. B223 (1983) 422.
See for example, I.N. Sneddon, [*Elements of Partial Differential Equations*]{}, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1957, pg. 111-115.
I.A. Batalin and I.V. Tyutin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 (1991) 3255.
H.C. Pauli and S.J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 1993; D32 (1985) 2001.
P.P. Srivastava, [*LF quantization and SSB*]{} in [*Hadron Physics 94*]{}, pgs. 253-260, Eds. V. Herscovitz et. al., World Scientific, Singapore, 1995; hep-th/9412204,9412205. See also [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{}, 272 (1993) 2125, Ed. J.R. Sanford, papers contribuited to the [*Intl. Conf. on HEP, Dallas, Texas, August 1992*]{}, the footnote 7 and ref. \[2\].
Simon B. and Griffiths R.B., Commun. Math. Phys. 33 (1973) 145.
R. Jackiw and R. Rajaraman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1219; 54 (1985) 2060(E).
J. L. Lowenstein and J. Swieca, Ann. Physics (N.Y.) 68 (1971) 172.
P.P. Srivastava, [*Light-front quantized Chiral Schwinger model and its vacuum structure*]{}, SLAC-PUB-8016/98, hep-th/9811225; accepted for publication in Phys. Lett. B.
See for example, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rep. 68 (1981) 189.
See for example, D. Boyanovsky, Nucl. Phys. B294 (1987) 223; A. Bassetto, L. Griguolo and P. Zanca, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 1077; ref. [@abd].
See for example, E. Abdalla, M.C. Abdalla and K. Rothe, [ *Non-Perturbative Methods in Two Dimensional Quantum Field Theory*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1991.
P.P. Srivastava, Europhys. Lett. 33 (1996) 423; [*LF dynamics of Chern-Simons systems*]{}, ICTP, Trieste preprint IC/94/305; hep-th/9412239.
P.P. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B235 (1990) 287.
G. Parisi, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{}, Addison- Wesley, 1988.
[^1]: Invited talk given at the IX Brazilian School of Cosmology and Gravitation, CBPF, Rio de Janeiro, July 1998. To be published in the Proceedings, Ed. M. Novello.
[^2]: : [*Theoretical Physics Group, SLAC, Stanford University, PO Box 4349, Stanford, USA.*]{}\
[*E-mail*]{}: [email protected], [email protected]
[^3]: We recall the Kruskal-Szekers coordinates which threw a new light on the problem of the Schwarzshild singularity.
[^4]: The coordinates $x^{+}$ and $x^{-}$ appear in a symmetric fashion and we note that $\left[x^{+},{1\over i}\partial^{-} \right]
= \left[x^{-},{1\over i}\partial^{+} \right]=i $ where $\partial^{\pm}=
\partial_{\mp}=(\partial^{0}\pm \partial^{3})/\sqrt {2}$ etc..
[^5]: In fact, in many cases the interacting theory vacuum may coincide with the perturbation theory one. This results from the fact that momentum four-vector is now given by $(k^{-},k^{+},k^{\perp})$ where $k^{\pm}=(k^{0}{\pm}k^{3})/{\sqrt 2}$. Here $k^{-}$ is the LF energy while $k^{\perp}$ and $k^{+}$ indicate the transverse and the [*longitudinal*]{} components of the momentum respectively. For a free massive particle on the mass shell we have $2 k^{-}k^{+}=
({k^{\perp}}^{2}+m^{2}) > 0$ so that $k^{\pm}$ are both positive definite when $ k^{0}>0$. The conservation of the total longitudinal momentum does not permit the excitation of massive quanta by the LF vacuum. We require $k^{+}\to 0$ for each particle (and antiparticle) entering the ground state, which has vanishing total momentum. Such configurations constitute a point with zero measure in the LF phase space and may [@bro] not be of relevance in many cases. However, it should be noted that when dealing with the momentum space integrals, say, the loop integrals, a significant contribution may arise precisely from such a corresponding configuration in the integrand; the reason being that we have to deal with the products of several distributions. On the other hand, $(k^{1},k^{2},k^{3})$ may take positive or negative values and we may construct in the conventional theory eigenstates of zero momentum with an arbitrary number of particles (and antiparticles) which may mix with the vacuum state, with no particles, to form the ground state.
[^6]: See refs. [@pre] and [@bro].
[^7]: That the constraint equations can be derived simply by integrating the Lagrange equations of motion over the longitudinal spatial coordinate $x^{-}$ was noted also in: P.P. Srivastava, [*On spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism on the light-front quantized field theory*]{}, Ohio-State preprint 91-0481, Slac database PPF-9148 (see also 92-0012, PPF-9202), November ’91; available as [*scanned*]{} copies. In fact, Dirac in his paper does consider some examples where the constraints on the form of the potential are required if we would like to unify in the dynamical theory the principles of the quantization and the relativistic invariance. It is interesting to note that soon after in 1950-52 he formulated also the systematic method (Dirac procedure) for constructing Hamiltonian formulation for a constrained dynamical system.
[^8]: It was first proposed in the ref. cited in the previous footnote; in $3+1 $ dimensions the separation is: $\;\phi(\tau,x^{-},x^{\perp})=
\omega(\tau,x^{\perp})+\varphi(\tau,x^{-},x^{\perp})$. See papers contribuited to [*XXVI Intl. Conference on High energy Physics, Dallas, Texas*]{}, August ’92, [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{}, 272 (1993) 2125, Ed. J.R. Sanford.
[^9]: A similar analysis of the corresponding [*partial*]{} differential equations in the conventional treatmnet can also be made; the Fourier transform theory is convenient to use.
[^10]: See Nuovo Cimento A107 (1994) 549 and ref. [@pre].
[^11]: In general $\phi_{a}(x^{-},x^{\perp},\tau)
=\omega_{a}(x^{\perp},\tau)+\varphi_{a}(x^{-},x^{\perp},\tau)$ and the $x^{\perp}$ dependent tree level configurations (e.g. kinks etc.) are determined from $\left[V'_{a}(\omega)-\partial^{\perp}.\partial^{\perp}\omega_{a}\right]=0$.
[^12]: See Nuovo Cimento A108( 1995) 35.
[^13]: Here $\gamma^{0}=\sigma_{1}$, $ \gamma^{1}=i\sigma_{2}$, $\gamma_{5}=-\sigma_{3}$, $x^{\mu}:\,(x^{+}\equiv \tau,x^{-}\equiv x)$ with ${\sqrt 2}x^{\pm}={\sqrt 2}x_{\mp}=(x^{0}{\pm} x^{1})$, $A^{\pm}=A_{\mp}=(A^{0}\pm A^{1})/
{\sqrt 2}$, $\psi_{L,R}=P_{L,R}\;\psi $, $P_{L}=(1-\gamma_{5})/2$, $P_{R}=(1+\gamma_{5})/2$, $\bar\psi= \psi^{\dag}\gamma^{0}$.
[^14]: We make the convention that the first variable in an equal- $\tau$ bracket refers to the longitudinal coordinate $x^{-}\equiv x$ while the second one to $y^{-}\equiv y$ while $\tau$ is suppressed.
[^15]: A similar discussion is encountered also in the LF quantized Chern-Simons-Higgs system [@pre3].
[^16]: see [@pre2] and Nuovo Cimento A108 (1995) 35.
[^17]: However, we do require it if we use numerical computations on the computer.
[^18]: Nuovo Cimento A107 (1994) 549 and ref. [@pre; @pre2]
[^19]: We make the convention that the first variable in an equal- $\tau$ bracket refers to the longitudinal coordinate $x^{-}\equiv x$ while the second one to $y^{-}\equiv y$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We give a complete proof of the fact that the trace of the curvature of the connection associated to a planar d-web ($d>3$) is the sum of the Blaschke curvature of its sub 3-webs.'
author:
- 'Jean-Paul Dufour\'
title: '**La formule de la trace pour les tissus planaires**'
---
[**Keywords:**]{} planar webs
**Introduction.**
=================
Un $d$-tissu du plan est une famille de $d$ feuilletages d’un ouvert du plan qui sont deux à deux transverses. Il y a plusieurs méthodes équivalentes pour donner ces feuilletages. Il y a des méthodes “explicites” où chaque feuilletage est donné soit par les trajectoires d’un champ ou, ce qui revient au même, en se donnant les pentes $m_i(x,y)$ de chaque feuilletage dans un système de coordonnées $(x,y)$ ou bien encore en se donnant ses intégrales premières $f_i$ (les feuilletages sont donnés par les courbes de niveau des $f_i$). Alain Hénaut a développé la méthode “implicite” qui présente les feuilles comme les trajectoires d’une équation différentielle implicite du type $F(x,y,y')=0$ où $F$ est un polynôme de degré $d$ en $y'$ à coefficients dépendant de $x$ et $y.$ Pour une bibliographie relativement complète sur ce domaine nous renvoyons au livre de J.V. Pereira et L. Pirio de 2015 [@PP] ou au texte de J. V. Periera au Séminaire Bourbaki de 2007 [@JP].
Dans ce travail, on considère un $d$-tissu $W(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ sur un ouvert $U$ du plan donné (explicitement) par ses $d$ intégrales premières $f_1,\dots ,f_d.$ Un invariant important d’un tel tissu est son “rang”, c’est la dimension de l’espace vectoriel de ses “relations abéliennes” $\sum_{i=1}^d h_i(f_i)=0$ où les $h_i$ sont des fonctions d’une variable, nulles en un point fixé. En 2004 et dans le contexte “implicite” Alain Hénaut [@AH] a montré que l’on pouvait associer au tissu un fibré vectoriel sur $U$ muni d’une connexion $\nabla$ dont l’une des propriétés est que sa courbure est nulle si et seulement si le rang du tissu a la valeur maximale possible $(d-1)(d-2)/2.$ A la même époque L. Pirio a soutenu sa thèse [@P] dans laquelle, entre autre, il revisite des travaux anciens de A. Pantazi [@AP], pour construire une connexion analogue dans le cas “explicite”. En 2005 Olivier Ripoll [@OR], sous la direction d’A.Hénaut, a soutenu une thèse sur ces sujets. Ces deux auteurs ont construit des programmes Maple qui calculent la connexion et sa courbure pour $d=3,$ $d=4$ et $d=5,$ dans le cas “explicite” pour L. Pirio et dans le cas “implicite” pour O. Ripoll. En 2007 Vincent Cavalier et Daniel Lehmann [@CL] ont généralisé les constructions précédentes aux tissus de codimension 1 en dimension $n$ arbitraire, pourvu que ceux-ci soient “ordinaires” (ce qui est toujours le cas pour $n=2$) et tels qu’il existe un entier $k_0$ tel que $d=(n-1+k_0)!/((n-1)!k_0!)$ (ce qui est toujours le cas pour $n=2$ avec $k_0=d-1$). Travaillant dans le cas “explicite” avec les pentes des feuilletages, ils ont construit un fibré vectoriel muni d’une connexion qui généralise celle de A.Pantazi. En 2014 D. Lehmann et l’auteur [@DL] ont reconstruit ce fibré vectoriel et sa connexion à partir des intégrales premières des feuilletages et rédigé un programme Maple qui, non seulement calcule la connexion et la courbure des $d$-tissus plans pour tout $d,$ mais aussi qui peut fonctionner en toute dimension. Dans la suite on note $\nabla$ cette connexion.
En 1933 W. Blaschke [@WB] avait attaché une “courbure” aux 3-tissus du plan. La courbure de Blaschke est celle de $\nabla$ dans le cas particulier $d=3.$
Dans leurs thèses et travaux suivants L. Pirio et O. Ripoll ont conjecturé le résultat suivant.
[**FORMULE DE LA TRACE.**]{} [**La trace de la courbure de $\nabla$ est la somme des courbures de Blaschke des sous-3-tissus $W(f_i,f_j,f_k)$ de $W(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$.**]{}
Nous voyons la courbure de Blaschke, et la trace de la courbure de $\nabla ,$ comme des 2-formes à valeurs scalaires sur le plan ; cela donne sens à la formule précédente.
On peut voir les prémisses de cette formule dans les travaux de N. Mihaileanu [@NM] et A. Pantazi [@AP]. L. Pirio et O. Ripoll indépendamment en ont donné des preuves pour $d=4,$ $5$ et $6$ Ils ont aussi présenté un plan de démonstration précis pour $d$ quelconque. L. Pirio a donné à cette formule le nom de “formule de Mihaleanu.”
Dans ce travail nous proposons une démonstration complète de ce résultat basée sur la méthode utilisée pour construire le programme de D. Lehmann et de l’auteur [@DL]. Elle est un peu longue mais tous les calculs sont explicités et élémentaires. La méthode “explicite” a l’avantage de permettre des raisonnements par récurrence sur le nombre $d$ car on peut comprendre plus facilement ce qui advient de la connexion quand on rajoute une ($d+1$)-ème fonction. Dans le cadre “implicite” on ne travaille qu’avec les polynômes symétriques de ces fonctions et l’effet de l’ajout d’une nouvelle fonction est un peu plus caché. Ceci dit, le détail des calculs que l’on trouvera dans certaines parties de la démonstration laisse penser que l’on pourrait avoir une démonstration plus simple dans le contexte “implicite”.
Construction de la connexion du $d$-tissu.
==========================================
Nous rappelons, sans écrire tous les détails, comment nous construisons le fibré vectoriel et la connexion dans le texte de D. Lehmann et l’auteur[@DL].
On travaille au voisinage d’un point $P$ du plan et on impose que les fonctions $f_1$,...,$f_d$ soient nulles en $P$. On choisit des coordonnées locales $x$ et $y$ qui s’annulent elles aussi en $P.$ Si $f$ est une fonction définie sur un voisinage de $P,$ $f_x$ (resp. $f_y$) désigne la dérivée de $f$ par rapport à $x$ (resp. $y$). Ainsi $f_{xx}$ désigne la dérivée seconde de $f$ par rapport à $x$....
Les relations abéliennes de notre tissu sont les relations $$\sum_{i=1}^{d}h_i(f_i)=0$$ où les $h_i$ sont des fonctions d’une variable qui s’annulent à l’origine.
Pour étudier cette relation on dérive successivement ses deux membres par rapport aux deux variables.
On note $\omega^r_i=h_i^{(r)}(f_i)$ , où $h_i^{(r)}$ désigne la dérivée $r$-ième de $h_i.$
A l’ordre 1 on a les deux équations $$\sum_{i=1}^{d}\omega^1_i{ f_x}=0$$$$\sum_{i=1}^{d}\omega^1_i{ f_y
}=0$$ que l’on récrit sous forme matricielle $$P_2(\omega^1_1,\dots ,\omega^1_d)=0$$ où $ P_2 $ est la matrice jacobienne de $(x,y)\mapsto (f_1(x,y),\dots ,f_d(x,y)).$
A l’ordre 2 on a 3 équations que l’on range en prenant pour première celle qui correspond à la dérivée $\partial\over{\partial x^2}$, la deuxième à $\partial\over{\partial x\partial y}$, la troisième à $\partial\over{\partial y^2}$. On les écrit matriciellement sous la forme $$G^2_{3}(\omega^1_1,\dots ,\omega^1_d)+P_3(\omega^2_1,\dots ,\omega^2_d)=0$$.
Plus généralement, on range les équations d’ordre $r-1$ en imposant l’ordre $${\partial\over{\partial x^{r-1}}}, {\partial\over{\partial x^{r-2}\partial y}},\dots , {\partial\over{\partial y^{r-1}}}$$ pour les dérivations et on les récrit sous la forme matricielle $$G^{r-1}_{r}(\omega^1_1,\dots ,\omega^1_d)+\cdots +G^{2}_{r}(\omega^{r-2}_1,\dots ,\omega^{r-2}_d)+P_{r}(\omega^{r-1}_1,\dots ,\omega^{r-1}_d)=0.$$
Les matrices $G_r^j$ ont des coefficients qui sont des expressions polynomiales des dérivées partielles des $f_i$ d’ordre 1 à $j.$
Lorsque cela nous paraîtra utile pour rendre notre texte plus clair, nous rajouterons l’indice $(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ à nos matrices. Ainsi on écrira $G^i_{j ;f_1,\dots ,f_d}$ à la place de $G^i_j$ pour préciser quelles sont les fonctions en jeu.
La première étape du programme donné dans [@DL] calcule les coefficients des matrices $G_r^s$ et $P_r$ par récurrence. Nous retiendrons simplement que les matrices $P_r$ ont des colonnes de la forme $$f_i^{r-1}=\left|\matrix{( f_{ix})^{r-1} \cr ( f_{i x})^{r-2}( f_{iy})\cr .\cr .\cr ( f_{ix})^{r-j}( f_{iy})^{j-1}
\cr .\cr. \cr(f_{i y})^{r-1}\cr }\right|$$ et que, si l’on note $ G^{r}(f_i)$ les colonnes de $G_r^{2}$ et $G^{r+}(f_i)$ la $(r-1)$-colonne obtenue en supprimant la dernière composante de $G^r(f_i)$, on a les relations de récurrence $$G^{r+}(f_i)=f_{ix}.G^{r-1}(f_i)+{\partial f^{r-2}_i\over\partial x}.$$
On construit par blocs la matrice à $(d+1)(d-2)/2$ lignes et $(d-2)d$ colonnes $$MM=\left|\matrix{P_2 & 0&.&.&.&0\cr G_3^2 &P_3&0&.&.&0\cr G_4^3&G_4^2&P_4&0&.&0\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr G_{d-1}^{d-2}& G_{d-1}^{d-3}&.&.& G_{d-1}^{2}&P_{d-1} \cr}\right|$$ Le noyau de cette matrice donne le fibré de rang $(d-1)(d-2)/2,$ et de base le plan des $(x,y),$ sur lequel la connexion $\nabla$ sera définie.
On construit $\nabla$ comme suit.
On considère d’abord la matrice par blocs à $(d-2)d$ lignes et $(d-2)d$ colonnes $$\Delta =\left|\matrix{0 & Id_d&0&.&.&0\cr 0 &0 &Id_d&0&.&0\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr .&.&.&.&.&.\cr 0&. &.&.&0&Id_d\cr A_{d-1}& A_{d-2}&.&.& A_{3}&A_{2} \cr}\right|$$ où $Id_d$ désigne la matrice identité à $d$ lignes et $$A_j=-P_{d}^{-1}.G^j_{d}.$$ On note $D_x$ (resp. $D_y$) la matrice diagonale dont les éléments diagonaux sont $( f_{1 x},\dots ,
f_{d x})$ (resp. $( f_{1 y},\dots ,
f_{d y})).$ On considère maintenant la matrice $DD_x$ (resp. $DD_y$) diagonale par blocs, à $(d-2)d$ lignes, dont les blocs diagonaux sont tous égaux à $D_x$ (resp. $D_y$).
On considère la matrice carrée à $(d-2)d$ colonnes $\Delta_x= DD_x.\Delta$ (resp. $\Delta_y= DD_y.\Delta$).
Les coefficients des deux matrices $\Delta_x$ et $\Delta_y$ dépendent de $(x,y)$ ; elles donnent donc des morphismes du fibré trivial de rang $(d-2)d$ sur le plan. On a une connexion $\nabla^0$ sur ce fibré en prenant $\nabla^0_{\partial\over\partial x}={\partial\over\partial x}-\Delta_x $ et la même chose en remplaçant $x$ par $y.$ On peut voir que cette connexion préserve le sous-fibré donné par le noyau de $MM$.
La connexion $\nabla$ est alors la restriction de $\nabla^0$ au noyau de $MM$.
Pour construire une base du noyau de $MM$ nous procédons comme suit.
On remarque que chacun des blocs “diagonaux” $P_r$ de $MM$ est tel que ses $r$ premières colonnes forment une sous-matrice inversible. Cela nous mène à changer un peu l’écriture de nos variables : on récrit $$(\omega^1_1,...,\omega^1_d;\omega^2_1,...,\omega^2_d;...;\omega^{d-2}_1,...,\omega^{d-2}_d),$$ plutôt sous la forme $$(\omega^1_1,\omega^1_2,\beta_3^1,...,\beta_d^1;\omega^2_1,\omega_2^2,\omega^2_3,\beta_4^2,...,\beta_d^2;...;\omega^{d-2}_1,...,\omega^{d-2}_{d-1},\beta_d^{d-2}).$$ C’est à dire que l’on remplace $\omega_i^r$ par $\beta_i^r$ pour $i> r+1$.
On obtient une base $$B=\{e^1_3,\dots , e^1_{d};e^2_4,\dots ,e^2_{d}; \dots ;e^{d-3}_{d-1},e^{d-3}_d;e^{d-2}_d\}$$ du noyau de $MM$ en prenant pour $e^r_i$ le vecteur du noyau de $MM$ dont les coordonnées $\beta^s_j$ sont toutes nulles sauf $\beta^r_{i}$ qui est 1.
Notons $\Omega_x$ (resp. $\Omega_y$) les matrices de $\nabla_{\partial\over\partial x}$ (resp. $\nabla_{\partial\over\partial y}$) par rapport à la base $B$. Ses coefficients sont obtenus comme suit. On remarque d’abord que si l’on dérive n’importe quel vecteur $e^r_i$ de la base $B$ par rapport à $x$ ou $y$ on obtient un vecteur dont toutes les composantes $\beta^s_j$ sont nulles. Ainsi $\nabla_{\partial\over\partial x}(e^r_i)$ a des composantes $\beta^s_j$ qui sont celles de $-\Delta_x(e^r_i).$ On note $\Omega_{x,s,j}^{ r,i}$ sa composante $\beta^s_j$ ; c’est sa composante sur le vecteur de base $e^s_j.$ Alors $\Omega_x$ est la matrice qui a les coefficients $\Omega_{x,s,j}^{ r,i}$ ; autrement dit, on a $$-\Delta_x(e^r_i)=\sum_{s=1}^{d-2}\sum_{j=s+2}^{d} \Omega_{x,s,j}^{ r,i}e^s_j.$$ On agit de même en permutant $x$ et $y$ pour calculer $\Omega_y.$
Calcul de la trace de la courbure.
==================================
[**Définition.**]{} On considère le tissu $W(f_1,\dots ,f_s)$ donné par ses $s$ intégrales premières locales $f_1,\dots ,f_s$ ($s>2$). On lui associe les matrices $P_{s-1}=P_{s-1;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}},$ $P_{s}=P_{s;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}}$ et $G^2_s=G^{2}_{s;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}}$ définies comme dans le paragraphe précédent. La matrice $P_{s-1}$ est de rang $s-1$ et a un noyau de dimension 1 engendré par un vecteur du type $(X_1,X_2,\dots , X_{s-1},1)$. On appelle [**élément de trace**]{} de $f_1,\dots ,f_s$ et on note $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_s)$ la dernière composante du vecteur $$-P_{s}^{-1} G^{2}_{s}(X_1,X_2,\dots , X_{s-1},1).$$
Cet élément de trace est aussi caractérisé par le fait que la matrice par blocs $$M_{f_1,\dots ,f_{s}}=\left|\matrix{P_{s-1;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}} & 0 \cr G^{2}_{s;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}} & P_{s;f_1,\dots ,f_{s}}\cr }\right|$$ a un noyau engendré par un vecteur de la forme $$(X_1,X_2,\dots , X_{s-1},1;Y_1,Y_2,\dots , Y_{s-1},\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_s)).$$
Etudions maintenant l’expression de la courbure de $\nabla$ dans la base donnée dans la section précédente. Elle a la matrice $$K={\partial\over\partial y}(\Omega_x)-{\partial\over\partial x}(\Omega_y)+\Omega_x.\Omega_y -\Omega_y.\Omega_x.$$ Le commutateur $\Omega_x.\Omega_y -\Omega_y.\Omega_x$ a une trace nulle, donc la trace de la courbure est la trace de la matrice $$KK={\partial\over\partial y}(\Omega_x)-{\partial\over\partial x}(\Omega_y).$$
[**Remarque.**]{} [*Dans un prochain travail avec D. Lehmann nous prouverons que la matrice $K$ a toutes ses lignes nulles sauf la dernière. Donc sa trace se réduit au seul terme diagonal sur la cette dernière ligne. On aurait pu penser que ce résultat serait un ingrédient essentiel de toute preuve de la formule de la trace. Dans la démonstration suivante nous procédons autrement, en n’utilisant que $KK.$*]{}
Pour calculer la trace de $K$, il suffit donc de calculer la trace de $\Omega_x,$ de la dériver par rapport à $y$, puis de retrancher ce que l’on obtient en échangeant les rôles de $x$ et $y$.
La trace de $\Omega_x$ est la somme des $\Omega^{r,i}_{x, r,i}.$
Dans la suite de cette section on calcule $\Omega^{r,i}_{x, r,i}$ pour $r$ et $i $ fixés. Pour cela on rappelle que $e^r_i$ est le $(d-2)d$-vecteur $$(\omega^1_1,\omega^1_2,\beta_3^1,...,\beta_d^1;\omega^2_1,\omega_2^2,\omega^2_3,\beta_4^2,...,\beta_d^2;...;\omega^{d-2}_1,...,\omega^{d-2}_{d-1},\beta_d^{d-2})$$ du noyau de $MM$ dont les coordonnées $\beta^s_j$ sont toutes nulles sauf $\beta^r_{i}$ qui est 1. La forme “triangulaire inférieure par blocs” de $MM$ implique que les $\omega^s_i$ sont tous nuls pour $s<r.$ C’est dire que $e^r_i$ a la forme $$(0,...,0;...;0,...,0;\omega^r_1,...,\omega^r_{r+1},0,...,0,1,0,...,0;\omega^{r+1}_1,...,\omega^{r+1}_{r+2},0,...,0;\omega^{r+2}_1...),$$ où le 1 est à la $i$-ème place entre les deux points virgules qui l’encadrent.
On va distinguer deux cas :
[**Le cas $r<d-2$.**]{} Etudions $-\Delta_x(e_i^r)$ ; c’est, avec les notations de la section précédente, $- DD_x.\Delta(e^r_j)$. La structure des lignes par blocs $Id_d$ de la partie supérieure de $\Delta$ fait que l’on a $$-\Delta_x(e_i^r)=(\theta^1_1,...,\theta^1_d;....;\theta^ {d-2}_1,...,\theta^ {d-2}_d)$$ où les $\theta^s_i$ sont tous nuls pour $s<r-1$, $$(\theta^{r-1}_1,...,\theta^{r-1}_d)=(-f_{1x}\omega^r_1,...,-f_{(r-1)x}\omega^r_{r+1},0,...,0,-f_{ix},0,...,0)$$ (ces deux conditions n’ayant de sens que pour $r>1$) et $$(\theta^{r}_1,...,\theta^{r}_d)=(-f_{1x}\omega^{r+1}_1,...,-f_{(r+2)x}\omega^{r+1}_{r+2},0,...,0).$$ On en déduit $$\Omega^{r,i}_{x, r,i}=0$$ si $i>r+2$ et $$\Omega^{r,r+2}_{x, r,r+2}=-f_{(r+2)x}\omega^{r+1}_{r+2}.$$ Exprimons maintenant ce qu’est $\omega^{r+1}_{r+2}$
Revenant un peu en arrière (avec $i=r+2$) nous remarquons que le fait que $e_{r+2}^r$ soit dans le noyau de $MM$ et que ses composantes $\beta^s_j$ soient nulles pour $j>r+2$ et $s=r$ ou $s=r+1$ nous donne la relation $$M_{f_1,...,f_{r+2}}(\omega^r_1,...,\omega^r_{r+1},1;\omega^{r+1}_1,...,\omega^{r+1}_{r+2})=0.$$ D’après la définition de début de cette section cela veut dire que $\omega^{r+1}_{r+2}$ [**est l’élément de trace**]{} $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_{r+2})$. 0n en déduit finalement
$$\Omega^{r,r+2}_{x, r,r+2}=-f_{(r+2)x}\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_{r+2}).$$
[**Le cas $r=d-2$.**]{}
On a $e^{d-2}_d=(0;...;0;X)$ avec $X=(\omega^{d-2}_1,\cdots ,\omega^{d-2}_{d-1},1)$ et $P_{d-1}(X)=0 $ (notation de la section précédente). On a $$-\Delta_x (e^{d-2}_d)=(0;...;0;-D_x(X);-D_x.A_{2}(X).$$ Or, par définition, la dernière composante de $A_2(X)=-P^{-1}G_2(X)$ est l’élément de trace $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_{d})$. On en tire une formule analogue à celle des cas précédents
$$\Omega^{d-2,d}_{x, d-2,d}=-f_{dx}\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_{d}).$$
On a le résultat analogue lorsque l’on échange $x$ et $y$ et on en tire facilement la proposition suivante.
[**Proposition.**]{} [*La trace de la courbure du tissu*]{} $W(f_1,\dots , f_d)$ [est la 2-forme]{} $$-\sum^d_{r=3} df_{r}\wedge d\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_r).$$
Le cas des 3-tissus.
====================
On considère d’abord un 3-tissu $W(f,g,h)$ du plan. Trivialement sa courbure classique de Blaschke est aussi la trace de la courbure de la connexion associée. Suivant la procédure décrite dans la section précédente, on l’obtient en calculant d’abord l’élément de courbure $\gamma (f,g,h)$. Nous allons donner son expression précise dans le cas particulier où $h(x,y)=y$ et $f_x$ et $g_x$ ne s’annulent pas.
On adopte les notations $m_f=f_y/f_x$ et $m_g=g_y/g_x$. On prend $$X_1={1\over {(m_g-m_f)f_x}},\ \ X_2={1\over {(m_f-m_g)g_x}}$$ et on voit que $(X_1,X_2,1)$ engendre le noyau de $$P_{2;f,g,h}=\left | \matrix{f_{x} & g_{x} & 0 \cr f_{y} & g_{y} & 1 \cr}\right | .$$
Alors $\gamma (f,g,h)$ est la dernière composante du vecteur $$- P_{3;f,g,h}^{-1}G^{2}_{3;f,g,h}(X_1,X_2,1)$$
en prenant :
$$P_{3;f,g,h}=\left | \matrix{(f_{x})^2 & (g_{x})^2 & 0 \cr f_x f_{y} & g_x g_{y} & 0 \cr (f_{y})^2 & (g_{y})^2 & 1 \cr}\right | ,$$ $$G^{2}_{3;f,g,h}=\left | \matrix{f_{xx} & g_{xx} & 0 \cr f_{xy} & g_{xy} & 0 \cr f_{yy} & g_{yy} & 0 \cr }\right |.$$
Or le même argument que celui qui permet de calculer la matrice inverse d’une matrice de Vandermonde, montre que la dernière ligne de $ P_{3;f,g,h}^{-1}$ est $(m_fm_g,-(m_f+m_g),1)$ ; on en tire $$\gamma (f,g,h)=-(m_fm_g,-(m_f+m_g),1).G^{2}_{3;f,g,h}(X_1,X_2,1),$$ ce qui mène facilement à
$$\gamma (f,g,h)={1\over {m_f-m_g}}\{ m_fm_g(f_{xx}/f_x-g_{xx}/g_x)-$$$$(m_f+m_g)(f_{xy}/f_x-g_{xy}/g_x)+(f_{yy}/f_x-g_{yy}/g_x)\}.$$
On en tire une formule explicite pour la courburede Blaschke de notre tissu :$$-dy\wedge d\gamma (f,g,y).$$
La méthode de démonstration de la formule de la trace.
======================================================
Pour le tissu $W(f_1,\dots ,f_s)$ la somme des courbures des sous 3-tissus est $$SC(f_1,\dots ,f_s)=-\sum_{0<i<j<r\leq s}df_r\wedge d\gamma(f_i,f_j ,f_r).$$ On note $$Tr(f_1,\dots ,f_s)(=-\sum^s_{r=3}( df_{r}\wedge d\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_r))$$ la trace de la courbure de la connexion $\nabla$ associée comme plus haut. La formule de la trace dit que l’on a $$SC(f_1,\dots ,f_s)=Tr(f_1,\dots ,f_s)$$ pour tout $s$ plus grand que 3.
La formule est triviale pour $s=3.$ Nous la démontrons par récurrence sur $s$ ; pour cela nous la supposons montrée à l’ordre $d-1$ et nous allons la prouver à l’ordre $d.$ Comme $SC(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ et $Tr(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ sont des quantités qui ne dépendent pas des coordonnées on peut choisir ces coordonnées pour avoir $f_d =y$ et la non-nullité des $f_{ix}$ pour $i$ variant de 1 à $d-1.$
La formule à l’ordre $d-1$ nous donne $$\sum_{r=3}^{d-1} (df_{r}\wedge d(\sum_{0<i<j<r}\gamma(f_i,f_j ,f_r))=\sum^{d-1}_{r=3}( df_{r}\wedge d\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_r)).$$
Pour prouver la formule à l’ordre $d$ il suffit de prouver la relation $$\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_d)=\sum_{0<i<j<d}\gamma(f_i,f_j ,f_d).$$ C’est ce que nous allons faire dans la suite de ce travail en utilisant l’hypothèse simplificatrice $f_d=y.$
Les quantités $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ et $\sum_{0<i<j<d}\gamma(f_i,f_j ,f_d)$ ont des expressions linéaires dans les dérivées secondes $f_{sxx},$ $f_{sxy}$ et $f_{syy}$ avec des coefficients qui ne dépendent que des dérivées premières. On va voir que ces coefficients sont les mêmes dans les deux expressions.
La somme des courbures des sous 3-tissus.
=========================================
La section 4 montre que l’on a la formule $$\sum_{0<i<j<d}\gamma(f_i,f_j ,y)=\sum_{0<i<j<d}{1\over {m_i-m_j}}\{ m_im_j(f_{ixx}/f_{ix}-f_{jxx}/f_{jx})-$$$$(m_i+m_j)(f_{ixy}/f_{ix}-f_{jxy}/f_{jx})+(f_{iyy}/f_{ix}-f_{jyy}/f_{jx})\}$$ avec la notation $m_k=f_{ky}/f_{kx}.$ On en déduit un développement $$\sum_{0<i<j<d}\gamma(f_i,f_j ,y)=\sum_{s<d}A_sf_{sxx}+B_sf_{sxy}+C_sf_{sxx}$$ avec $$A_s={1\over f_{sx}}\sum_{j\neq s}{m_sm_j\over{m_s-m_j}}$$ $$B_s={-1\over f_{sx}}\sum_{j\neq s}{m_s+m_j\over{m_s-m_j}}$$ $$C_s={1\over f_{sx}}\sum_{j\neq s}{1\over{m_s-m_j}}.$$ Dans les sections suivantes nous allons montrer que $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ a le même développement.
Calcul du noyau de $P_{d-1}.$
=============================
Il nous faut calculer l’élément de trace $\gamma(f_1,\dots ,f_d)$ (avec $f_d=y$). Si l’on revient sur sa définition, donnée dans la section 3, il nous faut d’abord calculer le vecteur $(X_1,\dots ,X_{d-1},1)$ qui engendre le noyau de $P_{d-1}$.
En tenant compte du fait que $f_d=y,$ le sytème $P_{d-1} (X_1,\dots ,X_{d-1},1)=0$ se récrit sous la forme $$\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}f_{ix}^{d-1-j}f_{iy}^{j-1}X_i=0$$ $$\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}f_{iy}^{d-2}X_i=-1$$ où $j$ varie de 1 à $d-1.$ Si l’on pose $Y_i=f_{ix}^{d-2}X_i$ et $m_i=f_{iy}/f_{ix}$ les $d-1$ premières équations donnent un système matriciel $VM((Y_1,\dots ,Y_{d-1}))=(0,\dots,0,-1)$ où $VM$ est une matrice de Vandermonde dont le coefficient sur la $s$-ième ligne et la $r$-ième colonne est $m_r^{s-1}.$ On en tire que $(Y_1, \dots ,Y_{d-1})$ est l’opposé de la transposée de la dernière colonne de $VM^{-1}.$
On a alors $$Y_i={-1\over \prod_{j\neq i}(m_i-m_j)}$$ et donc $$X_i={-1\over{f_{ix}^{d-2} \prod_{j\neq i}(m_i-m_j)}}$$ pour $i$ variant de 1 à $d-1.$
Calcul de la matrice $G^2_d$.
=============================
Dans la section 2 nous avions noté $G^d(f_1),\dots ,G^d(f_{d}),$ ses colonnes (avec $f_d=y$).
On remarque d’abord que, pour une fonction arbitraire $f$, le $i$-ème coefficient de $G^d(f)$ est de la forme $$G^d_i(f)=a_i^df_x^{d-i-2}f_y^{i-1}f_{xx}+b_i^df_x^{d-i-1}f_y^{i-2}f_{xy}+c_i^df_x^{d-i}f_y^{i-3}f_{yy},$$ avec la convention d’écriture que les puissances négatives des $f_x$ ou $f_y$ sont nulles ; les $a_i^d,$ $b_i^d$ et $c_i^d$ sont des nombres que nous allons déterminer.
Pour des raisons de symétrie par rapport aux deux dérivations $\partial /\partial x$ et $\partial /\partial y$, on a les relations suivantes : $$a_i^d=c^d_{d-i+1},\ \ \ b_i^d=b^d_{d-i+1}.$$
Nous utilisons la relation de récurrence $$G^{d+}(f)=f_x.G^{d-1}(f)+{\partial f^{d-2}_i\over\partial x}$$ que nous avions donnée en section 2. Elle nous donne $$G^d_i(f)=f_xG^{d-1}_i(f)+(d-1-i)f_x^{d-i-2}f_y^{i-1}f_{xx}+(i-1)f_x^{d-i-1}f_y^{i-2}f_{xy}$$ pour $i<d.$
On en tire les relations de récurrence : $$a_i^d=a_i^{d-1}+d-1-i$$ $$b_i^d=b_i^{d-1}+i-1$$ $$c_i^d=c_i^{k-1}$$ pour $i<d.$
On a aussi les relations évidentes : $$a_1^3=1,\ \ b_1^3=c_1^3=0$$ $$a_2^3=0,\ \ b_2^3=1,\ \ c_1^3=0$$ $$a_1^3= b_1^3=0,\ \ c_1^3=1.$$
Utilisant ces relations, les relations de symétrie et de récurrence ci-dessus on obtient :
$$a_i^d={(d-1-i)(d-i)\over 2}$$ $$b_i^d=(i-1)(d-i)$$ $$c_i^d={(i-2)(i-1))\over 2}$$ pour $ i $ compris entre 1 et $d.$
La dernière ligne de $P_d^{-1}$.
================================
Pour calculer l’élément de trace $\gamma(f_1,\dots , f_{d-1},y)$ nous aurons besoin d’un autre ingrédient : la dernière ligne $\alpha =(\alpha_1,\dots , \alpha_d)$ de $P_d^{-1}$. Cette ligne est caractérisée par le fait que le produit de cette ligne avec chacune des $r-1$ premières colonnes de $P_d$ est nul et son produit avec la dernière colonne est 1. On a donc les équations $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1}\alpha_jf_{ix}^{d-j}f_{iy}^{j-1}=0$$ pour tout $i$ variant de 1 à $d-1$ et $$\alpha_d=1.$$ En divisant les deux membres des $d-1$ premières équations par $f_{ix}$ on peut les remplacer par $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1}\alpha_jm_i^{j-1}=0.$$ Comme lorsque l’on calcule l’inverse d’une matrice de Vandermonde, on introduit le polynôme $P(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{d-1}\alpha_j t^{j-1}$ et les relations précédentes montrent que ce polynôme admet les racines $m_1,\dots ,m_{ d-1}$ et 1 comme coefficient du terme de plus haut degré. On en déduit $$\alpha =((-1)^{d-1}S_{d-1},(-1)^{d-2}S_{d-2}, \dots ,-S_1,1),$$ où les $S_i$ sont les polynômes symétriques en $m_ 1,m_2,\dots ,m_{d-1}.$
Le calcul de l’élément de trace $\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_{r-1},y)$.
================================================================
Rappelons que, par définition, $\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_{r-1},y)$ est le dernier coefficient de $-P_k^{-1}G^2_d(X_1,\dots ,X_{d-1},1)$ où les $X_i$ sont ceux de la section 7 ; donc c’est le produit scalaire usuel des deux vecteurs $\alpha$ (voir section 9) et $G^2_d(X_1,\dots ,X_{d-1},1)$. On écrit ce résultat sous la forme $$\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_{r-1},y)=-\alpha . G^2_d(X_1,\dots ,X_{d-1},1).$$
On en déduit $$\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_{r-1},y)=-\sum_{s=1}^{d-1}X_s(\alpha .G^d(f_s))$$ en remarquant que $G^d(y)$ est nulle.
On rappelle la formule de la section 8 : $$G^d_i(f_s)=a_i^df_{sx}^{d-i-2}f_{sy}^{i-1}f_{sxx}+b_i^df_{sx}^{d-i-1}f_{sy}^{i-2}f_{sxy}+c_i^df_{sx}^{d-i}f_{sy}^{i-3}f_{syy}$$ pour la $i$-ème composante de $G^d(f_s).$ On rappelle que, pour cette formule, les puissances négatives de dérivées de fonctions sont nulles par convention. On a donc la formule $$\alpha .G^d(f_s)=a^sf_{sxx}+b^sf_{sxy}+c^sf_{syy},$$ avec $$a^s=\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_ia_i^df_{sx}^{d-i-2}f_{sy}^{i-1},$$ $$b^s=\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_ib_i^df_{sx}^{d-i-1}f_{sy}^{i-2},$$ $$c^s=\sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_ic_i^df_{sx}^{d-i}f_{sy}^{i-3}.$$
Plus précisément, on a donc $$a^s=\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(d-i-1)(d-i)}\over 2}S_{d-i}f_{sx}^{d-i-2}f_{sy}^{i-1},$$ $$b^s=\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}(i-1)(d-i)S_{d-i}f_{sx}^{d-i-1}f_{sy}^{i-2},$$ $$c^s=\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(i-1)(i-2)}\over 2}S_{d-i}f_{sx}^{d-i}f_{sy}^{i-3}$$ ou encore $$a^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(d-i-1)(d-i)}\over 2}S_{d-i}m_s^{i-1},$$ $$b^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}(i-1)(d-i)S_{d-i}m_s^{i-2},$$ $$c^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(i-1)(i-2)}\over 2}S_{d-i}m_s^{i-3}.$$
On a la formule $$S_{d-i} =m_sS^s_{d-i-1}+S^s_{d-i},$$ en notant $S^s_k$ le $k$-ième polynôme symétrique dans les variables $$m_1, \dots ,m_{s-1},m_{s+1},\dots ,m_{d-1}$$ avec, par convention, $S^s_j=0$ pour $j<0$ ou $j>d-2.$ C’est dire l’on oublie $m_s$ dans les $S^s_j.$ En portant cela dans équations précédentes on obtient $$a^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(d-i-1)(d-i)}\over 2}(S_{d-i}^sm_s^{i-1}+S^s_{d-i-1}m_s^i),$$ $$b^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}(i-1)(d-i)(S_{d-i}^sm_s^{i-2}+S^s_{d-i-1}m_s^{i-1}),$$ $$c^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}{{(i-1)(i-2)}\over 2}(S^s_{d-i}m_s^{i-3}+S^s_{d-i-1}m_s^{i-2}).$$ En réordonnant les termes en fonction des puissances de $m_s,$ on arrive à $$a^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}(d-i-1)S_{d-i-1}^sm_s^i,$$ $$b^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i}(d-2i-2)S_{d-i-2}^sm_s^i,$$ $$c^s=f_{sx}^{d-3}\sum_{i=1}^d (-1)^{d-i-1}(i+1)S^s_{d-i-3}m_s^{i}.$$
Fin de la preuve de la formule de la trace.
===========================================
On a la relation $$\gamma (f_1,\dots ,f_{d-1},y)=-\sum_{s=1}^{d-1}X_s(a^sf_{sxx}+b^sf_{sxy}+c^sf_{syy}).$$ Donc nous aurons montré la formule de la trace si l’on prouve les relations $$X_sa^s=-A_s,\ \ X_sb^s=-B_s,\ \ X_sc^s=-C_s,$$ les $A_s$, $B_s$ et $C_s$ étant ceux définis dans la section 6. Il revient au même de prouver les relations $$a^s=-A_s/X_s,\ \ b^s=-B_s/X_s,\ \ c^s=-C_s/X_s.$$ Pour simplifier les notations on ne démontrera ces relations que dans le cas $s=d-1$ car exactement la même méthode fonctionne dans les autres cas. Toujours pour simplifier, nous écrirons $m$ à la place de $m_{d-1}.$ On a $$-A_{d-1}/X_{d-1}={1\over{ f_{(d-1)x}^{d-3}}}(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(m-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{mm_j}\over{m-m_j}}.$$ On a la relation $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(m-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{mm_j}\over{m-m_j}}=$$$$\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}(m-m_1)\cdots (m-m_{j-1})mm_j(m-m_{j+1})\cdots (m-m_{d-2})$$ Pour calculer cette quantité on introduit la fonction $$P(t)=\prod_{j=1}^{d-2}(t-m_j)$$ et il est facile de voir que l’on la relation $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{tm_j}\over{t-m_j}}=t(tP'(t)-(d-2)P(t)).$$ Mais $P(t)$ est aussi le polynôme $$P(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}(-1)^{d-2-j}S^{d-1}_{d-2-j}t^j,$$ où $S^{d-1}_r$ est le polynôme symétrique de degré $r$ dans les variables $m_1,$ ...,$m_{d-2}.$ Cela mène à $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{tm_j}\over{t-m_j}}=\sum_{i=1}^{d-2}(-1)^{d-i}(d-i-1)S_{d-i-1}^{d-1}t^i,$$ et, en posant $t=m$ et rajoutant le facteur ${1\over{ f_{(d-1)x}^{d-3}}},$ on obtient $$a^{d-1}=-A_{d-1}/X_{d-1},$$ et, par la même méthode, à $$a^{s}=-A_{s}/X_{s},$$ pour tout $s.$
Par ailleurs, on a $$-B_{d-1}/X_{d-1}={1\over{ f_{(d-1)x}^{d-3}}}(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(m-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{m+m_j}\over{m-m_j}}.$$ Comme pour le calcul précédent on obtient facilement $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{t+m_j}\over{t-m_j}}=2tP'(t)-(d-2)P(t)$$ qui, en revenant l’expression polynomiale de $P(t),$ mène à $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{{t+m_j}\over{t-m_j}}=\sum_{i=1}^{d-2}(-1)^{d-i-1}(d-2i+2)S_{d-i-2}^{d-1}t^i,$$ d’où il découle $$b^{d-1}=-B_{d-1}/X_{d-1}$$ et de la même manière $$b^{s}=-B_{s}/X_{s}$$ pour tout $s.$
Enfin, on a
$$-C_{d-1}/X_{d-1}={1\over{ f_{(d-1)x}^{d-3}}}(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(m-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{1\over{m-m_j}}.$$ Comme $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{1\over{t-m_j}}=P'(t),$$ on a $$(\prod_{r=1}^{d-2}(t-m_r))\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}{1\over{t-m_j}}=\sum_{j=1}^{d-2}(-1)^{d-2-j}jS^{d-1}_{d-2-j}t^{j-1},$$ et $$c^{d-1}=-C_{d-1}/X_{d-1}$$ puis, par la même méthode, $$c^{s}=-C_{s}/X_{s},$$ pour tout $s.$
Ceci achève notre démonstration de la formule de la trace pour les tissus planaires.
Exemple d’application de la formule de la trace.
================================================
Alain Hénaut a proposé la conjecture suivante. [*Soit $W$ un $d$-tissu du plan donné de manière implicite par le polynôme $$F=(y')^{d}+f(x,y)\ ;$$ alors la courbure de la connexion associée est nulle si et seulement si $f(x,y)$ est décomposable, c’est à dire de la forme $X(x)Y(y).$*]{}
Remarquons que dans l’ouvert où $F$ est non nul, les $d$ racines de $F$ sont toutes de la forme $m_i=R(x,y)\lambda_i$ où les $\lambda_i$ sont des constantes deux à deux différentes et la fonction $R(x,y)$ est indépendante de l’indice $i.$ De plus $f(x,y)$ est décomposable si et seulement si $R(x,y)$ l’est.
Alors la conjecture d’Hénaut est un corollaire du lemme suivant.
[**Lemme.**]{} [*Soit $W$ un $d$-tissu plan donné par ses pentes $m_i$ pour $i$ variant de 1 à $d$. On suppose que l’on a $$m_i=R(x,y)\lambda_i$$ où les $\lambda_i$ sont des constantes deux à deux différentes et la fonction $R(x,y)$ est indépendante de l’indice $i$ et non nulle. Alors la courbure de la connexion associée est nulle si et seulement si $R(x,y)$ est décomposable.*]{}
Nous allons donner une preuve de ce lemme en montrant d’abord le sens direct : si $R(x,y)$ est de la forme $X(x)Y(y)$ alors la courbure est nulle puis la réciproque.
[**1- On suppose**]{} $R(x,y)=A(x)B(y).$
Les feuilles des $d$ feuilletages sont les trajectoires des $d$ champs de vecteurs $$X_i={\partial\over\partial x}+A(x)B(y)\lambda_i{\partial\over\partial y}.$$ Ce sont aussi les trajectoires de $$Y_i=1/A(x){\partial\over\partial x}+\lambda_iB(y){\partial\over\partial y}.$$ Or des changements de la coordonnée $x,$ d’une part, et $y,$ d’autre part, permettent de rectifier les champs de vecteurs $1/A(x){\partial\over\partial x}$ et $B(y){\partial\over\partial y}.$ Ces changements nous ramènent au cas où tous les $Y_i$ sont à coefficients constants, donc au cas où les $d$ feuilletages sont tous formés de segments parallèles. Or on sait que ces tissus sont à courbure nulle.
[**2- La réciproque.**]{} On suppose que $W$ est de courbure nulle. Alors la trace de cette courbure est encore nulle, donc, par la [**formule de la trace**]{}, la somme des courbure des sous 3-tissus de $W$ est nulle. Etudions le sous 3-tissu de $W$ donné par les pentes $m_i,$ $m_j$ et $m_k.$ Un calcul élémentaire (qui peut être fait par Maple) montre que sa coubure est $${\partial^2\over {\partial x\partial y}}ln(R(x,y)).$$ Ainsi on voit que la somme des courbures des sous 3-tissus est nulle si et seulement si ${\partial^2\over {\partial x\partial y}}ln(R(x,y))=0,$ ou, ce qui est équivalent, que la fonction $R(x,y)$ est décomposable. Ceci achève la démonstration.
[dango 9999]{}
W. Blaschke, [*Uber die Tangenten einer ebenen Kurve funfter Klasse.* ]{} Abh. Math. Semin. Hamb. Univ. 9 (1933) 313-317.
V. Cavalier, D. Lehmann, [*Ordinary holomorphic webs of codimension one.* ]{} arXiv 0703596v2 \[mathsDS\], 2007, et Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, cl. Sci (5), vol XI (2012), 197-214. . J. P. Dufour, D. Lehmann, [*Calcul explicite de la courbure des tissus calibrés ordinaires* ]{} arXiv 1408.3909v1 \[mathsDG\],18/08/2014.
A. Hénaut, [*Planar web geometry through abelian relations and connections*]{} Annals of Math. 159 (2004) 425-445.
N. Mihaileanu. [*Sur les tissus plans de première espèce.*]{} Bull. Math. Soc. Roum.Sci. 43 (1941), 23-26.
L. Pirio, [*Equations Fonctionnelies Abéliennes et Géométrie des tissus*]{} Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Paris VI, 2004.
A. Pantazi. [*Sur la détermination du rang d’un tissu plan.*]{} C.R. Acad. Sc. Roumanie 4 (1940), 108-111.
J.V. Pereira, L. Pirio,[*An Invitation to Web Geometry*]{} Series IMPA Monographs Vol.2, Springer (2015).
J.V. Pereira, [*Algebraization of codimension one webs*]{} Séminaire Bourbaki, 59ème année, 2006-2007, $n^0$974 (mars 2007).
O. Ripoll, [*Géométrie des tissus du plan et équations différentielles*]{} Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Bordeaux 1, 2005.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper describes a new information-theoretic policy evaluation technique for reinforcement learning. This technique converts any compression or density model into a corresponding estimate of value. Under appropriate stationarity and ergodicity conditions, we show that the use of a sufficiently powerful model gives rise to a consistent value function estimator. We also study the behavior of this technique when applied to various Atari 2600 video games, where the use of suboptimal modeling techniques is unavoidable. We consider three fundamentally different models, all too limited to perfectly model the dynamics of the system. Remarkably, we find that our technique provides sufficiently accurate value estimates for effective on-policy control. We conclude with a suggestive study highlighting the potential of our technique to scale to large problems.'
author:
- |
Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Marcus Hutter, Alvin Chua, Guillaume Desjardins\
Google DeepMind, Australian National University\
`{veness,bellemare,alschua,gdesjardins}@google.com`\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'compression\_to\_control.bib'
title: Compress and Control
---
\#1\#2
Introduction
============
Within recent years, a number of information-theoretic approaches have emerged as practical alternatives to traditional machine learning algorithms. Noteworthy examples include the compression-based approaches of @Frank00textcategorization and @Bratko06spamfiltering to classification, and @Cilibrasi05clusteringby to clustering. What differentiates these techniques from more traditional machine learning approaches is that they rely on the ability to compress the raw input, rather than combining or learning features relevant to the task at hand. Thus this family of techniques has proven most successful in situations where the nature of the data makes it somewhat unwieldy to specify or learn appropriate features. This class of methods can be formally justified by appealing to various notions within algorithmic information theory, such as Kolmogorov complexity [@li-vitanyi]. In this paper we show how a similarly inspired approach can be applied to reinforcement learning, or more specifically, to the tasks of policy evaluation and on-policy control.
Policy evaluation refers to the task of estimating the value function associated with a given policy, for an arbitrary given environment. The performance of well-known reinforcement learning techniques such as policy iteration [@howard1960dynamic], approximate dynamic programming [@bertsekas1996; @Powell] and actor-critic methods [@Sutton:1998], for example, all crucially depend on how well policy evaluation can be performed. In this paper we introduce a model-based approach to policy evaluation, which transforms the task of estimating a value function to that of learning a particular kind of probabilistic state model.
To better put our work into context, it is worth making the distinction between two fundamentally different classes of model based reinforcement learning methods. *Simulation based* techniques involve learning some kind of forward model of the environment from which future samples can be generated. Given access to such models, planning can be performed directly using search. Noteworthy recent examples include the work of @doshi09, @walsh10, @veness10, @veness10b, @AsmuthL11, @guez12, @HamiltonFP13 and @covertreerl. Although the aforementioned works demonstrate quite impressive performance on small domains possessing complicated dynamics, scaling these methods to large state or observation spaces has proven challenging. The main difficulty that arises when using learnt forward models is that the modeling errors tend to compound when reasoning over long time horizons [@talvitie14].
In contrast, another family of techniques, referred to in the literature as *planning as inference*, attempt to side-step the issue of needing to perform accurate simulations by reducing the planning task to one of probabilistic inference within a generative model of the system. These ideas have been recently explored in both the neuroscience [@botvinick12; @botvinick12b] and machine learning [@Attias03planningby; @Poupart:2011:ELO:2034396.2034517] literature. The experimental results to date have been somewhat inconclusive, making it far from clear whether the transformed problem is any easier to solve in practice. Our main contribution in this paper is to show how to set up a particularly tractable form of inference problem by generalizing compression-based classification to reinforcement learning. The key novelty is to focus the modeling effort on learning the stationary distribution of a particular kind of augmented Markov chain describing the system, from which we can approximate a type of *dual representation* [@07adprl-dualrl; @wang08] of the value function. Using this technique, we were able to produce effective controllers on a problem domain orders of magnitude larger than what has previously been addressed with simulation based methods.
Background
==========
We start with a brief overview of the parts of reinforcement learning and information theory needed to describe our work, before reviewing compression-based classification.
Markov Decision Processes {#sec:background_mdps}
-------------------------
A Markov Decision Process (MDP) is a type of probabilistic model widely used within reinforcement learning [@Sutton:1998; @szepesvari10] and control [@bertsekas1996]. In this work, we limit our attention to finite horizon, time homogenous MDPs whose action and state spaces are finite. Formally, an MDP is a triplet $({\mathcal{S}}, {{\cal A}}, {\mu})$, where ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a finite, non-empty set of states, ${{\cal A}}$ is a finite, non-empty set of actions and ${\mu}$ is the transition probability kernel that assigns to each state-action pair $(s,a) \in {\mathcal{S}}\times {{\cal A}}$ a probability measure ${\mu}(\cdot {\,|\,}s,a)$ over ${\mathcal{S}}\times \mathbb{R}$. ${\mathcal{S}}$ and ${{\cal A}}$ are known as the *state space* and *action space* respectively. The transition probability kernel gives rise to the *state transition kernel* ${{\cal P}}(s' | s,a) := {\mu}(\{ s' \} \times \mathbb{R} {\,|\,}s,a)$, which gives the probability of transitioning from state $s$ to state $s'$ if action $a$ is taken in $s$.
An agent’s behavior is determined by a *policy*, that defines, for each state $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$ and time $t \in \mathbb{N}$, a probability measure over ${{\cal A}}$ denoted by $\pi_t(\cdot {\,|\,}s)$. A *stationary policy* is a policy which is independent of time, which we will denote by $\pi(\cdot {\,|\,}s)$ where appropriate. At each time $t$, the agent communicates an action $A_{t} \sim \pi_t(\cdot {\,|\,}S_{t-1})$ to the system in state $S_{t-1} \in {\mathcal{S}}$. The system then responds with a state-reward pair $(S_{t},R_{t}) \sim {\mu}(\cdot {\,|\,}S_{t-1}, A_{t})$. Here we will assume that each reward is bounded between $[r_{\min},r_{\max}] \subset \mathbb{R}$ and that the system starts in a state $s_0$ and executes for an infinite number of steps. Thus the execution of the system can be described by a sequence of random variables $A_1, S_{1}, R_{1}, A_2, S_2, R_2, ..$.
The finite $m$-horizon *return* from time $t$ is defined as $Z_{t} := \sum_{i=t}^{t+m-1} R_i$. The expected $m$-horizon return from time $t$, also known as the *value function*, is denoted by $V^{\pi}(s_t) := \mathbb{E}[Z_{t+1} {\,|\,}S_t =s_t]$. The return space ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is the set of all possible returns. The *action-value function* is defined by $Q^{\pi}(s_t, a_{t+1}) := \mathbb{E}[Z_{t+1} {\,|\,}S_t =s_t, A_{t+1}=a_{t+1}]$. An *optimal policy*, denoted by $\pi^*$, is a policy that maximizes the expected return $\mathbb{E}\left[ Z_{t+1} {\,|\,}S_t \right]$ for all $t$; in our setting, a state-dependent deterministic optimal policy always exists.
Compression and Sequential Prediction {#sec:compression_prediction}
--------------------------------------
We now review sequential probabilistic prediction in the context of statistical data compression. An alphabet ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a set of symbols. A string of data $x_1x_2 \ldots x_n \in {\mathcal{X}}^n$ of length $n$ is denoted by $x_{1:n}$. The prefix $x_{1:j}$ of $x_{1:n}$, $j\leq n$, is denoted by $x_{\leq j}$ or $x_{< j+1}$. The empty string is denoted by $\epsilon$. The concatenation of two strings $s$ and $r$ is denoted by $sr$.
A coding distribution $\rho$ is a sequence of probability mass functions $\rho_n : {\mathcal{X}}^n \to [0,1]$, which for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ satisfy the constraint that $\rho_n(x_{1:n}) = \sum_{y\in{\mathcal{X}}} \rho_{n+1}(x_{1:n}y)$ for all $x_{1:n} \in {\mathcal{X}}^n$, with the base case $\rho_0(\epsilon) := 1$. From here onwards, whenever the meaning is clear from the argument to $\rho$, the subscript on $\rho$ will be dropped. Under this definition, the conditional probability of a symbol $x_n$ given previous data $x_{<n}$ is defined as $\rho(x_n | x_{<n}) := \rho(x_{1:n}) / \rho(x_{<n})$ provided $\rho(x_{<n}) > 0$, with the familiar chain rules $\rho(x_{1:n}) = \prod_{i=1}^n \rho(x_i | x_{<i})$ and $\rho(x_{j:k} {\,|\,}x_{<j}) = \prod_{i=j}^k \rho(x_i | x_{<i})$ now following.
A binary source code $c : {\mathcal{X}}^* \to \{ 0, 1 \}^*$ assigns to each possible data sequence $x_{1:n}$ a binary codeword $c(x_{1:n})$ of length $\ell_c(x_{1:n})$. The typical goal when constructing a source code is to minimize the lengths of each codeword while ensuring that the original data sequence $x_{1:n}$ is always recoverable from $c(x_{1:n})$. A fundamental technique known as *arithmetic encoding* [@Witten87] makes explicit the connection between coding distributions and source codes. Given a coding distribution $\rho$ and a data sequence $x_{1:n}$, arithmetic encoding constructs a code $a_{\rho}$ which produces a binary codeword whose length is essentially $-\log_2 \rho(x_{1:n})$. We refer the reader to the standard text of @coverthomas for further information.
Compression-based classification {#sec:compr_class}
--------------------------------
Compression-based classification was introduced by @Frank00textcategorization. Given a sequence of $n$ labeled i.i.d. training examples ${\mathcal{D}}:= (y_1, c_1), \dots, (y_n, c_n)$, where $y_i$ and $c_i$ are the input and class labels respectively, one can apply Bayes rule to express the probability of a new example $Y$ being classified as class $C \in {{\cal C}}$ given the training examples ${\mathcal{D}}$ by $$\mathbb{P}\left[~C ~|~ Y, {\mathcal{D}}~ \right] = \frac{\mathbb{P}\left[~Y ~|~ C, {\mathcal{D}}~\right] ~ \mathbb{P}\left[~ C ~|~ {\mathcal{D}}~\right]}
{ \sum\limits_{c \in {{\cal C}}} \mathbb{P}\left[~Y ~|~ c, {\mathcal{D}}~\right] ~ \mathbb{P}\left[~ c ~|~ {\mathcal{D}}~\right]}.$$ The main idea behind compression-based classification is to model $\mathbb{P}\left[~Y ~|~ C, {\mathcal{D}}~\right]$ using a coding distribution for the inputs that is trained on the subset of examples from ${\mathcal{D}}$ that match class $C$. Well known non-probabilistic compression methods such as [[Lempel-Ziv]{}]{} [@ziv78] can be used by forming their associated coding distribution $2^{-{\ell_z(x_{1:n})}}$, where $\ell_z(x_{1:n})$ is the length of the compressed data $x_{1:n}$ in bits under compression method $z$. The class probability $\mathbb{P}\left[~ C ~|~ {\mathcal{D}}\right]$ can be straightforwardly estimated from its empirical frequency or smoothed versions thereof. Thus the overall accuracy of the classifier essentially depends upon how well the inputs can be modeled by the class conditional coding distribution.
Compression-based classification has both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it is straightforward to apply generic compression techniques (including those operating at the bit or character level) to complicated input types such as richly formatted text or DNA strings [@Frank00textcategorization; @Bratko06spamfiltering]. On the other hand, learning a probabilistic model of the input may be significantly more difficult than directly applying standard discriminative classification techniques. Our approach to policy evaluation, which we now describe, raises similar questions.
Compression and Control
=======================
We now introduce *Compress and Control* ([cnc]{}), our new method for policy evaluation.
Overview
--------
Policy evaluation is concerned with the estimation of the state-action value function $Q^{\pi}(s,a)$. Here we assume that the environment is a finite, time homogenous MDP ${\mathcal{M}}\nobreak:=\nobreak({\mathcal{S}}, {{\cal A}}, \mu)$, and that the policy to be evaluated is a stationary Markov policy $\pi$. To simplify the exposition, we consider the finite $m$-horizon case, and assume that all rewards are drawn from a finite set ${{\cal R}}\subset \mathbb{R}$; later we will discuss how to remove these restrictions.
At a high level, [[cnc]{}]{} performs policy evaluation by learning a *time-independent* state-action conditional distribution ${\mathbb{P}}(Z {\,|\,}S, A)$; the main technical component of our work involves establishing that this time-independent conditional probability is well defined. Our technique involves constructing a particular kind of *augmented* Markov chain whose stationary distribution allows for the recovery of ${\mathbb{P}}(Z {\,|\,}S, A)$. Given this distribution, we can obtain $$Q^{\pi}(s,a) = \sum\limits_{z \in {\mathcal{Z}}} z ~ {\mathbb{P}}(Z = z {\,|\,}S=s, A=a).$$ In the spirit of compression-based classification, [[cnc]{}]{} estimates this distribution by using Bayes rule to combine learnt density models of both ${\mathbb{P}}(S {\,|\,}Z, A)$ and ${\mathbb{P}}(Z {\,|\,}A)$. Although it might seem initially strange to learn a model that conditions on the future return, the next section shows how this counterintuitive idea can be made rigorous.
Transformation {#subsec:transmogrification}
--------------
Our goal is to define a transformed chain whose stationary distribution can be marginalized to obtain a distribution over states, actions and the $m$-horizon return. We need two lemmas for this purpose. To make these statements precise, we will use some standard terminology from the Markov chain literature; for more detail, we recommend the textbook of @bremaud99.
A Homogenous Markov Chain (HMC) given by $\{X_t\}_{t \geq 0}$ over state space ${\mathcal{X}}$ is said to be: (AP) aperiodic iff **$\{n\geq 1: {\mathbb{P}}[X_n=x|X_0=x]>0\}=1, \forall x\in{\mathcal{X}}$; (PR) positive recurrent iff ${\mathbb{E}}[\min\{n\geq 1:X_n=x\}|X_0=x]<\infty, \forall x\in{\mathcal{X}}$; (IR) irreducible iff $\forall x,x'\,\exists n\geq 1: {\mathbb{P}}[X_n=x'|X_0=x]>0$; (EA) essentially aperiodic iff **$\{n\geq 1:{\mathbb{P}}[X_n=x|X_0=x]>0\}\in\{1,\infty\}, \forall x\in{\mathcal{X}}$. Note also that EA+IR implies AP.
Although the term *ergodic* is sometimes used to describe particular combinations of these properties (e.g. AP+PR+IR), here we avoid it in favor of being more explicit.
\[lem:ext\] Consider a stochastic process $\{ X_t \}_{t\geq1}$ over state space ${\mathcal{X}}$ that is independent of a sequence of ${\mathcal{U}}$-valued random variables $\{U_t\}_{t\geq1}$ in the sense that ${\mathbb{P}}(x_t | x_{<t}, u_{<t})={\mathbb{P}}(x_t|x_{<t})$, and with $U_t$ only depending on $X_{t-1}$ and $X_t$ in the sense that ${\mathbb{P}}(u_t|x_{1:t}, u_{<t})={\mathbb{P}}(u_t|x_{t-1},x_t)$ and ${\mathbb{P}}(U_t=u|X_{t-1}=x,X_t=x')$ being independent of $t$. Then, if $\{X_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ is an (IR/EA/PR) HMC over ${\mathcal{X}}$, then $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq1}:= \{ (X_t,U_t) \}_{t\geq1}$ is an (IR/EA/PR) HMC over ${\mathcal{Y}}:=\{y_t \in {\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{U}}: \exists x_{t-1}\in{\mathcal{X}}: {\mathbb{P}}(y_t|x_{t-1})>0\}$.
Lemma \[lem:ext\] allows HMC $\{X_t := (A_t, S_t) \}_{t \geq 1}$ to be augmented to obtain the HMC $\{Y_t:=(X_t, R_t)\}_{t\geq 1}$, where $A_t$, $S_t$ and $R_t$ denote the action, state and reward at time $t$ respectively; see Figure \[fig:lem1\] for a graphical depiction of the dependence structure.
=2.5ex
(12,8) (2,5)(2,5)[(0,0)\[cc\][$X_{t-1}$]{}]{} (6,5)(6,5)[(0,0)\[cc\][$X_t$]{}]{} (10,5)(10,5)[(0,0)\[cc\][$X_{t+1}$]{}]{} (2,1)(2,1)[(0,0)\[cc\][$R_{t-1}$]{}]{} (6,1)(6,1)[(0,0)\[cc\][$R_t$]{}]{} (10,1)(10,1)[(0,0)\[cc\][$R_{t+1}$]{}]{} (0,5)[(1,0)[1]{}]{}(3,5)[(1,0)[2]{}]{}(7,5)[(1,0)[2]{}]{}(11,5)[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (2,4)[(0,-1)[2]{}]{}(6,4)[(0,-1)[2]{}]{}(10,4)[(0,-1)[2]{}]{} (0,3)[(1,-1)[1.3]{}]{}(2.7,4.3)[(1,-1)[2.6]{}]{}(6.7,4.3)[(1,-1)[2.6]{}]{}(10.7,4.3)[(1,-1)[1.3]{}]{} (2,3)[(3,7)]{}(2,6.7)[(0,0)\[cb\][$Y_{t-1}$]{}]{} (6,3)[(3,7)]{}(6,6.7)[(0,0)\[cb\][$Y_{t}$]{}]{} (10,3)[(3,7)]{}(10,6.7)[(0,0)\[cb\][$Y_{t+1}$]{}]{}
The second result allows the HMC $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq 1}$ to be further augmented to give the snake HMC $\{Y_{t:t+m}\}_{t\geq 1}$ [@bremaud99]. This construction ensures that there is sufficient information within each augmented state to be able to condition on the $m$-horizon return.
\[lem:snake\] If $\{Y_t\}_{t \geq 1}$ is an (IR/EA/PR) HMC over state space ${\mathcal{Y}}$, then for any $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the stochastic process $\{ W_t \}_{t \geq 1}$, where $W_t:=(Y_t,...,Y_{t+m})$, is an (IR/EA/PR) HMC over ${\mathcal{W}}:=\{y_{0:m}\in{\mathcal{Y}}^{m+1} : \mathbb{P}(y_{1:m}|y_0)>0\}$.
Now if we assume that the HMC defined by ${\mathcal{M}}$ and $\pi$ is (IR+EA+PR), Lemmas \[lem:ext\] and \[lem:snake\] imply that there exists a unique stationary distribution $\nu'$ over the augmented state space $({{\cal A}}\times {\mathcal{S}}\times {{\cal R}})^{m+1}$.
Furthermore, if we let $( A'_0,S'_0,R'_0, \dots, A'_m,S'_m,R'_m ) \sim \nu'$ and define $Z' := \sum_{i=1}^m R'_i$, it is clear that there exists a joint distribution $\nu$ over ${\mathcal{Z}}\times ({{\cal A}}\times {\mathcal{S}}\times {{\cal R}})^{m+1}$ such that $(Z', A'_0,S'_0,R'_0, \dots, A'_m,S'_m,R'_m) \sim \nu$. Hence the $\nu$-probability ${\mathbb{P}}\left[ Z' ~|~ S'_0, A'_1 \right]$ is well defined, which allows us to express the action-value function $Q^\pi$ as $$\label{eq:dual}
Q^\pi(s,a) = \mathbb{E}_\nu\left[ Z' ~|~ S'_0=s, A'_1=a \right].$$
Finally, by expanding the expectation and applying Bayes rule, Equation \[eq:dual\] can be further re-written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bayes_sloppy}
Q^{\pi}(s,a) &=& \sum_{z \in {\mathcal{Z}}} z ~ \nu(z ~|~ s, a) \notag \\
&=& \sum_{z \in {\mathcal{Z}}} z ~ \frac{\nu(s ~|~ z, a) ~\nu(z ~|~ a)}{\sum\limits_{z' \in {\mathcal{Z}}} \nu(s ~|~ z', a) ~\nu(z' ~|~ a)}.\end{aligned}$$
The [cnc]{} approach to policy evaluation involves directly learning the conditional distributions $\nu(s ~|~ z, a)$ and $\nu(z ~|~ a)$ in Equation \[eq:bayes\_sloppy\] from data, and then using these learnt distributions to form a plug-in estimate of $Q^\pi(s,a)$. Notice that $\nu(s | z, a)$ conditions on the return, similar in spirit to prior work on planning as inference [@Attias03planningby; @botvinick12; @botvinick12b]. The distinguishing property of [cnc]{} is that the conditioning is performed with respect to a stationary distribution that has been explicitly constructed to allow for efficient modeling and inference.
Online Policy Evaluation
------------------------
We now provide an online algorithm for compression-based policy evaluation. This will produce, for all times $t \in \mathbb{N}$, an estimate $\hat{Q}^{\pi}_t(s, a)$ of the $m$-horizon expected return $Q^\pi(s,a)$ as a function of the first $t-m$ action-observation-reward triples.
Constructing our estimate involves modeling the $\nu$-probability terms in Equation \[eq:bayes\_sloppy\] using two different coding distributions, $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$ respectively; $\rhos$ will encode states conditional on return-action pairs, and $\rhoz$ will encode returns conditional on actions. Sample states, actions and returns can be generated by directly executing the system $({\mathcal{M}},\pi)$; Provided the HMC ${\mathcal{M}}+\pi$ is (IR+EA+PR), Lemmas \[lem:ext\] and \[lem:snake\] ensure that the empirical distributions formed from a sufficiently large sample of action/state/return triples will be arbitrarily close to the required conditional $\nu$-probabilities.
Next we describe how the coding distributions are trained. Given a history $h_t := s_0, a_1, s_1, r_1 \dots, a_{n+m}, s_{n+m}, r_{n+m}$ with $t=n+m$, we define the $m$-lagged return at any time $i \leq n+1$ by $z_i := r_i + \dots + r_{i+m-1}$. The sequence of the first $n$ states occurring in $h_{t}$ can be mapped to a subsequence denoted by $s^{z,a}_{0:n-1}$ that is defined by keeping only the states $( s_i : z_{i+1} = z \wedge a_{i+1} = a )^{n-1}_{i=0}$. Similarly, a sequence of $m$-lagged returns $z_{1:n}$ can be mapped to a subsequence $z^{a}_{1:n}$ formed by keeping only the returns $( z_i : a_{i} = a )^n_{i=1}$ from $z_{1:n}$. Our value estimate at time $t$ of taking action $a$ in state $s$ can now be defined as $$\label{eq:cnc_value_estimate}
\hat{Q}^{\pi}_t(s, a) := \sum_{z \in {\mathcal{Z}}} z \, w^{z,a}_t(s),$$ where $$\label{eq:cnc_bayes}
w_t^{z,a}(s) := \frac{\rhos(~s {\,|\,}s_{0:n-1}^{z, a} ~) \, \rhoz(z {\,|\,}z^{a}_{1:n}) }{\sum\limits_{z' \in {\mathcal{Z}}} \rhos(s {\,|\,}s_{0:n-1}^{z', a}) \, \rhoz(z' {\,|\,}z^{a}_{1:n}) }$$ approximates the probability of receiving a return of $z$ if action $a$ is selected in state $s$.
#### Implementation.
Stationary policy $\pi$, environment ${\mathcal{M}}$ Finite planning horizon $m \in \mathbb{N}$ Coding distributions $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$ Perform $a_i \sim \pi(\cdot ~|~ s_{i-1})$ Observe $(s_i, r_i) \sim \mu(\cdot ~|~ s_{i-1}, a_i)$ $\rhos$ $(z_{i-m+1}, a_{i-m+1})$ $s_{i-m}$ $\rhoz$ $a_{i-m+1}$ $z_{i-m+1}$ **[return]{} $\hat{Q}_{t}^\pi$**
The action-value function estimate $\hat{Q}_t^\pi$ can be computed efficiently by maintaining $|{\mathcal{Z}}||{{\cal A}}|$ *buckets*, each corresponding to a particular return-action pair $(z,a)$. Each bucket contains an instance of the coding distribution $\rhos$ encoding the state sequence $s^{z,a}_{0:n-1}$. Similarly, $|{{\cal A}}|$ buckets containing instances of $\rhoz$ are created to encode the various return subsequences. This procedure is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:cnc\].
To obtain a particular state-action value estimate, Equations \[eq:cnc\_value\_estimate\] and \[eq:cnc\_bayes\] can be computed directly by querying the appropriate bucketed coding distributions. Assuming that the time required to compute each conditional probability using $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$ is constant, the time complexity for computing $\hat{Q}_t(s,a)$ is $O(|{\mathcal{Z}}|)$.
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
--------
We now show that the state-action estimates defined by Equation \[eq:cnc\_value\_estimate\] are consistent provided that consistent density estimators are used for both $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$. Also, we will say $f_n$ converges stochastically to 0 with rate $n^{-1/2}$ if and only if $$\label{Opdef}
\exists c\!>\!0,~\forall\delta\!\in\![0,1] : {\mathbb{P}}\Big(|f_n(\omega)|\leq\sqrt{\tfrac{c}{n}\ln\fr2\delta}~\Big) \geq 1-\delta,$$ and will denote this by writing $f_n(\omega) \in O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1/2})$. Further detail regarding the results in this section can be found in the appendix.
\[thm:convergence\] Given an $m$-horizon, finite state space, finite action space, time homogenous MDP ${\mathcal{M}}:= ({\mathcal{S}}, {{\cal A}}, \mu)$ and a stationary policy $\pi$ that gives rise to an (IR+EA+PR) HMC, for all $\epsilon > 0$, we have that for any state $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$ and action $a \in {{\cal A}}$ that $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \left[ ~|~ \hat{Q}^{\pi}_n(s, a) - Q^{\pi}(s,a) ~|~ \geq \epsilon \right] = 0,$$ provided $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$ are consistent estimators of $\nu(s | z, a)$ and $\nu( z | a)$ respectively. Furthermore, if $|\rhos(s | z,a) - \nu(s | z, a)| \in O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1/2})$ and $|\rhoz(z | a) - \nu(z | a)| \in O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1/2})$ then $|\hat{Q}^\pi_n(s,a) - Q^\pi(s,a)| \in O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1/2})$.
See the appendix.
Next we state consistency results for two types of estimators often used in model-based reinforcement learning.
The frequency estimator $\rho(x_n | x_{<n}) := \tfrac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \llbracket x_n = x_i \rrbracket$ when used as either $\rhos$ or $\rhoz$ is a consistent estimator of $\nu(s|z,a)$ or $\nu(z|a)$ respectively for any $s \in {\mathcal{S}}$, $z \in {\mathcal{Z}}$, and $a \in {{\cal A}}$; furthermore, the absolute estimation error converges stochastically to 0 with rate $n^{-1/2}$.
Note that the above result is essentially tabular, in the sense that each state is treated atomically. The next result applies to a factored application of multi-alphabet Context Tree Weighting ([ctw]{}) [@tjalkens93; @ctw95; @veness10b], which can handle considerably larger state spaces in practice. In the following, we use the notation $s_{n,i}$ to refer to the $i$th factor of state $s_n$.
Given a state space that is factored in the sense that ${\mathcal{S}}~:=~{\mathcal{B}}_1 \times \dots \times {\mathcal{B}}_k$, the estimator $\rho(s_n \,|\, s_{<n}) := \prod_{i=1}^k \text{\sc ctw}(s_{n,i} ~|~ s_{n,<i}, s_{<n,1:i})$ when used as $\rhos$, is a consistent estimator of $\nu(s | z, a)$ for any $s \in {\mathcal{S}}$, $z \in {\mathcal{Z}}$, and $a \in {{\cal A}}$; furthermore, the absolute estimation error converges stochastically to 0 at a rate of $n^{-1/2}$.
Experimental Results {#sec:experiments}
====================
In this section we describe two sets of experiments. The first set is an experimental validation of our theoretical results using a standard policy evaluation benchmark. The second combines [cnc]{} with a variety of density estimators and studies the resulting behavior in a large on-policy control task.
Policy Evaluation
-----------------
Our first experiment involves a simplified version of the game of Blackjack [@Sutton:1998 Section 5.1]. In Blackjack, the agent requests cards from the dealer. A game is won when the agent’s card total exceeds the dealer’s own total. We used [cnc]{} to estimate the value of the policy that stays if the player’s sum is 20 or 21, and hits in all other cases. A state is represented by the single card held by the dealer, the player’s card total so far, and whether the player holds a usable ace. In total, there are 200 states, two possible actions (hit or stay), and three possible returns (-1, 0 and 1). A Dirichlet-Multinomial model with hyper-parameters $\alpha_i=\tfrac{1}{2}$ was used for both $\rhos$ and $\rhoz$.
Figure \[fig:blackjack-mse\] depicts the estimated MSE and average maximum squared error of $\hat{Q}^\pi$ over 100,000 episodes; the mean and maximum are taken over all possible state-action pairs and averaged over 10,000 trials. We also compared [cnc]{} to a first-visit Monte Carlo value estimate [@szepesvari10]. The [cnc]{} estimate closely tracks the Monte Carlo estimate, even performing slightly better early on due to the smoothing introduced by the use of a Dirichlet prior. As predicted by the analysis in Section \[sec:analysis\], the MSE decays toward zero.
On-policy Control
-----------------
Our next set of experiments explored the on-policy control behavior of [cnc]{} under an $\epsilon$-greedy policy. The purpose of these experiments is to demonstrate the potential of [cnc]{} to scale to large control tasks when combined with a variety of different density estimators. Note that Theorem \[thm:convergence\] does not apply here: using [[cnc]{}]{} in this way violates the assumption that $\pi$ is stationary.
### Evaluation Platform.
We evaluated [[cnc]{}]{} using ALE, the Arcade Learning Environment [@BellemareNVB13], a reinforcement learning interface to the Atari 2600 video game platform. Observations in ALE consist of frames of $160 \times 210$ 7-bit color pixels generated by the Stella Atari 2600 emulator. Although the emulator generates frames at 60Hz, in our experiments we consider time steps that last 4 consecutive frames, following the existing literature [@bellemare14skip; @mnih13playing]. We first focused on the game of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pong</span>, which has an action space of $\{ \textsc{Up}, \textsc{Down}, \textsc{Noop} \}$ and provides a reward of 1 or -1 whenever a point is scored by either the agent or its computer opponent. Episodes end when either player has scored 21 points; as a result, possible scores for one episode range between -21 to 21, with a positive score corresponding to a win for the agent.
![Mean and maximum squared errors of the Monte Carlo and [[cnc]{}]{} estimates on the game of Blackjack.\[fig:blackjack-mse\]](blackjack-mse.pdf "fig:"){width="1.65in"} ![Mean and maximum squared errors of the Monte Carlo and [[cnc]{}]{} estimates on the game of Blackjack.\[fig:blackjack-mse\]](blackjack-sup.pdf "fig:"){width="1.65in"}
### Experimental Setup.
We studied four different [cnc]{} agents, with each agent corresponding to a different choice of model for $\rhos$; the Sparse Adapative Dirichlet ([sad]{}) estimator [@hutter13sparse] was used for $\rhoz$ for all agents. Each agent used an $\epsilon$-greedy policy [@Sutton:1998] with respect to its current value function estimates. The exploration rate $\epsilon$ was initialized to 1.0, then decayed linearly to 0.02 over the course of 200,000 time steps. The horizon was set to $m=80$ steps, corresponding to roughly 5 seconds of play. The agents were evaluated over 10 trials, each lasting 2 million steps.
The first model we consider is a factored application of the [[sad]{}]{} estimator, a count based model designed for large, sparse alphabets. The model divides the screen into $16\times16$ regions. The probability of a particular image patch occurring within each region is modeled using a region-specific [[sad]{}]{} estimator. The probability assigned to a whole screen is the product of the probabilities assigned to each patch.
The second model is an auto-regressive application of logistic regression [@bishop2006], that assigns a probability to each pixel using a shared set of parameters. The product of these per-pixel probabilities determines the probability of a screen under this model. The features for each pixel prediction correspond to the pixel’s local context, similar to standard context-based image compression techniques [@witten99managing]. The model’s parameters were updated online using [Adagrad]{} [@Duchi:2011]. The hyperparameters (including learning rate, choice of context, etc.) were optimized via the random sampling technique of @Bergstra:2012.
The third model uses the [[Lempel-Ziv]{}]{} algorithm [@ziv78], a dictionary-based compression technique. It works by adapting its internal data structures over time to assign shorter code lengths to more frequently seen substrings of data. For our application, the pixels in each frame were encoded in row-major order, by first searching for the longest sequence in the history matching the new data to be compressed, and then encoding a triple that describes the temporal location of the longest match, its length, as well as the next unmatched symbol. This process repeats until no data is left. Recalling Section \[sec:compr\_class\], the (implicit) conditional probability of a state $s$ under the [[Lempel-Ziv]{}]{} model can now be obtained by computing $$\rhos(s \,|\, s^{z,a}_{0:n-1}) := 2^{- \left[ \ell_{\sc LZ}(s^{z,a}_{0:n-1} s) - \ell_{\sc LZ}(s^{z,a}_{0:n-1}) \right]} .$$
![*Left.* Average reward over time in [[Pong]{}]{}. *Right.* Average score across episodes in [[Pong]{}]{}. Error bars indicate one inter-trial standard error.\[fig:diptych\]](pong-illustrative.pdf "fig:"){width="1.65in"} ![*Left.* Average reward over time in [[Pong]{}]{}. *Right.* Average score across episodes in [[Pong]{}]{}. Error bars indicate one inter-trial standard error.\[fig:diptych\]](pong-best.pdf "fig:"){width="1.65in"}
### Results.
As depicted in Figure \[fig:diptych\] (left), all three models improved their policies over time. By the end of training, two of these models had learnt control policies achieving win rates of approximately 50% in [[Pong]{}]{}. Over their last 50 episodes of training, the [[Lempel-Ziv]{}]{} agents averaged -0.09 points per episode (std. error: 1.79) and the factored SAD agents, 3.29 (std. error: 2.49). While the logistic regression agents were less successful (average -17.87, std. error 0.38) we suspect that further training time would significantly improve their performance. Furthermore, all agents ran at real-time or better. These results highlight how [[cnc]{}]{} can be successfully combined with fundamentally different approaches to density estimation.
We performed one more experiment to illustrate the effects of combining [[cnc]{}]{} with a more sophisticated density model. We used [[SkipCTS]{}]{}, a recent Context Tree Weighting derivative, with a context function tailored to the ALE observation space [@bellemare14skip]. As shown in Figure \[fig:diptych\] (right), [[cnc]{}]{} combined with [[SkipCTS]{}]{} learns a near-optimal policy in [[Pong]{}]{}. We also compared our method to existing results from the literature [@BellemareNVB13; @mnih13playing], although note that the [DQN]{} scores, which correspond to a different training regime and do not include Freeway, are included only for illustrative purposes. As shown in Figure \[fig:cool\_histogram\], [[cnc]{}]{} can also learn competitive control policies on [Freeway]{} and [Q\*bert]{}.
Interestingly, we found [[SkipCTS]{}]{} to be insufficiently accurate for effective MCTS planning when used as a forward model, even with enhancements such as double progressive widening [@coutoux11]. In particular, our best simulation-based agent did not achieve a score above $-14$ in [[Pong]{}]{}, and performed no better than random in [Q\*bert]{} and [Freeway]{}. In comparison, our [cnc]{} variants performed significantly better using orders of magnitude less computation. While it would be premature to draw any general conclusions, the [cnc]{} approach does appear to be more forgiving of modeling inaccuracies.
Discussion and Limitations
==========================
The main strength and key limitation of the [cnc]{} approach seems to be its reliance on an appropriate choice of density estimator. One could only expect the method to perform well if the learnt models can capture the observational structure specific to high and low return states. Specifying a model can be thus viewed as committing to a particular kind of compression-based similarity metric over the state space. The attractive part of this approach is that density modeling is a well studied area, which opens up the possibility of bringing in many ideas from machine learning, statistics and information theory to address fundamental questions in reinforcement learning. The downside of course is that density modeling is itself a difficult problem. Further investigation is required to better understand the circumstances under which one would prefer [cnc]{} over more traditional model-free approaches that rely on function approximation to scale to large and complex problems.
![Average score over the last 500 episodes for three Atari 2600 games. Error bars indicate one inter-trial one standard error.\[fig:cool\_histogram\]](three-games.pdf){width="2.3in"}
So far we have only applied [[cnc]{}]{} to undiscounted, finite horizon problems with finite action spaces, and more importantly, finite (and rather small) return spaces. This setting is favorable for [[cnc]{}]{}, since the per-step running time depends on $|{\mathcal{Z}}| \leq m|{r_{\sc max}}- {r_{\sc min}}|$; in other words, the worst case running time scales no worse than linearly in the length of the horizon. However, even modest changes to the above setting can change the situation drastically. For example, using discounted return can introduce an exponential dependence on the horizon. Thus an important topic for future work is to further develop the [cnc]{} approach for large or continuous return spaces. Since the return space is only one dimensional, it would be natural to consider various discretizations of the return space. For example, one could consider a tree based discretization that recursively subdivides the return space into successively smaller halves. A binary tree of depth $d$ would produce $2^d$ intervals of even size with an accuracy of $\epsilon = m ({r_{\sc max}}- {r_{\sc min}}) / 2^d$. This implies that to achieve an accuracy of at least $\epsilon$ we would need to set $d \geq \log_2 \left( m ({r_{\sc max}}- {r_{\sc min}}) / \epsilon \right)$, which should be feasible for many applications. Furthermore, one could attempt to adaptively learn the best discretization [@Hutter:05bayestree] or approximate Equation \[eq:cnc\_value\_estimate\] using Monte Carlo sampling. These enhancements seem necessary before we could consider applying [cnc]{} to the complete suite of ALE games.
Closing Remarks
===============
This paper has introduced [cnc]{}, an information-theoretic policy evaluation and on-policy control technique for reinforcement learning. The most interesting aspect of this approach is the way in which it uses a learnt probabilistic model that conditions on the future return; remarkably, this counterintuitive idea can be justified both in theory and in practice.
While our initial results show promise, a number of open questions clearly remain. For example, so far the [cnc]{} value estimates were constructed by using only the Monte Carlo return as the learning signal. However, one of the central themes in Reinforcement Learning is *bootstrapping*, the idea of constructing value estimates on the basis of other value estimates [@Sutton:1998]. A natural question to explore is whether bootstrapping can be incorporated into the learning signal used by [cnc]{}.
For the case of on-policy control, it would be also interesting to investigate the use of compression techniques or density estimators that can automatically adapt to non-stationary data. A promising line of investigation might be to consider the class of meta-algorithms given by @gyorgy12, that can convert any stationary coding distribution into its piece-wise stationary extension; efficient algorithms from this class have shown promise for data compression applications, and come with strong theoretical guarantees [@ptw]. Furthermore, extending the analysis in Section \[sec:analysis\] to cover the case of on-policy control or policy iteration [@howard1960dynamic] would be highly desirable.
Finally, we remark that information-theoretic perspectives on reinforcement learning have existed for some time; in particular, @Hutter:04uaibook described a unification of algorithmic information theory and reinforcement learning, leading to the AIXI optimality notion for reinforcement learning agents. Establishing whether any formal connection exists between this body of work and ours is deferred to the future.
### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
We thank Kee Siong Ng, Andras György, Shane Legg, Laurent Orseau and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier revisions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
Nematicons, spatial optical solitons in nematic liquid crystals (NLC), have been the subject of intense theoretical and experimental studies over the past two decades [@Peccianti2012]. The pioneering work on nematicons was reported in 1993 by Braun [*et al.*]{} [@Braun1993]. They investigated the strong self-focusing of a laser beam in NLC in various geometries, from which they recognized the importance of molecular reorientation and anchoring at the boundaries. Subsequently, in 1998, Warenghem [*et al.*]{} observed the beam self-trapping in capillaries filled with dye-doped NLC [@Warenghem1998]. In the same year, Karpierz [*et al.*]{} observed the same phenomenon in planar cells with homeotropically aligned NLC [@Karpierz1998]. They lowered the required power of observing nematicons to milliwatt levels. In 2000, Peccianti [*et al.*]{} reported on nematicon formation in planar cells containing a NLC aligned homogeneously in the presence of an externally applied voltage [@Peccianti2000]. They extended the propagation length of nematicons for millimeter levels and found the adequate model for describing nematicon propagation.
The investigation on nematicon was sparse until Conti [*et al.*]{} found that the NLC with a pretilt angle induced by an external low-frequency electric field is a kind of strongly nonlocal nonlinear medium and nematicons are a kind of accessible solitons [@Conti2003; @Conti2004; @Snyder1997]. They derived a simplified model and linked nematicons with quadratic solitons. The basic properties on nematicon have been revealed gradually ever since. Among others, we have to mention the interactions between two nematicons [@Peccianti2002; @Hu2006; @Hu2008; @Skuse2008]. Recently, Piccardi [*et al.*]{} reported the dark nematicon formation in planar cells filled with dye-doped NLC aligned homeotropically, which can provide an effective negative nonlinearity [@Piccardi2011]. The negative nonlinearity is realized through the guest-host interaction.
In this letter, we observed the nematicon formation in planar cells containing a NLC with negative dielectric anisotropy and positive optical anisotropy aligned homogeneously in the presence of an externally applied voltage. Following the method in [@Conti2003], we got a simplified model with a negative Kerr coefficient and an oscillatory periodic response function, which can support bright nematicons. We outlined the connection between the simplified model and the equations describing quadratic solitons [@Buryak1995; @Nikolov2003; @Esbensen2012; @Wang2014].
We performed a series of experiments to observe the nematicon formation in NLC with negative dielectric anisotropy. The experimental setup is illustrated in Fig. 1(a). A light beam from a Verdi laser was focused by a 10X microscope objective and launched into a 80-$\mu m$-thick NLC cell. The configuration of the cell was shown in Fig. 1(b) and the cell was filled with the KY19-008 NLC, whose $n_\parallel=1.726$, $n_\perp=1.496$, average elastic constant $K=1\times10^{-11}N$, optical anisotropy $\epsilon^{op}_a=0.74106$, and dielectric anisotropy $\epsilon^{rf}_a=-5.3$. Owing to the negative dielectric anisotropy, the NLC molecules will try to adjust in a low-frequency applied electrical field in such a manner that the molecule axes turn perpendicular to the direction of the electric field [@Schiekel1971]. A microscope and a CCD camera were used to collect the light scattered above the cell during propagation.
{width="8.4cm"}
One group of experimental results are shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(c). The launched power and width for each beam is fixed to 4.42 mW and 4 $\mu m$ when the bias is changed. Fig. 2(a) shows the linear diffraction in absence of the bias and Fig. 2(c) shows the nemation formation at $V=3.4\text{V}$ above the Fréedericks threshold [@Peccianti2004; @Ruan2008] $$\label{eq1}
V_{fr}=\pi(\frac{K}{\varepsilon_0|\varepsilon_a^{rf}|})^{1/2},$$ where $\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity. Introducing the value of $\epsilon^{rf}_a$ and $K$ for KY19-008 NLC, we can get $V_{fr}\approx1.45\text{V}$. The physical mechanism of the nonlinearity in NLC is optically induced molecular reorientation. If the bias is less than the Fréedericks threshold, the NLC molecules will not turn. Then the optical beam will not reorientation the NLC molecules because of the optical electric field is weak under the power in our experiment. Therefore, the optical beam will diffract in absence of the bias and form soliton only if the bias is greater than the Fréedericks threshold. Figs. 2(b) and 2(d) show the numerical results for contrast, which are calculated based on Eqs. (\[eq2\])–(\[eq3\]) with Gaussian beam as an incident profile.
{width="8.4cm"}
In the presence of an externally applied (low-frequency) electric field $E_{rf}$, the evolution of the slowly varying envelope $A$ of a paraxial optical beam linearly polarized along $X$(an extraordinary light) and propagating along $Z$ can be described by the system\
$$\label{eq2}
2ik\frac{\partial A}{\partial Z} + \nabla^2_{XY} A+k^2_0 \epsilon^{op}_a (\sin^2\theta-\sin^2\theta_0) A=0,$$
$$\label{eq3}
2K(\frac{\partial^2\theta}{\partial Z^2}+\nabla^2_{XY} \theta) +\epsilon_0(\epsilon^{rf}_a E^2_{rf}+\epsilon^{op}_a\frac{|A|^2}{2})\sin(2\theta) =0,$$
\
where $\theta$ is the tilt angle of the NLC molecules, $\theta_0$ is the nadir tilt in the absence of light, $k = k_0n_e(\theta_0)$ with $k_0$ the vacuum wavenumber and $n_e(\theta_0)=n_\perp n_\parallel/(n_\parallel^2cos^2\theta_0+n_\perp^2sin^2\theta_0)^{1/2}\approx(n_\perp^2+\epsilon^{op}_asin^2\theta_0)^{1/2}$ the refractive index of the extraordinary light at $\theta_0$, $\nabla^2_{XY}=\partial_X^2+\partial_Y^2$, $\epsilon^{rf}_a=\epsilon_\parallel-\epsilon_\perp(<0)$, $\epsilon^{op}_a=n_\parallel^2-n_\perp^2(>0)$. The term $\partial^2_Z\theta$ in Eq.(\[eq3\]) was proven to be negligible compared to $\nabla^2_{XY} \theta$, therefore it can be removed. The homeotropical boundaries and anchoring at the interfaces define $\theta|_{X=0}=\theta|_{X=L}=\pi/2$, where $L$ is the cell thickness. In the absence of light, the pretilt angle $\hat{\theta}$ is symmetric along $X$ about $X = L/2$ (the cell center) and depends only on $X$:\
$$\label{eq4}
2K\frac{\partial^2\hat{\theta}}{\partial X^2} +\epsilon_0\epsilon^{rf}_a E^2_{rf}\sin(2\hat{\theta}) =0.$$\
Furthermore, we can set $\theta=\hat{\theta}+(\hat{\theta}/\theta_0)\Phi$, with $\Phi$ being the optically induced perturbation. Noting that $\hat{\theta}\approx\theta_0$ and $\partial_X\hat{\theta}\approx0$ in the middle of the cell when the beam width is far smaller than the cell thickness, we can simplify Eq.(\[eq2\]) and Eq.(\[eq3\]) into the following system, which describes the coupling between $A$ and $\Phi$:\
$$\label{eq5}
2ik\frac{\partial A}{\partial Z} + \nabla^2_{XY} A+k^2_0 \epsilon^{op}_a \sin(2\theta_0) \Phi A=0,$$
$$\label{eq6}
w_m^2\nabla^2_{XY} \Phi+\Phi -\frac{2n_0n_2}{\epsilon^{op}_a\sin(2\theta_0)}|A|^2=0,$$
\
where the parameter $w_m(w_m>0$ for $|\theta_0| \leq \pi/2)$, that is, the characteristic length of the nonlinear response function, reads:\
$$\label{eq7}
w_m=\frac{1}{E_{rf}}\{\frac{2\theta_0K}{\epsilon_0|\epsilon^{rf}_a|\sin(2\theta_0)[1-2\theta_0\cot(2\theta_0)]}\}^{1/2},$$\
and $$\label{eq8}
n_2=-\frac{(\epsilon^{op}_a)^2\theta_0\sin(2\theta_0)}{4n_0|\epsilon^{rf}_a|E_{rf}^2[1-2\theta_0\cot(2\theta_0)]}.$$\
The nonlinear refractive index coefficient $n_2$ is defined as suggested by Peccianti et al.[@Peccianti2004]. It must be noted, however, that $n_2$ is negative for the liquid crystal with negative dielectric anisotropy, while it is positive for that with positive dielectric anisotropy.\
\
{width="8.4cm"}
A monotonous function of $\theta_0$ on $E_{rf}$ (or $V$ by $V=E_{rf}L$) is described by Eq. (\[eq4\]). As shown in Fig. 3(a), $\theta_0$ decreases monotonously from $\pi/2$ to $0$ with increasing the bias above the Fréedericks threshold. For $E_{rf}$ higher than the Fréedericksz threshold, the approximation $$\label{eq9}
\theta_0\approx\frac{\pi}{2}(\frac{E_{fr}}{E_{rf}})^3$$ is satisfactory, where $E_{fr}=V_{fr}/L$. Therefore, we can clearly see from Eqs.(\[eq7\]) and (\[eq8\]) that $w_m$ and $n_2$ are determined by $V$ or $\theta_0$ for a given NLC cell configuration. As shown in Fig. 2, $w_m$ and $n_2$ changes nonmonotonously with increasing $\theta_0$ and $V$, respectively. Both of them have a minimum value. There we also show the relation of the critical power $P_0$ on $\theta_0$ calculating numerically based on Eqs. (\[eq2\])–(\[eq3\]) with Gaussian beam as an incident profile.
Introducing the normalization that $x=X/w_m$, $y=Y/w_m$, $z=Z/(kw_m^2)$, $u=A/A_0$, $\phi=\Phi/\Phi_0$, where $A_0=[8K/k_0^2w_m^4\epsilon_0\epsilon^{op2}_a\sin^2(2\theta_0)]^{1/2}$, $\Phi_0=2/[k_0^2w_m^2\epsilon^{op}_a\sin(2\theta_0)]$, we have the dimensionless system, $$\label{eq10}
i\frac{\partial u}{\partial z} + \frac{1}{2}\nabla^2_{\perp} u+\phi u=0,$$
$$\label{eq11}
\nabla^2_{\perp} \phi + \phi = -|u|^2,$$
where $\nabla^2_{\perp}=\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2$. We consider a planar geometry with the boundary condition $\phi|_{x=0, l}=0$. Eq.(\[eq11\]) has a particular solution in the form of a convolution integral of $|u|^2$ with the function $R$:\
$$\label{eq12}
\phi(x,y)=\int_{0}^{l}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}R(x,y;x^\prime,y^\prime)|u(x^\prime,y^\prime)|^2dx^\prime dy^\prime.$$ Here $$\label{eq13}
R(x,y)= \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}a_m(y)\sin\frac{m \pi x}{l},$$ with $$\label{eq14}
a_m= \begin{cases} -\frac{\sqrt{\varsigma_m}}{l}\sin\frac{m\pi x^\prime}{l}\sin|\frac{y-y^\prime}{\sqrt{\varsigma_m}}| & m<l/\pi, \\
\frac{\sqrt{|\varsigma_m|}}{l}\sin\frac{m\pi x^\prime}{l}\exp[-|\frac{y-y^\prime}{\sqrt{|\varsigma_m|}}|] & m>l/\pi,
\end{cases}$$ where $\varsigma_m=1/[1-(\frac{m\pi }{l})^2]$. This means that the tilt angle will be sine-oscillatory for a gaussian input beam when the planar thickness $l>\pi$ and exponential-decay $l<\pi$. From Eqs.(\[eq1\]), (\[eq7\]), and (\[eq9\]), we can get $$\label{eq15}
l=\pi^{4/3}(2\theta_0)^{-5/6}\sin^{1/2}(2\theta_0)[1-2\theta_0\cot(2\theta_0)]^{1/2}.$$ We can see that $l$ is changed only with $\theta_0$. The maximum of $l$ is comparable with $\pi$. Therefore, the tilt angle of original model Eqs. (\[eq2\])–(\[eq3\]) is not sine-oscillatory when $l>\pi$, although the tilt angle of simplified model Eqs. (\[eq10\])–(\[eq11\]) is.
![(Color online) The soliton profile \[(a) and (c)\] and tilt angle \[(b) and (d)\] for different sample size $l_x$ and $l_y$ and propagation constant $\beta$. (a)–(b)$l_x=3$, $l_y=23.6$, $\beta=4.3099$. (c)–(d)$l_x=l_y=23.6$, $\beta=1.4326$.](Fig.4.eps){width="8.4cm"}
We found many solitons from Eqs. (\[eq10\])–(\[eq11\]) using numerical iteration method. It was found that the soliton profile is changed with the sample size $l_x$ and $l_y$ and the propagation constant $\beta$. Figs. 4 show the two group of typical soliton profile $w$ and the corresponding tilt angle $\phi$. When $l_x<\pi$ (or $l_y<\pi$), $\phi$ is exponential-decay, as shown in Fig. 4(b). When $l_x>\pi$ (or $l_y>\pi$), $\phi$ is sine-oscillatory , as shown in Fig. 4(d). This result agrees with the above analysis of Greens function method.
In summary, we observed experimentally the nematicon formation in the planar cell containing the nematic liquid crystal with negative dielectric anisotropy, aligned homeotropically in the presence of an externally applied voltage. We gave a theoretical model describing nematicon propagation, based on which we investigated the evolution of a Gaussian beam. And then we derived a simplified model, from which we found many bright nematicon with a sine-oscillatory response function and a negative Kerr coefficient.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11174090, 11174091, 11074080, and 11204299) and the Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of South China Normal University (Grant No. 2013kyjj014).
[99]{}
M. Peccianti and G. Assanto, Phys. Rep. **516,** 147 (2012).
E. Braun, L. P. Faucheux, and A. Libchaber, Phys. Rev. A **48,** 611 (1993).
M. Warenghem, J. F. Henninot, and G. Abbate, Opt. Express **2,** 438 (1998).
M. A. Karpierz, M. Sierakowski, M. Swillo, and T. Wolinsky, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. **320,** 157 (1998).
M. Peccianti, G. Assanto, A. De Luca, C. Umeton, and I. C. Khoo, Appl. Phys. Lett. **77,** 7 (2000).
C. Conti, M. Peccianti, and G. Assanto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91,** 073901 (2003).
C. Conti, M. Peccianti, and G. Assanto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92,** 113902 (2004).
A. W. Snyder and D. J. Mitchell, Science **276,**, 1538 (1997).
M. Peccianti, K. A. Brzdakiewicz, and G. Assanto, Opt. Lett. **27,** 1460 (2002).
W. Hu, T. Zhang, Q. Guo, X. Li, and S. Lan, Appl. Phys. Lett. **89,** 07111 (2006).
W. Hu, S. Ouyang, P. Yang, Q. Guo, and S. Lan, Phys. Rev. A **77,** 033842 (2008).
B. D. Skuse, and N. L. Smyth, Phys. Rev. A **77,** 013817 (2008).
A. Piccardi, A. Alberucci, N. Tabiryan, and G. Assanto, Opt. Lett. **36,** 1356 (2011).
A. V. Buryak and Y. S. Kivshar, Phys. Lett. A **197,** 407 (1995).
N. I. Nikolov, D. Neshev, O. Bang, and W. Z. Kr$\acute{\text{o}}$likowski, Phys. Rev. E **68,** 036614 (2003).
B. K. Esbensen, M. Bache, W. Krolikowski, and O. Bang, Phys. Rev. A **86,** 023849 (2012).
J. Wang, Y. H. Li, Q. Guo, and W. Hu, Opt. Lett. **39,** 405 (2014).
M. F. Schiekel and K. Fahrenschon, Appl. Phys. Lett. **19,** 391 (1971).
M. Peccianti, C. Conti, and G. Assanto, Opt. Lett. **30,** 415 (2005).
L. Z. Ruan, Fuzi Yang, and J. R. Sambles, Appl. Phys. Lett. **93,** 031909 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The $f(R)$ gravity can be cast into the form of a scalar-tensor theory, and scalar degree of freedom can be suppressed in high-density regions by the chameleon mechanism. In this article, for the general $f(R)$ gravity, using a scalar-tensor representation with the chameleon mechanism, we calculate the parametrized post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$, the effective gravitational constant $G_\text{eff}$, and the effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_\text{eff}$. In addition, for the general $f(R)$ gravity, we also calculate the rate of orbital period decay of the binary system due to gravitational radiation. Then we apply these results to specific $f(R)$ models (Hu-Sawicki model, Tsujikawa model and Starobinsky model) and derive the constraints on the model parameters by combining the observations in solar system, cosmological scales and the binary systems.'
address:
- 'CAS Key Laboratory for Researches in Galaxies and Cosmology, Department of Astronomy, University of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China '
- 'School of Astronomy and Space Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China'
author:
- Tan Liu
- Xing Zhang
- Wen Zhao
title: 'Constraining $f(R)$ gravity in solar system, cosmology and binary pulsar systems'
---
$f(R)$ gravity ,Cosmology ,Parametrized post-Newtonian ,Binary pulsar
Introduction
============
Since the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 [@1538-3881-116-3-1009; @0004-637X-517-2-565], considerable efforts have been devoted in cosmology to understand the physical mechanism responsible for it. The $\Lambda$CDM model interprets the acceleration of the universe as a consequence of the cosmological constant. Although this model matches cosmological observations well [@ade2016planck], the cosmological constant suffers from some theoretical problems. If the cosmological constant originates from the vacuum energy in quantum field theory, extreme fine-tuning is required to explain its smallness [@RevModPhys.61.1]. It is also difficult to explain its closeness to the present matter density of the universe [@RevModPhys.61.1]. This motivates the search for alternative explanations for the cosmic acceleration.
Two types of approaches have been considered. One can either introduce a new kind of matter whose role is to trigger acceleration, or modify the behavior of gravity on cosmological scales [@0253-6102-56-3-24; @Joyce20151]. In the first approach, dark energy is introduced as a new energy form, which has positive energy density but negative pressure. In the second approach, various attempts to modify gravity have been presented. For recent reviews on modified gravity, see [@CLIFTON20121; @NOJIRI20171; @burrage2017tests; @ANDP:ANDP201400058].
Lovelock’s theorem states that General Relativity (GR) represents the most general theory describing a single metric that in four dimensions has field equations with at most second-order derivatives [@lovelock1971einstein]. As a result of this theorem, one way to modify Einstein’s field equations is to permit the field equations to be higher than second order. In this paper, we will consider the so-called $f(R)$ gravity which has fourth order field equations. The Ricci scalar $R$ in the gravity action is replaced by a general function of Ricci scalar $f(R)$. For reviews on $f(R)$ gravity, see [@RevModPhys.82.451; @de2010f]. The $f(R)$ gravity does not introduce any new type of matter and can lead to the late time acceleration of the universe[@Xu2014; @starobinsky2007disappearing]. When cast into the scalar-tensor theory, the $f(R)$ gravity implies a strong coupling between the scalar field and matter. This would violate all experimental constraints on deviations from Newton’s gravitation [@Brax2008]. Certain constraints have to be imposed on the function $f(R)$ for the model to be linearly stable [@PhysRevD.74.104017; @PhysRevD.72.124005] and pass local gravitational tests [@PhysRevD.77.023507]. The first attempt $f(R)=R-\mu^{2(n+1)}/ R^n$ proposed by Carroll *et al.* in [@PhysRevD.70.043528] failed these constraints right away. However, since then, models that evade them have been found [@PhysRevD.68.123512; @NOJIRI2007343]. Fortunately, the chameleon mechanism can alleviate these constraints. Imposing the chameleon mechanism, the scalar field can develop an environment dependent mass [@Brax2017; @PhysRevLett.93.171104; @PhysRevD.69.044026]. When the ambient matter density is large enough, its mass becomes large, and the corresponding fifth force range is short. Thus the scalar field can be hidden in the high density environment and the fifth force cannot be detected [@Brax2008].
The parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism is useful to study different theories of gravity [@Will2014; @will1993theory; @misner1973gravitation; @weinberg1972gravitation]. In the PPN formalism, the PN (weak field and slow motion) limit of different theories are characterized by a set of PPN parameters and the most important two parameters are $\gamma$ and $\beta$. These two parameters can be directly measured by the solar system experiments. The GR prediction ($\gamma=1$ and $\beta=1$) is consistent with the observations [@bertotti2003test], which provide constraints on various modified gravity models [@PhysRevD.72.044022; @PhysRevD.72.083505]. Meanwhile, the binary pulsar systems can emit gravitational waves and provide a good test for gravitational theories [@Will2014; @will1993theory; @neutron; @hou2017constraints; @Stairs2003]. Since these systems lose energy due to gravitational radiation, the orbital period of these systems will decay [^1]. Several authors have considered this effect in $f(R)$ gravity [@dyadina2016verification; @de2013testing; @de2015probing] for some specific models. However, in these works, the authors have ignored the chameleon mechanism . Although some authors have applied the chameleon mechanism to $f(R)$ gravity when they study the PN limit, they only calculate the PPN parameter $\gamma$ [@PhysRevD.76.063505; @Hu:2007nk].
In this paper, we give a comprehensive investigation on various constraints on the general $f(R)$ gravity with chameleon mechanism. Following the method developed in our previous work [@Zhang2016], we first calculate the PPN parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$, the effective cosmological constant, and the effective gravitational constant in the general $f(R)$ gravity. Considering the current observations in solar system and cosmological scales, we derive the combined constraint for the general $f(R)$ gravity. Binary pulsar system is a good testing ground for alternative theories of gravity. In the previous work [@Zhang2017], we have derived the orbital period derivative for quasicircular binary systems in scalar-tensor gravity with chameleon mechanism. Here, applying the similar analysis to $f(R)$ gravity, we obtain the orbital period derivative for quasicircular neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) binary systems. Using the observational data of PSR J0348 +0432 [@Antoniadis1233232] and PSR J1738 +0333 [@freire2012relativistic], we also obtain the binary pulsar constraints on $f(R)$ gravity. We find that the chameleon mechanism cannot apply to Palatini $f(R)$ gravity. Thus, in the paper, we mainly focus on metric $f(R)$ gravity. Applying the general results to the specific $f(R)$ models, including Starobinsky model, Hu-Sawicki model and Tsujikawa model, we obtain the constraints on the model parameters.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[fr\_cha\], we review $f(R)$ gravity and chameleon mechanism. In Sec. \[constraint\], we study various observational constraints on $f(R)$ gravity, and obtain the parameter constraints on the specific models. We conclude in Sec. \[conclusion\].
Through out this paper, the metric convention is chosen as $(-,+,+,+)$, and Greek indices $(\mu,\nu,\cdots)$ run over $0,1,2,3$. We set the units to $c=\hbar=1$, and therefore the reduced Planck mass is $M_\text{Pl}=\sqrt{1/8\pi G}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant.
$f(R)$ gravity and Chameleon mechanism {#fr_cha}
======================================
The $f(R)$ gravity comes about by a straightforward generalization of the Ricci scalar $R$ to become a general function $f(R)$ in the action for gravity. When varying the action, there exist two formalisms: the metric formalism and the Palatini formalism. In the Palatini formalism, the connection is not taken to be the Levi-Civita connection of the metric *a priori* and one varies the action assuming that the metric and the connection are independent variables. Although these two formalisms lead to the same field equations in GR [@wald1984general], this is no longer true for $f(R)$ gravity. We will investigate these two formalisms respectively.
Metric $f(R)$ gravity
---------------------
The total action for metric $f(R)$ gravity takes the form [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$\label{fr}
S={1\over 16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\,f(R)+ S_m(g_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m),$$ where $\Psi_m$ denotes all the matter fields. Variation with respect to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ gives the field equations [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$f'(R)R_{\mu\nu}-\frac12 f(R)g_{\mu\nu}-[\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu-g_{\mu\nu}\square]f'(R)=8\pi G T_{\mu\nu},$$ where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $R$ and $\square=\nabla^\mu\nabla_\mu$. Since the field equations contain the second derivative of $R$ and $R$ includes second derivatives of the metric, the field equations are fourth order partial differential equations in the metric.
Handling fourth order equations can be troublesome, but $f(R)$ gravity can be recast as a scalar-tensor theory via a conformal transformation and the corresponding field equations become second order. Conformal transformation of the metric can also show the scalar degree of freedom explicitly. Introducing a new field $\chi$, we obtain a dynamical equivalent action [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$\label{equiv}
S={1\over 16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\,[f(\chi)+f'(\chi)(R-\chi)]+ S_m(g_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m).$$ Varying this action with respect to $\chi$, we have $f''(\chi)(R-\chi)=0$. If $f''(\chi)\neq 0$, we have $R=\chi$. Substituting this into Eq. leads to Eq. . Redefining the field by $\theta=f'(\chi)$ and setting $U(\theta)=\theta \chi(\theta)-f(\chi(\theta))$, we have $$\label{jordan}
S={1\over 16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\,[\theta R-U(\theta)]+ S_m(g_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m).$$ The action is in the Jordan frame, which should be transformed into the Einstein frame to utilize the results of the prior studies [@Zhang2016; @Zhang2017], although the chameleon mechanism also works in the Jordan frame [@PhysRevD.80.104002].
Defining the metric in Einstein frame as $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=\theta g_{\mu\nu}$, we get the Einstein frame action as follows [@RevModPhys.82.451], $$S_E ={1\over 16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}[\tilde{R}-\frac{3}{2\theta^2}(\tilde{\partial}\theta)^2-\frac{U(\theta)}{\theta^2}]+S_m(\theta^{-1}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m),$$ where $(\tilde{\partial}\theta)^2=\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\theta \partial_\nu\theta$ and $\tilde{R}$ is the Ricci scalar of $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$. To change the kinetic term into the standard form, we introduce another scalar field $\phi$ that satisfies the following relation $3(\tilde{\partial}\theta)^2/32\pi G\theta^2=(\tilde{\partial}\phi)^2/2$, that is $\frac{d\phi}{d\theta}=-\sqrt{\frac{3}{16 \pi G}}\frac{1}{\theta}$. Solving this differential equation, we have $\theta=\exp(-\sqrt{\frac{16\pi G}{3}}\phi)$. The scalar field $\phi$ can be directly related to the Jordan frame Ricci scalar by $$\label{relation2}
f'(R)=\exp(-\sqrt{\frac{16\pi G}{3}}\phi).$$ Therefore, the action in the Einstein frame has the form [@RevModPhys.82.451], $$\label{s-t2}
S_E=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}}[\frac{\tilde{R}}{16\pi G}-\frac12(\tilde{\partial}\phi)^2-V(\phi)]+S_m(A^2(\phi)\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m),$$ where the bare potential is $$V(\phi)=\frac{f'(R)R-f(R)}{16\pi G f'(R)^2}.$$ The conformal coupling function is [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$\label{A}
A(\phi)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{f'(R)}}=\exp(\frac{\xi\phi}{M_\text{Pl}})$$ with the conformal coupling parameter $\xi=1/\sqrt{6}$. Variation of $S_E$ with respect to $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and $\phi$ gives the field equations $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_{\mu\nu}&=&8\pi G [\tilde{S}_{\mu\nu}+\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi+V(\phi)\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}],\label{metric}\\
\tilde{\square}\phi&=&\frac{\text{d} V}{\text{d} \phi}-\frac{\tilde{T}}{A}\frac{\text{d}A}{\text{d}\phi},\label{scalar}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\tilde{S}_{\mu\nu}\equiv\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}-\frac12\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}\tilde{T},$$ where $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}\equiv(-2/\sqrt{-\tilde{g}})\delta S_m/\delta\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter in the Einstein frame, and $\tilde{\square}\equiv\tilde{g}^{\mu\nu}\tilde{\nabla}_\mu\tilde{\nabla}_\nu$. The covariant derivatives $\tilde{\nabla}_\mu$ obey $\tilde{\nabla}_\mu\tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}=0$. The scalar field equation can be rewritten as follows: $$\tilde{\square}\phi=\frac{\text{d}V_\text{eff}}{\text{d}\phi},$$ with the effective potential $$\label{Veff}
V_\text{eff}(\phi)\equiv V(\phi)+\rho[A(\phi)-1].$$ Here the matter is assumed to be nonrelativistic, and $\rho\equiv-\tilde{T}/A$ is the conserved energy density in the Einstein frame, which is independent of $\phi$ [@PhysRevLett.93.171104].
Chameleon mechanism
-------------------
An important consequence of the conformal coupling function $A(\phi)$ is that matter will generally feel a fifth force mediated by the scalar field. Since the conformal coupling parameter $\xi$ is of order unity, the fifth force will have a significant impact on the motion of particles [@Brax2008]. In order to evade the fifth force constraints, the mass of the field should be sufficiently large in high density environment [@PhysRevLett.83.3585]. Since scalar field needs to have cosmological effects to accelerate the expansion of the Universe, on cosmological scales, the magnitude of the scalar mass can be Hubble scale to cause the acceleration of the universe. Thus a mechanism is needed to screen the scalar field in local environment while let the scalar field accelerate the Universe on large scale [@Brax2008; @Hu:2007nk].
The behavior of the scalar field is governed by the effective potential $V_\text{eff}(\phi)$. An essential element of the model is the fact that $V_\text{eff}(\phi)$ depends explicitly on the matter density, as seen in Eq. . The shape of the effective potential is determined by the function $f(R)$. For a suitably chosen function $f(R)$, the effective potential can have a minimum. We denote by $\phi_\text{min}$ the value at the minimum, that is [@Zhang2016], $$\left.\frac{\text{d}V_\text{eff}}{\text{d}\phi}\right |_{\phi_\text{min}}=0.$$ Whilst the mass of small fluctuations around the minimum is [@Brax2008], $$\label{mass}
\left. m^2_\text{eff}=\frac{\text{d}^2V_\text{eff}}{\text{d}\phi^2}\right |_{\phi_\text{min}}=\left[\frac{\text{d}^2V}{\text{d}\phi^2}+\frac{\xi^2}{M_\text{Pl}^2}\rho\exp(\frac{\xi\phi}{M_\text{Pl}})\right ]_{\phi_\text{min}}.$$ It can be observed that the scalar field has a density dependent mass. When the density of the environment is large enough, the mass becomes large, and the corresponding fifth force range is so small that it cannot be detected by gravitational experiments [@Brax2008]. Laboratory constraints can be greatly alleviated if the mass develops a strong dependence on the ambient density of matter. Theories in which such a dependence is realized are called to have a chameleon mechanism. Therefore, if the following three conditions can be satisfied in some regions of $\phi$ space, the $f(R)$ model can have a chameleon mechanism [@Joyce20151]: (1) $V'(\phi)<0$: The effective potential $V_\text{eff}$ has a minimum; (2) $V''(\phi)>0$: The mass squared $m^2_\text{eff}$ is positive; (3) $V'''(\phi)<0$: The mass can increase with density.
Using Eq. , these conditions can be translated into [@Brax2008] $$\begin{aligned}
V'(\phi)&=&\frac{\xi M_\text{Pl}}{f'^2}[Rf'-2f]<0,\label{chameleon1}\\
V''(\phi)&=&\frac13[\frac{R}{f'}+\frac{1}{f''}-\frac{4f}{f'^2}]>0,\\
V'''(\phi)&=&\frac{2\xi}{3M_\text{Pl}}[\frac{3}{f''}+\frac{f'f'''}{f''^3}+\frac{R}{f'}-\frac{8f}{f'^2}]<0\label{chameleon3}.\end{aligned}$$
Palatini $f(R)$ gravity
-----------------------
Previous discussions have focused on the metric formalism. We now discuss the Palatini formalism. The action in the Palatini formalism is formally the same as in the metric formalism. However, the Ricci tensor is constructed from the independent connection and is not related to the metric tensor. The Palatini action takes the form [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$S_p={1\over 16\pi G}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g}\,f(\mathcal R)+ S_m(g_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m).$$ Here $\mathcal{R}\equiv g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}$ and the Ricci tensor $\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}$ is determined by the independent connection $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$. Variations with respect to the metric and the connection can yield the following formulae respectively [@RevModPhys.82.451], $$f'(\mathcal{R})\mathcal{R}_{(\mu\nu)}-\frac12 f(\mathcal{R})g_{\mu\nu}= 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu},$$ and $$\label{connection}
\nabla_\mu[\sqrt{-g}(\delta^\mu_\alpha f'g^{\beta\nu}-\frac12\delta^\beta_\alpha f'^{\mu\nu}-\frac12 \delta^\nu_\alpha f'g^{\beta\mu})]=0.$$
Transforming the action into the Einstein frame, we obtain [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$S_{E}'=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}}[\frac{\tilde{R}}{16\pi G}-V(\theta)]+S_m(\theta^{-1}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu},\Psi_m),$$ which follows the scalar field equation, $$2\theta \frac{d V}{d \theta}+\tilde{T}=0.$$ Note that, the scalar field $\theta$ is algebraically related to $\tilde{T}$, i.e., $\theta=\theta(\tilde{T})$, which is non-dynamical and cannot propagate in spacetime. Therefore, we cannot define a mass of the scalar field $\theta$, as discussion above. As a result of the non-dynamical nature of the scalar field, the chameleon mechanism does not apply to Palatini $f(R)$ gravity. There exists another significant difference between Palatini $f(R)$ gravity and the chameleon theory: Since the fifth force is produced by the gradient of the scalar field, and in chameleon theories a compact object in a homogeneous background can generate a scalar field with Yukawa profile. A test particle in the homogeneous background can feel the fifth force. While in Palatini $f(R)$ gravity, the scalar field does not have gradient in a homogeneous background and does not mediate a fifth force. In addition, there are other serious shortcomings of Palatini $f(R)$ gravity [@RevModPhys.82.451]. So, in the rest of this paper, we will only focus on metric $f(R)$ gravity.
Stability issues
----------------
More recent attention has focused on the stability issues about metric $f(R)$ gravity. These include Ostrogradski instability [@Woodard2007], Frolov instability [@PhysRevLett.101.061103], Dolgov-Kawasaki instability [@DOLGOV20031] and instability of de Sitter space [@PhysRevD.72.124005]. A scrutiny of these issues is needed to make sure that $f(R)$ gravity is viable. The first two stability issues can be bypassed in the specific models discussed below [@Woodard2007; @PhysRevD.80.064002].
Dolgov and Kawasaki [@DOLGOV20031] found that the Ricci scalar is instable in the $f(R)$ model proposed by Carroll *et al.* [@PhysRevD.70.043528]. Their analysis is generalized to a general function by Faraoni [@PhysRevD.74.104017]. The origin of this issue is that the mass squared of the scalar degree of freedom is negative. Since the mass squared has the same sign as $f''(R)$, the stability condition can be written as [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$f''(R)>0,\quad \text{for}\; R\geq R_0(>0),$$ where $R_0$ is the Ricci scalar today. This condition is satisfied for all the models studied in the following section.
In order to investigate the stability of de Sitter space, we consider a spatial flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universe. The vacuum field equations take the form [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$\begin{aligned}
H^2&=&\frac{1}{3 f'}(\frac{R f'}{2}-\frac{f}{2}-3H\dot f'),\nonumber\\
\dot H&=&-\frac{1}{2f'}(\ddot{f'}-H\dot{f'}), \label{frid1}\end{aligned}$$ where an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to $t$. The stationary points of the dynamical system are de Sitter space with Hubble constant $H$. The condition for the existence of de Sitter space is [@RevModPhys.82.451] $$\label{dS}
Rf'-2f=0.$$ The stability condition of de Sitter space with respect to inhomogeneous linear perturbations reads [@PhysRevD.72.124005] $$\label{dS_stable}
\frac{f'}{f''}-R\geq 0.$$ If the solution to Eq. meets the stability condition , the Universe will enter into a stable de Sitter phase in the future [@Xu2014].
We now impose the stability condition of de Sitter space on the specific $f(R)$ models. We will investigate the following well studied models $$\begin{aligned}
(A)\; f(R)&=&R- m^2\frac{c_1(R/m^2)^n}{c_2(R/m^2)^n+1} \;(c_1,c_2,n>0),\label{Hu}\\
(B)\; f(R)&=&R-\mu R_c \tanh\frac{R}{R_c}\;(\mu,R_c>0),\label{Tsu}\\
(C)\; f(R)&=&R-\mu R_c[1-(1+\frac{R^2}{R_c^2})^{-k}]\;(\mu,k,R_c>0).\label{Star}\end{aligned}$$ The models (A), (B) and (C) are proposed by Hu and Sawicki [@Hu:2007nk], Tsujikawa [@PhysRevD.77.023507] and Starobinsky [@starobinsky2007disappearing], respectively. In the model (A), the mass scale is chosen to be [@Hu:2007nk] $$m^2=\frac{8\pi G \bar{\rho}_0}{3},$$ where $\bar{\rho}_0 $ is the average matter density in the universe today. In the models (B) and (C), $R_c$ roughly corresponds to the order of observed cosmological constant for $\mu=\mathcal{O}(1)$. During the whole expansion history of the Universe, the Ricci scalar is in the high curvature region, i.e., $R\gg m^2$ or $R\gg R_c$ [@Hu:2007nk]. Thus, the model (A) can be approximated by $$\label{Hu:ap}
f(R)=R-\frac{c_1}{c_2}m^2+\frac{c_1}{c_2^2}m^2(\frac{m^2}{R})^n$$ and the model (C) can be approximated by $$f(R)=R-\mu R_c+\mu R_c(\frac{R_c}{R})^{2k}.$$ It can be observed that the free parameters of the model (A) are in one-to-one correspondence with that of the model (C) through the relations $m^2c_1/c_2 \rightarrow\mu R_c$, $m^{2(n+1)}c_1/c_2^2\rightarrow\mu R_c ^{2k+1}$ and $n\rightarrow2k$. So we only study the models (A) and (B) in the following.
The model (A) can be expressed as another useful form [@PhysRevD.77.023507] $$\label{usefull}
f(R)=R-\alpha R_c \frac{(R/R_c)^n}{(R/R_c)^n+1},$$ where $\alpha=c_1c_2^{{1}/{n}-1}$ and $R_c=m^2c_2^{-{1}/{n}}$. The following relation holds at the de Sitter point: [@de2010f] $$\label{alpha}
\alpha=\frac{(1+x^n)^2}{x^{n-1}(2+2x^n-n)},$$ where $x\equiv R/R_c$. The stability condition implies the relation [@de2010f], $$2x^{2n}-(n-1)(n+4)x^n+(n-1)(n-2)\geq 0.$$ Thus for each specific $n$, the above inequality gives a bound on $x$ and this bound can be transformed into a bound on $\alpha$ through Eq. . For instance, when $n=2$, one has $x\geq\sqrt{3}$ and $\alpha\geq 8\sqrt{3}/9$. In the following section, we will come back to discuss this inequality.
Constraints on $f(R)$ gravity {#constraint}
==============================
In this section, we consider the observational constraints on metric $f(R)$ gravity in cosmological scale, solar system and binary pulsar systems, respectively.
Cosmological constraints {#cosmos_const}
------------------------
In order to satisfy the tests on cosmological scales, the $f(R)$ models should mimic the $\Lambda$CDM model at the late time and provide an effective cosmological constant. Similar to the previous work [@Zhang2016], in this paper we do not consider the cosmological perturbations of $f(R)$ gravity [@de2010f]. We leave this issue for the general $f(R)$ gravity as a future work. The bare potential $V(\phi)$ in action can provide the effective cosmological constant to accelerate the universe expansion, which is given by [@Zhang2016] $$\label{cosmos}
\Lambda_\text{eff}=8\pi G V_\text{VEV}=\left. \frac{R f'(R)-f(R)}{2 f'(R)^2}\right |_{R=R_\infty},$$ where $R_\infty$ is the background value of Ricci scalar. In order to mimic the $\Lambda$CDM model, we need that the value of $\Lambda_\text{eff}$ is equal to the observed cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which accelerates the cosmic expansion.
Now, we can apply the cosmological constraint to specific $f(R)$ models. For model (A), we substitute Eq. into Eq. , and obtain $$\Lambda_\text{eff} \approx \frac{c_1}{2c_2} m^2,$$ which, in turn, implies that $$\label{Hu:cosmos}
\frac{c_1}{c_2}\approx \frac{2\Lambda_\text{eff}}{m^2}=6 \frac{\Omega_\Lambda}{\Omega_m}=13.5.$$ Note that, we adopted the density parameters $\Omega_m=0.308$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.692$ [@ade2016planck]. This expression of $c_1/c_2$ is consistent with Eq. (26) in [@Hu:2007nk]. Now it can be seen from Eq. that there are two remaining parameters $n$ and $c_1/c_2^2$ in this model.
Using the relation $\alpha=c_1c_2^{{1}/{n}-1}$ and the cosmological constraint , we have $$\frac{c_1}{c_2^2}=13.5(\frac{13.5}{\alpha})^n.$$ Thus, in the case $n=2$, the stability condition $\alpha\geq 8\sqrt{3}/9$ implies an upper bound on $c_1/c^2_2$ $$\frac{c_1}{c_2^2}\leq 1038.$$ Using Eq. , we have $$\frac{c_1}{c_2^2}=\frac{1-f'(R_0)}{n}\left(\frac{R_0}{m^2}\right)^{n+1}.$$ For a spatial flat FLRW universe, the scalar curvature at the present epoch is $R_0=m^2(12/ {\Omega_m}-9)$ [@Hu:2007nk]. Consequently, for different $n$, we can obtain different upper bounds on $|f'(R_0)~-~1|$. The results are presented in Fig. \[huc1c2\] with dotted line.
Similarly, for the model (B), the cosmological constraint is $$\label{Tsu:cosmos}
\Lambda_\text{eff} \approx \frac{\mu R_c}{2},$$ and the stability condition implies that [@de2010f] $$\label{stableB}
\mu >0.905.$$
Solar system constraints {#local}
------------------------
In the solar system, the gravitational field is weak and the velocity of planets is slow compared with the speed of light. Thus we can apply the PPN formalism to solar system tests. In the PN limit, the spacetime metric predicted by different metric theory of gravity has the same structure and can be characterized by ten PPN parameters [@Will2014]. Among them, the most important parameters are $\gamma$ and $\beta$.
Here, we derive the PPN parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$ and the effective gravitational constant $G_\text{eff}$ in the general metric $f(R)$ gravity with chameleon mechanism. For a scalar-tensor theory with action , the solution to the scalar field equation is given by [@Zhang2017] $$\phi(r)=\phi_\infty -\epsilon M_\text{Pl}\frac{G M_E}{r}e^{-m_\infty r},$$ where the screened parameter is defined as, $$\epsilon\equiv\frac{\phi_\infty-\phi_0}{M_\text{Pl}\Phi_E}.$$ The parameters $M_\text{E}$ and $\Phi_\text{E}\equiv G M_\text{E}/r$ are the mass and the Newtonian potential at the surface of the source object in the Einstein frame, respectively. The quantity $\phi_0$ is the field in side the source object and $\phi_\infty$ is the field in the background environment. $m_{\infty}$ is the effective mass of scalar field at $\phi=\phi_{\infty}$.
In order to solve the metric field equations, we make use of the PPN formalism introduced in [@Will2014; @will1993theory]. In this formalism, the gravitational field of the source is weak $GM/r\ll 1$, and the typical velocity $\vec{v}$ of the source is small, i.e. $v^2\sim GM/r\ll 1$. Thus, we can use the perturbative expansion method to solve the field equations, and all dynamical quantities can be expanded to $\mathcal{O}(n)\propto v^{2n}$. The metric field $g_{\mu\nu}$ can be expanded around the Minkowski background as follows: $$g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+\accentset{(1)}h_{\mu\nu}+\accentset{(2)}h_{\mu\nu}+ \mathcal{O}(3).$$
We solve the field equations and using the PPN method [@will1993theory], and transform the metric to the Jordan frame. Making use of the definitions of $\gamma$ and $\beta$ as follows [@Zhang2016], $$\begin{aligned}
\accentset{(1)}h_{\text J 00}=\frac{2G_\text{eff}M_\text J}{\chi},~~~
\accentset{(1)}h_{\text J \chi\chi}=\gamma \frac{2G_\text{eff}M_\text J}{\chi},~~~
\accentset{(2)}h_{\text J 00}=-\beta \frac{4G^2_\text{eff}M^2_\text J}{2\chi^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $M_J$ and $\chi$ are the mass and radial coordinate in the Jordan frame, respectively. We obtain the PPN parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ppn}
\gamma=1-\frac{2A_1}{A_\text{VEV}}M_\text{Pl}\epsilon,~~
\beta=1-M_\text{Pl}^2(\frac{A^2_1}{2A^2_\text{VEV}}-\frac{A_2}{A_\text{VEV}})\epsilon^2,~~
G_\text{eff}=G A^2_\text{VEV}(1+\frac{A_1}{A_\text{VEV}}M_\text{Pl}\epsilon),\label{G}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\text{VEV}$,$A_1$ and $A_2$ are the expansion coefficients of $A(\phi)$, i.e., $$A(\phi)=A_\text{VEV}+A_1(\phi-\phi_\infty)+A_2(\phi-\phi_\infty)^2+\cdots.$$ Note that, here we have taken the limit $m_\infty r\ll 1$, since in the solar system, the distance $r$ is always much less than the Compton wavelength $m^{-1}_\infty$ [@Zhang2016].
Applying to the general metric $f(R)$ gravity, using Eqs. and we obtain the expansion coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
A_\text{VEV}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{f'(R_\infty)}}, ~~~ A_1=\frac1{\sqrt{6}M_\text{Pl}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{f'(R_\infty)}},~~~A_2=\frac1{12M^2_\text{Pl}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{f'(R_\infty)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Following the discussion of [@Hu:2007nk], $R_\infty=8\pi G \rho_g$ and $\rho_g=10^{-24}\text{g\,cm}^{-3}$ is the average galactic density in the solar vicinity. In the solar system, the source object of the scalar field is the Sun and the background is the Milky Way. Since the density of the Sun is much higher compared with the galactic background, we have $\phi_\infty\gg\phi_0$. Then the screened parameter can be approximated by $$\epsilon=\frac{\phi_\infty}{M_\text{Pl}\Phi_\text{E}}.$$
Substituting the above parameters into Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma=1+\frac{\ln f'(R_\infty)}{\Phi_\text{E}},~~~
\beta=1,~~~
G_\text{eff}=\frac{G}{f'(R_\infty)}(1-\frac{\ln f'(R_\infty)}{2\Phi_\text{E}}).\label{Geff}\end{aligned}$$ We find that the expression of parameter $\gamma$ is consistent with Eq. (64) in [@Hu:2007nk]. The parameter $\beta$ is unity no matter whatever the functional form $f(R)$ is. As can be seen from Eq. , when the conformal coupling function $A(\phi)$ has the exponential form, the two terms in the bracket of the expression of $\beta$ cancel each other out. And Eq. shows that the conformal coupling function $A(\phi)$ always has the exponential form in metric $f(R)$ gravity. This suggests that the experimental tests of parameter $\beta$ cannot distinguish between GR and metric $f(R)$ gravity. The relation between $\gamma$ and $G_\text{eff}$ is $$\frac{G_\text{eff}}{G}-1\approx-\frac{\gamma-1}{2}.$$
Using the Cassini constraint $|\gamma-1|<2.3\times 10^{-5}$ [@bertotti2003test] and the Newtonian potential at the surface of the Sun $\Phi_\text{E}=2.12\times 10^{-6}$, we obtain the constraint on general $f(R)$ gravity as follows, $$|\ln f'(R_\infty)|=|\gamma-1|\Phi_\text{E}<4.9\times10^{-11}.$$ Since $\ln f'(R_\infty)\approx f'(R_\infty)-1$, we have $$\label{solar}
|f'(R_\infty)-1|<4.9\times10^{-11}.$$ Note that, this is a general constraint for any metric $f(R)$ gravity with chameleon mechanism, which is independent of the form of $f(R)$.
We can apply this solar system constraint to the models (A) and (B). In the model (A), using Eq. , we have [@Hu:2007nk] $$\Big(\frac{1-f'(R_\infty)}{1-f'(R_0)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}=\frac{R_0}{8\pi G \rho_g}=8.14\times 10^{-7} \frac{R_0}{m^2}\frac{\Omega_m h^2}{0.13}\Big(\frac{\rho_g}{10^{-24}~\text{g cm}^{-3}}\Big)^{-1}$$ Here, $R_\infty=8\pi G \rho_g$ and $\rho_g=10^{-24}\text{g\,cm}^{-3}$ is the average galactic density in the solar vicinity. We adopted the physical matter density $\Omega_m h^2=0.1415$ [@ade2016planck].
Applying inequality to the above equation, we have $$|f'(R_0)-1|<4.9\times 10^{-11}\Big(\frac{8\pi G \rho_g}{R_0}\Big)^{n+1}.$$ The equivalence principle places a bound on the parameter of model (A) [@PhysRevD.77.107501] $$n>1.8.$$ As shown in Fig. \[huc1c2\], in the region $1.8<n<3$, the solar system constraint (solid line) is fairly weak when compared with the stability condition (dotted line) and is sensitive to the value of $n$.
Similarly, in the model (B) we have $$1-f'(R_\infty)=\frac{\mu}{\cosh^2\frac{\mu R_\infty}{2\Lambda_\text{eff}}},$$ where Eq. was used to eliminate $R_c$ in terms of $\mu$. The solar system constraint yields $$\label{solarB}
\mu > 9.5\times 10^{-5}.$$ Compared with the stability condition , this shows that the solar system constraint on $f(R)$ gravity is weaker for this model .
Assuming that the cosmological constraint and solar system constraint are both satisfied, we have checked that in the model (A) and (B), the conditions for chameleon mechanism - can all be satisfied.
![Maximum value of $|f'(R_0)-1|$ in Hu-Sawicki model allowed by the solar system constraint (solid line) , the pulsar constraint (dashed line) and the stability condition (dotted line), respectively. Note that, for the dotted line, we have considered the cosmological constraint.[]{data-label="huc1c2"}](huc1c2.pdf){width="8cm" height="6.2cm"}
Binary pulsar constraints {#pulsar_const}
-------------------------
It is well known that the compact binary systems can lose the orbital energy due to gravitational radiation, and the orbital period will decay. In different theories of gravity, the decay rates are different [@will1993theory; @Will2014], which provides another independent opportunities to test the metric $f(R)$ gravity. In a binary system, when the difference between the screened parameters of the two compact stars is significant, the dipole radiation dominates the orbital decay rate. Since the screened parameter is inversely proportional to surface gravitational potential, the neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) systems are the best testbeds to constrain the parameters of $f(R)$ gravity. In the previous work [@Zhang2017], we have studied this effect in the most general scalar-tensor gravity with screening mechanism. For a quasicircular ($e\ll 1$) NS-WD binary system, the orbital period derivative is given by [@Zhang2017] $$\label{pdot}
\dot{P}=\dot{P}^{\rm GR}\left[1+\frac{5}{192}\Big(\frac{P}{2\pi Gm}\Big)^{2/3}(\epsilon_{\rm WD}-\epsilon_{\rm NS})^2\right]\,\,\,.$$ Here, $P$ denotes the orbital period, $m=m_{\rm NS}+m_{\rm WD}$ is the total mass, $\mu=m_{\rm NS}m_{\rm WD}/m$ is the reduced mass, $\epsilon_{\rm WD}={\phi_\infty}/{M_{\rm Pl} \Phi_{\rm WD}}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm NS}={\phi_\infty}/{M_{\rm Pl} \Phi_{\rm NS}}$ are the screened parameter of the white dwarf and the neutron star respectively and $$\dot{P}^{\rm GR}=-\frac{192\pi}{5}\left(\frac{2\pi Gm}{P}\right)^{5/3}\!\!\left(\frac{\mu}{m}\right)$$ represents the GR prediction of the orbital period derivative. The second term in Eq. corresponds to the scalar dipole radiation correction.
We apply this result to the general metric $f(R)$ gravity with chameleon mechanism. Using Eq. , the orbital period derivative translates into $$\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{P}^{\rm GR}}=1+\frac{15}{384}\Big(\frac{P}{2\pi Gm}\Big)^{2/3}\Big(\frac{\ln f'(R_\infty)}{\Phi_{\rm WD}}-\frac{\ln f'(R_\infty)}{\Phi_{\rm NS}}\Big)^2 \, .$$ It can be seen that in the special case $f(R)=R-2\Lambda$, the above result is reduced to $\dot{P}=\dot{P}^{\rm GR}$. Because $\Phi_{\rm NS}/\Phi_{\rm WD}\sim 10^4$, the orbital period derivative can be approximated by $$\label{Aobs}
\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{P}^{\rm GR}}=1+\frac{15}{384}\Big(\frac{P}{2\pi Gm}\Big)^{2/3}\Big(\frac{\ln f'(R_\infty)}{\Phi_{\rm WD}}\Big)^2 \, .$$ Since all the pulsar observation agrees well with the GR prediction within the errors [@Stairs2003; @Antoniadis1233232; @freire2012relativistic], the observation value of the period derivative can be expressed as $$\frac{\dot{P}^{\rm obs}}{\dot{P}^{\rm GR}}=1+\delta\pm\sigma$$ where $\delta$ is the fractional deviation of the observed $\dot{P}^{\rm obs}$ from the GR prediction, $\sigma$ is the observational uncertainty. Thus the background field value $f'(R_\infty)$ cannot deviate from unity too much, that is, $$\label{psr_bound}
|\ln f'(R_\infty)|\approx|f'(R_\infty)-1|<(|\delta|+2\sigma)^{\frac12}(\frac{m}{M_\odot})^{\frac13}(\frac{P}{1 \text{d}})^{-\frac13}(\frac{m_{\rm WD}}{M_\odot})(\frac{R_{\rm WD}}{R_\odot})^{-1}\times 7.63\times 10^{-9}$$ at 95% confidence level.
Up to now, more than 2500 pulsars have been observed [@neutron]. However, most of them are isolated and their mass cannot be determined. Table 2 in [@neutron] lists fifteen NS-WD systems with low-eccentricity orbits which have accurate measurement of mass. Among these fifteen NS-WD systems only PSR J0348 +0432 and PSR J1738 +0333 have accurate observation value of the radius of the white dwarf companion. Thus we use these two NS-WD systems to constrain $f(R)$ gravity and list here the relevant parameters in Table \[psr\].
In the PSR J0348 +0432 case (see Table \[psr\]), $\delta=0.05$ and $\sigma=0.18$. Substituting the parameters into inequality , we obtain the upper bound $$|f'(R_\infty)-1|<3.583\times10^{-8}$$ at 95% confidence level. Similarly, using the observation data of PSR J1738 +0333, we obtain $$|f'(R_\infty)-1|<3.579\times10^{-8}$$ at 95% confidence level. Compared with the solar system constraint , the pulsar constraint is three orders of magnitude weaker.
Applying the pulsar constraint to the model (A), we obtain $$|f'(R_0)-1|<3.6\times 10^{-8}\Big(\frac{8\pi G \rho_g}{R_0}\Big)^{n+1}.$$ The above result is also shown in Fig. \[huc1c2\] with dashed line. Similarly, applying the pulsar constraint to the model (B), we obtain $$\mu > 5.4\times 10^{-5}.$$ Consistently, we find both of them are relatively weaker than the corresponding constraints of solar system.
PSR J0348 +0432 [@Antoniadis1233232] J1738 +0333 [@freire2012relativistic]
------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Eccentricity, $e$ $\sim10^{-6}$ $(3.4\pm1.1) \times 10^{-7}$
Period, $P$ (day) 0.102424062722(7) 0.3547907398724(13)
Period derivative, $\dot{P}$ ($10^{-14}$) $-27.3\pm 4.5$ $-2.59\pm0.32$
$\dot{P}^{\rm obs}/\dot{P}^{\rm GR}$ $1.05\pm0.18$ $0.93\pm0.13$
Total mass, $m$ ($M_\odot$) $2.18\pm0.04$ $1.65_{-0.06}^{+0.07}$
WD mass, $m_{\rm WD}$ ($M_\odot$) $0.172\pm0.003$ $0.181_{-0.007}^{+0.008}$
WD radius, $R_{\rm WD}$ ($R_\odot$) $0.065\pm0.005$ $0.037_{-0.003}^{+0.004}$
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
The $f(R)$ gravity has been extensively studied to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. In this paper, we have studied the general $f(R)$ gravity through the scalar-tensor representation. In this theory, the chameleon mechanism is crucial for $f(R)$ gravity to escape the fifth force constraints. However, due to the non-dynamical nature of the scalar field in Palatini $f(R)$ gravity, this mechanism does not apply to the theory. Therefore, we focused on the metric $f(R)$ gravity with chameleon mechanism.
We calculated the PPN parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$ for the general $f(R)$ gravity, and found that $\beta=1$ in the limit $m_\infty r\ll 1$. As a result, the observed value of $\beta$ cannot constrain the parameters of $f(R)$ models. Applying the Cassini spacecraft measurement of $\gamma$, we obtained the constraint $|f'(R_\infty)-1|<4.9\times10^{-11}$ on the metric $f(R)$ gravity, which is consistent with the previous works. To pass the cosmological test, the metric $f(R)$ gravity should provide the effective cosmological constant. We also calculated the effective cosmological constant in $f(R)$ gravity. In general, the cosmological constraint can reduce one free model parameter in a given specific $f(R)$ model.
In addition, we calculated the orbital period derivative $\dot{P}$ of binary pulsar systems in the metric $f(R)$ gravity. Since GR has survived the binary pulsar test, the $\dot{P}$ in the metric $f(R)$ gravity cannot deviate from that in GR too much. We found that the pulsar constraint from the observations of PSR J0348 +0432 and PSR J1738 +0333 is $|f'(R_\infty)-1|<3.6\times10^{-8}$. This is relatively weaker than the current constraints derived from the solar system observations. We also studied the stability condition of de Sitter space. Compared with the observational constraints (binary pulsar and solar system), this theoretical constraint is more stringent in Hu-Sawicki model and Tsujikawa model. With the chameleon mechanism, the metric $f(R)$ gravity with suitable parameters can pass the cosmological test, the solar system test and the binary pulsar test at the same time.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by NSFC Grants Nos. 11773028, 11603020, 11633001, 11173021, 11322324, 11653002 and 11421303, the project of Knowledge Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of Science, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Grant No. XDB23010200.
[57]{}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 [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1538-3881/116/i=3/a=1009) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/517/i=2/a=565) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0253-6102/56/i=3/a=24) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157314004487) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157312000105) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157317301527) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09071) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.201400058) [****, ()](http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1665613) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.451) [****, ()](https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2010-3) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0253-6102/61/i=1/a=23) [****, ()](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0021364007150027) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.104021) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.104017) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.124005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023507) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.043528) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123512) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269307008829) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083514) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044026) [****, ()](\doibase 10.12942/lrr-2014-4) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.044022) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.083505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322) [ ](https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05034) [****, ()](\doibase 10.12942/lrr-2003-5) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.221101) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101) [****, ()](https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/abs/2016/20/epjconf_quark2016_03005/epjconf_quark2016_03005.html) [****, ()](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/431/1/741/1053807/Testing-f-R-theories-using-the-first-time) [****, ()](http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219887815500401) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.76.063505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064004) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124003) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physrevd.95.104027) [**** (), 10.1126/science.1233232](\doibase 10.1126/science.1233232) [****, ()](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21253.x) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3585) “,” in [**](\doibase
10.1007/978-3-540-71013-4_14) (, , ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.061103) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269303013029?via%3Dihub) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.107501)
[^1]: The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration have detected the gravitational waves [@PhysRevLett.116.061102; @PhysRevLett.116.241103; @PhysRevLett.118.221101; @Abbott2017a; @Abbott2017]. This is an important milestone and opens new windows in the gravitational physics and astrophysics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Dialogue state tracking (DST) aims at estimating the current dialogue state given all the preceding conversation. For multi-domain DST, the data sparsity problem is a major obstacle due to increased numbers of state candidates and dialogue lengths. To encode the dialogue context efficiently, we utilize the previous dialogue state (predicted) and the current dialogue utterance as the input for DST. To consider relations among different domain-slots, the schema graph involving prior knowledge is exploited. In this paper, a novel context and schema fusion network is proposed to encode the dialogue context and schema graph by using internal and external attention mechanisms. Experiment results show that our approach can obtain new state-of-the-art performance of the open-vocabulary DST on both MultiWOZ 2.0 and MultiWOZ 2.1 benchmarks.'
author:
- 'Su Zhu, Jieyu Li, Lu Chen'
- |
Kai Yu\
MoE Key Lab of Artificial Intelligence\
SpeechLab, Department of Computer Science and Engineering\
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China\
[{paul2204,oracion,chenlusz,kai.yu}@sjtu.edu.cn]{}\
bibliography:
- 'emnlp2020.bib'
title: 'Efficient Context and Schema Fusion Networks for Multi-Domain Dialogue State Tracking'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Dialogue state tracking (DST) is a key component in task-oriented dialogue systems which cover certain narrow domains (e.g., *booking hotel* and *travel planning*). As a kind of context-aware language understanding task, DST aims to extract user goals or intents hidden in human-machine conversation and represent them as a compact dialogue state, i.e., a set of slots and their corresponding values. For example, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:dial\_example\], (*slot*, *value*) pairs like (*name*, *huntingdon marriott hotel*) are extracted from the dialogue. It is essential to build a high-qualified DST for dialogue management [@young2013pomdp], where dialogue state determines the next machine action and response.
![An example of multi-domain dialogues. Utterances at the left side are from the system agent, and utterances at the right side are from a user. The dialogue state of each domain is represented as a set of (*slot*, *value*) pairs.[]{data-label="fig:dial_example"}](figs/DST_examples.png){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Recently, motivated by the tremendous growth of commercial dialogue systems like Apple Siri, Microsoft Cortana, Amazon Alexa, or Google Assistant, multi-domain DST becomes crucial to help users across different domains [@budzianowski-etal-2018-multiwoz; @eric2019multiwoz]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:dial\_example\], the dialogue covers three domains (i.e., `Hotel`, `Attraction` and `Taxi`). The goal of multi-domain DST is to predict the value (including non-sense `NONE`) for each *domain-slot* pair based on all the preceding dialogue utterances. However, due to increasing numbers of dialogue turns and domain-slot pairs, the data sparsity problem become a main issue in this field.
To tackle the above problem, we emphasize that DST models should support open-vocabulary based value decoding, encode context efficiently and incorporate domain-slot relations:
1. Open-vocabulary DST is essential for real-world applications [@wu2019transferable; @gao-etal-2019-dialog; @ren-etal-2019-scalable], since value sets for some slots can be very huge and variable (e.g., *song names*).
2. To encode the dialogue context efficiently, we attempt to get context representation from the previous (predicted) dialogue state and the current turn dialogue utterance, while not concatenating all the preceding dialogue utterances.
3. To consider relations among domains and slots, we introduce the schema graph which contains *domain*, *slot*, *domain-slot* nodes and their relationships. It is a kind of prior knowledge and may help alleviate the data imbalance problem.
To this end, we propose a multi-domain dialogue state tracker with context and schema fusion networks (CSFN-DST). The fusion network is exploited to jointly encode the previous dialogue state, the current turn dialogue and the schema graph by internal and external attention mechanisms. After multiple layers of attention networks, the final representation of each *domain-slot* node is utilized to predict the corresponding value, involving context and schema information. For the value prediction, a slot gate classifier is applied to decide whether a domain-slot is mentioned in the conversation, and then an RNN-based value decoder is exploited to generate the corresponding value. Our proposed CSFN-DST is evaluated on MultiWOZ 2.0 and MultiWOZ 2.1 benchmarks. Ablation study on each component further reveals that both context and schema are essential. Contributions in this work are summarized as:
- To alleviate the data sparsity problem and enhance the context encoding, we propose exploiting domain-slot relations within the schema graph for open-vocabulary DST.
- To fully encode the schema graph and dialogue context, fusion networks are introduced with graph-based, internal and external attention mechanisms.
- Experimental results show that our approach can achieve new state-of-the-art performance (joint goal accuracy) of open-vocabulary DST on both MultiWOZ 2.0 ($51.57\%$) and MultiWOZ 2.1 ($52.88\%$).
Related Work {#sec:rel}
============
Traditional DST models rely on semantics extracted by natural language understanding to predict the current dialogue states [@young2013pomdp; @williams-EtAl:2013:SIGDIAL; @henderson-slt14.1; @sun-slt14; @yu2015constrained], or jointly learn language understanding in an end-to-end way [@henderson-slt14.2; @henderson-thomson-young:2014:W14-43]. These methods heavily rely on hand-crafted features and complex domain-specific lexicons for delexicalization, which are difficult to extend to new domains. Recently, most works about DST focus on encoding dialogue context with deep neural networks (such as CNN, RNN, LSTM-RNN, etc.) and predicting a value for each possible slot [@mrkvsic2017neural; @xu2018acl; @zhong2018global; @ren2018towards].
**Multi-domain DST**Most traditional state tracking approaches focus on a single domain, which extract value for each slot in the domain [@williams-EtAl:2013:SIGDIAL; @henderson-thomson-williams:2014:W14-43]. They can be directly adapted to multi/mixed-domain conversations by replacing slots in a single domain with *domain-slot* pairs (i.e. domain-specific slots) [@ramadan2018large; @gao-etal-2019-dialog; @wu2019transferable; @zhang2019find; @kim2019efficient]. Despite its simplicity, this approach for multi-domain DST extracts value for each domain-slot independently, which may fail to capture features from slot co-occurrences. For example, hotels with higher *stars* are usually more expensive (*price\_range*).
**Predefined ontology-based DST**Most of the previous works assume that a predefined ontology is provided in advance, i.e., all slots and their values of each domain are known and fixed [@williams2012belief; @henderson-thomson-williams:2014:W14-43]. Predefined ontology-based DST can be simplified into a value classification task for each slot [@henderson-thomson-young:2014:W14-43; @mrkvsic2017neural; @zhong2018global; @ren2018towards; @ramadan2018large; @lee2019sumbt]. It has the advantage of access to the known candidate set of each slot, but these approaches may not be applicable in the real scenario. Since a full ontology is hard to obtain in advance [@xu2018acl], and the number of possible slot values could be substantial and variable (e.g., *song names*), even if a full ontology exists [@wu2019transferable].
**Open-vocabulary DST**Without a predefined ontology, some works choose to directly generate or extract values for each slot from the dialogue context, by using the encoder-decoder architecture [@wu2019transferable] or the pointer network [@gao-etal-2019-dialog; @ren-etal-2019-scalable; @Le2020Non-Autoregressive]. They can improve the scalability and robustness to unseen slot values, while most of them are not efficient in context encoding since they encode all the previous utterances at each dialogue turn. Notably, a multi-domain dialogue could involve quite a long history, e.g., MultiWOZ dataset [@budzianowski-etal-2018-multiwoz] contains about 13 turns per dialogue on average.
**Graph Neural Network**Graph Neural Network (GNN) approaches [@scarselli2009graph; @velickovic2018graph] aggregate information from graph structure and encode node features, which can learn to reason and introduce unordered structure information. Many GNN variants are proposed and also applied in various NLP tasks, such as text classification [@yao2019graph], machine translation [@marcheggiani2018exploiting], dialogue policy optimization [@chen2019agentgraph] etc. We introduce graph-based multi-head attention and fusion networks for encoding the schema graph.
Problem Formulation
===================
In a multi-domain dialogue state tracking problem, we assume that there are $M$ domains (e.g. *taxi*, *hotel*) involved, $\mathcal{D}=\{d_1,d_2,\cdots,d_M\}$. Slots included in each domain $d\in\mathcal{D}$ are denoted as a set $\mathcal{S}^d=\{s_1^d,s_2^d,\cdots,s_{|\mathcal{S}^d|}^d\}$.[^1] Thus, there are $J$ possible *domain*-*slot* pairs totally, $\mathcal{O}=\{O_1,O_2,\cdots,O_J\}$, where $J=\sum_{m=1}^M |\mathcal{S}^{d_m}|$. Since different domains may contain a same slot, we denote all distinct $N$ slots as $\mathcal{S}=\{s_1,s_2,\cdots,s_N\}$, where $N\leq J$.
A dialogue can be formally represented as $\{(A_1,U_1,B_1),(A_2,U_2,B_2),\cdots,(A_T,U_T,B_T)\}$, where $A_t$ is what the agent says at the $t$-th turn, $U_t$ is the user utterance at $t$ turn, and $B_t$ denotes the corresponding dialogue state. $A_t$ and $U_t$ are word sequences, while $B_t$ is a set of *domain*-*slot*-*value* triplets, e.g., (*hotel*, *price\_range*, *expensive*). Value $v_{tj}$ is a word sequence for $j$-th *domain*-*slot* pair at the $t$-th turn. The goal of DST is to correctly predict the value for each *domain*-*slot* pair, given the dialogue history.
Most of the previous works choose to concatenate all words in the dialogue history, $[A_1,U_1,A_2,U_2,\cdots,A_t,U_t]$, as the input. However, this may lead to increased computation time. In this work, we propose to utilize only the current dialogue turn $A_t$, $U_t$ and the previous dialogue state $B_{t-1}$ to predict the new state $B_t$. During the training, we use the ground truth of $B_{t-1}$, while the previous predicted dialogue state would be used in the inference stage.
**Schema Graph**To consider relations between different *domain*-*slot* pairs and exploit them as an additional input to guide the context encoding, we formulate them as a schema graph $G=(V,E)$ with node set $V$ and edge set $E$. Fig. \[fig:schema\_graph\] shows an example of schema graph. In the graph, there are three kinds of nodes to denote all domains $\mathcal{D}$, slots $\mathcal{S}$, and domain-slot pairs $\mathcal{O}$, i.e., $V=\mathcal{D}\cup\mathcal{S}\cup\mathcal{O}$. Four types of undirected edges between different nodes are exploited to involve prior knowledge:
1. $(d, d^{\prime})$: Any two domain nodes, $d\in\mathcal{D}$ and $d^{\prime}\in\mathcal{D}$, are linked to each other.
2. $(s, d)$: We add an edge between slot $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and domain $d\in\mathcal{D}$ nodes if $s\in\mathcal{S}^{d}$, .
3. $(d, o)$ and $(s, o)$: If a domain-slot pair $o\in\mathcal{O}$ is composed of the domain $d\in\mathcal{D}$ and slot $s\in\mathcal{S}$, there are two edges from $d$ and $s$ to this domain-slot node respectively.
4. $(s, s^{\prime})$: If the candidate values of two different slots ($s\in\mathcal{S}$ and $s^{\prime}\in\mathcal{S}$) would overlap, there is also an edge between them, e.g., *destination* and *departure*, *leave\_at* and *arrive\_by*.
![An example of schema graph. Domain nodes are in orange, slot nodes are in green and domain-slot nodes are in blue.[]{data-label="fig:schema_graph"}](figs/schema_graph.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Context and Schema Fusion Networks for Multi-domain DST {#sec:method}
=======================================================
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
In this section, we will introduce our approach for multi-domain DST, which jointly encodes the current dialogue turn ($A_t$ and $U_t$), the previous dialogue state $B_{t-1}$ and the schema graph $G$ by fusion networks. After that, we can obtain context-aware and schema-aware node embeddings for all $J$ domain-slot pairs. Finally, a slot-gate classifier and RNN-based value decoder are exploited to extract the value for each domain-slot pair.
The architecture of CSFN-DST is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:model\_arch\], which consists of input embeddings, context schema fusion network and state prediction modules.
Input Embeddings
----------------
Besides token and position embeddings for encoding literal information, segment embeddings are also exploited to discriminate different types of input tokens.
**(1) Dialogue Utterance**We denote the representation of the dialogue utterances at $t$-th turn as a joint sequence, $X_t=\texttt{[CLS]} \oplus A_{t} \oplus ; \oplus U_{t} \oplus\texttt{[SEP]}$, where $\texttt{[CLS]}$ and $\texttt{[SEP]}$ are auxiliary tokens for separation, $\oplus$ is the operation of sequence concatenation. As $\texttt{[CLS]}$ is designed to capture the sequence embedding, it has a different segment type with the other tokens. The input embeddings of $X_t$ are the sum of the token embeddings, the segmentation embeddings and the position embeddings [@vaswani2017attention], as shown in Fig. \[fig:model\_arch\].
**(2) Previous Dialogue State**As mentioned before, a dialogue state is a set of *domain*-*slot*-*value* triplets with a mentioned value (not `NONE`). Therefore, we denote the previous dialogue state as $B_{t-1}=\texttt{[CLS]} \oplus R_{t-1}^1 \oplus \cdots \oplus R_{t-1}^{K}$, where $K$ is the number of triplets in $B_{t-1}$. Each triplet $d\texttt{-}s\texttt{-}v$ is denoted as a sub-sequence, i.e., $R=d\oplus\texttt{-}\oplus s \oplus\texttt{-}\oplus v$. The domain and slot names are tokenized, e.g., *price\_range* is replaced with “price range”. The value is also represented as a token sequence. For the special value `DONTCARE` which means users do not care the value, it would be replaced with “dont care”. The input embeddings of $B_{t-1}$ are the sum of the token, segmentation and position embeddings. Positions are re-enumerated for different triplets. **(3) Schema Graph**As mentioned before, the schema graph $G$ is comprised of $M$ domain nodes, $N$ slot nodes and $J$ domain-slot nodes. These nodes are arranged as $G=d_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus d_M \oplus s_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus s_N \oplus o_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus o_J$. Each node embedding is initialized by averaging embeddings of tokens in the corresponding domain/slot/domain-slot. Positions embeddings are omitted in the graph. The edges of the graph are represented as an adjacency matrix $\textbf{A}^G$ whose items are either one or zero, which would be used in the fusion network. To emphasize edges between different types of nodes can be different in the computation, we exploit node types to get segment embeddings.
Context and Schema Fusion Network
---------------------------------
At this point, we have input representations $\mathrm{H}_0^{G}\in \mathbb{R}^{|G| \times d_{m}}, \mathrm{H}_0^{X_t}\in \mathbb{R}^{|X_t| \times d_{m}}, \mathrm{H}_0^{B_{t-1}}\in \mathbb{R}^{|B_{t-1}| \times d_{m}}$, where $|.|$ gets the token or node number. The context and schema fusion network (CSFN) is utilized to compute hidden states for tokens or nodes in $X_t$, $B_{t-1}$ and $G$ layer by layer. We then apply a stack of $L$ context- and schema-aware self-attention layers to get final hidden states, $\mathrm{H}_L^{G}, \mathrm{H}_L^{X_t}, \mathrm{H}_L^{B_{t-1}}$. The $i$-th layer ($0\leq i < L$) can be formulated as: [$$\mathrm{H}_{i+1}^{G}, \mathrm{H}_{i+1}^{X_t}, \mathrm{H}_{i+1}^{B_{t-1}} = \text{CSFNLayer}_i(\mathrm{H}_{i}^{G}, \mathrm{H}_{i}^{X_t}, \mathrm{H}_{i}^{B_{t-1}})$$]{}
### Multi-head Attention
Before describing the fusion network, we first introduce the multi-head attention [@vaswani2017attention] which is a basic module. The multi-head attention can be described as mapping a query and a set of key-value pairs to an output, where the query, keys, values, and output are all vectors. The output is computed as a weighted sum of the values, where the weight assigned to each value is computed by a compatibility function of the query with the corresponding key.
Consider a source sequence of vectors $Y=\{\boldsymbol{y}_i\}_{i=1}^{|Y|}$ where $\boldsymbol{y}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\text{model}}}$ and $Y \in \mathbb{R}^{|Y| \times d_{\text{model}}}$, and a target sequence of vectors $Z=\{\boldsymbol{z}_i\}_{i=1}^{|Z|}$ where $\boldsymbol{z}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\text{model}}}$ and $Z \in \mathbb{R}^{|Z| \times d_{\text{model}}}$. For each vector $\boldsymbol{y}_i$, we can compute an attention vector $\boldsymbol{c}_i$ over $Z$ by using $H$ heads as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}^{(h)} &= \frac{(\boldsymbol{y}_i W_{Q}^{(h)}) (\boldsymbol{z}_j W_{K}^{(h)})^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_{\text{model}}/H}};\ \ a_{ij}^{(h)} = \frac{\text{exp}(e_{ij}^{(h)})}{\sum_{l=1}^{|Z|} \text{exp}(e_{il}^{(h)})}\\
\boldsymbol{c}_i^{(h)} &= \sum_{j=1}^{|Z|}a_{ij}^{(h)} (\boldsymbol{z}_j W_{V}^{(h)});
\boldsymbol{c}_i = \text{Concat}(\boldsymbol{c}_i^{(1)}, \cdots, \boldsymbol{c}_i^{(H)}) W_{O}\end{aligned}$$]{}where $1\leq h \leq H$, $W_O \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\text{model}} \times d_{\text{model}}}$, and $W_{Q}^{(h)}, W_{K}^{(h)}, W_{V}^{(h)} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{\text{model}} \times (d_{\text{model}}/H)}$. We can compute $\boldsymbol{c}_i$ for every $\boldsymbol{y}_i$ and get a transformed matrix $C \in \mathbb{R}^{|Y| \times d_{\text{model}}}$. The entire process is denoted as a mapping $\text{MultiHead}_\Theta$: $$C = \text{MultiHead}_\Theta(Y, Z) \label{eqn:mh}$$
**Graph-based Multi-head Attention** To apply the multi-head attention on a graph, the graph adjacency matrix $\textbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{|Y| \times |Z|}$ is involved to mask nodes/tokens unrelated, where $\textbf{A}_{ij}\in\{0, 1\}$. Thus, $e_{ij}^{(h)}$ is changed as: $$e_{ij}^{(h)}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}{\frac{(\boldsymbol{y}_i W_{Q}^{(h)}) (\boldsymbol{z}_j W_{K}^{(h)})^{\top}}{\sqrt{d_{\text{model}}/H}},} & {\text { if\ } \textbf{A}_{ij}=1} \\ {-\infty,} & {\text { otherwise }}\end{array}\right.$$ and Eqn. (\[eqn:mh\]) is modified as: $$C = \text{GraphMultiHead}_\Theta(Y, Z, \textbf{A}) \label{eqn:gmh}$$ Eqn. (\[eqn:mh\]), can be treated as a special case of Eqn. (\[eqn:gmh\]) that the graph is fully connected, i.e., $\textbf{A}=\boldsymbol{1}$.
### Context- and Schema-Aware Encoding
Each layer of CSFN consists of internal and external attentions to incorporate different types of inputs. The hidden states of the schema graph $G$ at the $i$-the layer are updated as follows: [$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{I}_{\text{GG}} &= \text{\small GraphMultiHead}_{\Theta_{\text{GG}}}(\mathrm{H}_i^{G}, \mathrm{H}_i^{G}, \textbf{A}^G) \\
\mathrm{E}_{\text{GX}} &= \text{\small MultiHead}_{\Theta_{\text{GX}}}(\mathrm{H}_i^{G}, \mathrm{H}_i^{X_t}) \\
\mathrm{E}_{\text{GB}} &= \text{\small MultiHead}_{\Theta_{\text{GB}}}(\mathrm{H}_i^{G}, \mathrm{H}_i^{B_{t-1}}) \\
\mathrm{C}_{{G}} &= \text{\small LayerNorm}(\mathrm{H}_i^{G} + \mathrm{I}_{\text{GG}} + \mathrm{E}_{\text{GX}} + \mathrm{E}_{\text{GB}}) \\
\mathrm{H}_{i+1}^{G} &= \text{\small LayerNorm}(\mathrm{C}_{{G}} + \text{FFN}(\mathrm{C}_{{G}}))\end{aligned}$$]{}where $\textbf{A}^G$ is the adjacency matrix of the schema graph and $\text{LayerNorm}(.)$ is layer normalization function [@ba2016layer]. $\text{FFN}(x)$ is a feed-forward network (FFN) function with two fully-connected layer and an ReLU activation in between, i.e., $\mathrm{FFN}(x)=\max \left(0, x W_{1}+b_{1}\right) W_{2}+b_{2}$.
Similarly, more details about updating $\mathrm{H}_{i}^{X_t}, \mathrm{H}_{i}^{B_{t-1}}$ are described in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_fusion\_network\].
State Prediction
----------------
The goal of state prediction is to produce the next dialogue state $B_t$, which is formulated as two stages: 1) We first apply a slot-gate classifier for each domain-slot node. The classifier makes a decision among {`NONE`, `DONTCARE`, `PTR`}, where `NONE` denotes that a domain-slot pair is not mentioned at this turn, `DONTCARE` implies that the user can accept any values for this slot, and `PTR` represents that the slot should be processed with a value. 2) For domain-slot pairs tagged with `PTR`, we further introduced an RNN-based value decoder to generate token sequences of their values.
### Slot-gate Classification
We utilize the final hidden vector of $j$-th domain-slot node in $G$ for the slot-gate classification, and the probability for the $j$-th domain-slot pair at the $t$-th turn is calculated as: $$P_{tj}^{\text{gate}} = \text{softmax}(\text{FFN}(\mathrm{H}_{L,M+N+j}^{G}))$$ The loss for slot gate classification is $$\mathcal{L}_{\text {gate}}=-\sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{j=1}^{J}\log (P_{t j}^\text{gate} \cdot (y_{tj}^\text{gate})^{\top})$$ where $y_{tj}^\text{gate}$ is the one-hot gate label for the $j$-th domain-slot pair at turn $t$.
### RNN-based Value Decoder
After the slot-gate classification, there are $J'$ domain-slot pairs tagged with `PTR` class which indicates the domain-slot should take a real value. They are denoted as $\mathbb{C}_{t}=\{j|\text{argmax}(P_{tj}^{\text{gate}})=\texttt{PTR}\}$, and $J'=|\mathbb{C}_{t}|$.
We use Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) [@cho2014properties] decoder like @wu2019transferable and the soft copy mechanism [@see2017get] to get the final output distribution $P_{tj}^{\text{value}, k}$ over all candidate tokens at the $k$-th step. More details are illustrated in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_rnn\_value\_decoder\]. The loss function for value decoder is $$\mathcal{L}_{\text {value}}=-\sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{j\in \mathbb{C}_{t}}\sum_{k}\log (P_{tj}^{\text{value},k} \cdot(y_{tj}^{\text{value},k})^{\top})$$ where $y_{tj}^{\text{value},k}$ is the one-hot token label for the $j$-th domain-slot pair at $k$-th step.
During training process, the above modules can be jointly trained and optimized by the summations of different losses as:
$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{gate}}+\mathcal{L}_{\text{value}}$$
Experiment {#sec:exp}
==========
Datasets {#subsec:exp_dataset}
--------
We use MultiWOZ 2.0 [@budzianowski-etal-2018-multiwoz] and MultiWOZ 2.1 [@eric2019multiwoz] to evaluate our approach. MultiWOZ 2.0 is a task-oriented dataset of human-human written conversations spanning over seven domains, consists of 10348 multi-turn dialogues. MultiWOZ 2.1 is a revised version of MultiWOZ 2.0, which is re-annotated with a different set of inter-annotators and also canonicalized entity names. According to the works of [@eric2019multiwoz], about $32\%$ of the state annotations is corrected so that the effect of noise is counteracted.
Note that *hospital* and *police* are excluded since they appear in training set with a very low frequency, and they do not even appear in the test set. To this end, five domains (*restaurant*, *train*, *hotel*, *taxi*, *attraction*) are involved in the experiments with $17$ distinct slots and $30$ *domain-slot* pairs. More detailed statistics of MultiWOZ 2.1 are shown in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_dataset\].
Experiment Settings {#subsec:exp_set}
-------------------
We set the hidden size of CSFN, $d_{\text{model}}$, as 400 with 4 heads. Following @wu2019transferable, the token embeddings with 400 dimension are initialized by concatenating Glove embeddings [@pennington-etal-2014-glove] and character embeddings [@hashimoto-etal-2017-joint]. We do grid search over $\{4,5,6,7,8\}$ for the layer number of CSFN on the validation set. We use a batch size of 32. The DST model is trained using ADAM [@kingma2014adam] with the learning rate of 1e-4. During training, we use the ground truth of the previous dialogue state and the ground truth value tokens. In the inference, the predicted dialogue state of the last turn is applied, and we use a greedy search strategy in the decoding process of the value decoder.
Baseline Models {#subsec:exp_baseline}
---------------
We make a comparison with the following existing models, which are either predefined ontology-based DSTs or open-vocabulary based DSTs. Predefined ontology-based DSTs have the advantage of access to the known candidate set of each slot, while these approaches may not be applicable in the real scenario.
**FJST** [@eric2019multiwoz]: It exploits a bidirectional LSTM network to encode the dialog history and a separate FFN to predict the value for each slot.
**HJST** [@eric2019multiwoz]: It encodes the dialogue history using an LSTM like FJST, but utilizes a hierarchical network.
**SUMBT** [@lee2019sumbt]: It exploits BERT [@devlin2018bert] as the encoder for the dialogue context and slot-value pairs. After that, it scores every candidate slot-value pair with the dialogue context by using a distance measure.
**HyST** [@goel2019hyst]: It is a hybrid approach based on hierarchical RNNs, which incorporates both a predefined ontology-based setting and an open-vocabulary setting.
**DST-Reader** [@gao-etal-2019-dialog]: It models the DST from the perspective of text reading comprehensions, and get start and end positions of the corresponding text span in the dialogue context.
**DST-Span** [@zhang2019find]: It treats all domain-slot pairs as span-based slots like DST-Reader, and applies a BERT as the encoder.
**DST-Picklist** [@zhang2019find]: It defines picklist-based slots for classification similarly to SUMBT and applies a pre-trained BERT for the encoder. It relies on a predefined ontology.
**DS-DST** [@zhang2019find]: Similar to HyST, it is a hybrid system of DS-Span and DS-Picklist.
**DSTQA** [@zhou2019multi]: It models multi-domain DST as a question answering problem, and generates a question asking for the value of each domain-slot pair. It heavily relies on a predefined ontology, i.e., the candidate set for each slot is known, except for five time-related slots.
**TRADE** [@wu2019transferable]: It contains a slot gate module for slots classification and a pointer generator for dialogue state generation.
**COMER** [@ren-etal-2019-scalable]: It uses a hierarchical decoder to generate the current dialogue state itself as the target sequence.
**NADST** [@Le2020Non-Autoregressive]: It uses a non-autoregressive decoding scheme to generate the current dialogue state.
**SOM-DST** [@kim2019efficient]: It uses a pre-trained BERT to jointly encode the previous state, the previous and current dialogue utterances. An RNN-decoder is also applied to generate values in the open-vocabulary setting.
Main Results
------------
Joint goal accuracy is the evaluation metric in our experiments, which is represented as the ratio of turns whose predicted dialogue states are entirely consistent with the ground truth in the test set. Table \[tab:main\_res\] illustrates that the joint goal accuracy of CSFN-DST and other baselines on the test set of MultiWOZ 2.0 and MultiWOZ 2.1 datasets.
As shown in the table, our proposed CSFN-DST can outperform other models and achieve state-of-the-art performances on both MultiWOZ 2.0 and 2.1 in the open-vocabulary setting. Additionally, our method using BERT[^2] can obtain very competitive performance with the best systems in the predefined ontology-based setting. When a pre-trained BERT is exploited, we initialize all parameters of CSFN with the BERT encoder’s and initialize the token/position embeddings with the BERT’s.
Analysis
--------
In this subsection, we will conduct some ablation studies to figure out the potential factors for the improvement of our method. (Additional experiments and results are reported in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_addtional\_results\], case study is shown in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_case\_study\].)
### Effect of context information
Context information consists of the previous dialogue state or the current dialogue utterance, which are definitely key for the encoder. It would be interesting to know whether the two kinds of context information are also essential for the RNN-based value decoder. As shown in Table \[tab:context\_information\], we choose to omit the top hidden states of the previous dialogue state ($\mathrm{H}_{L}^{B_{t-1}}$) or the current utterance ($\mathrm{H}_{L}^{X_t}$) in the RNN-based value decoder. The results show both of them are crucial for generating real values.
**Do we need more context?** Only the current dialogue utterance is utilized in our model, which would be more efficient than the previous methods involving all the preceding dialogue utterance. However, we want to ask whether the performance will be improved when more context is used. In Table \[tab:context\_information\], it shows that incorporating the previous dialogue utterance $X_{t-1}$ gives no improvement, which implies that jointly encoding the current utterance and the previous dialogue state is effective as well as efficient.
### Effect of the schema graph
In CSFN-DST, the schema graph with domain-slot relations is exploited. To check the effectiveness of the schema graph used, we remove knowledge-aware domain-slot relations by replacing the adjacency matrix $\textbf{A}^G$ as a fully connected one $\boldsymbol{1}$ or node-independent one $\boldsymbol{I}$. Results in Table \[tab:ablation\] show that joint goal accuracies of models without the schema graph are decreased simultaneously when BERT is either used or not.
To reveal that why the schema graph with domain-slot relations is essential for joint accuracy, we further make analysis on domain-specific and turn-specific results. As shown in Table \[tab:domain\_joint\], the schema graph can benefit almost all domains except for *Attaction (Attr.)*. As illustrated in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_dataset\], the *Attaction* domain contains only three slots, which should be much simpler than the other domains. Therefore, we may say that the schema graph can help complicated domains.
The turn-specific results are shown in Table \[tab:different\_turns\], where joint goal accuracies over different dialogue turns are calculated. From the table, we can see that data proportion of larger turn number become smaller while the larger turn number refers to more challenging conversation. From the results of the table, we can find the schema graph can make improvements over most dialogue turns.
### Oracle experiments
The predicted dialogue state at the last turn is utilized in the inference stage, which is mismatched with the training stage. An oracle experiment is conducted to show the impact of training-inference mismatching, where ground truth of the previous dialogue state is fed into CSFN-DST. The results in Table \[tab:ablation\] show that joint accuracy can be nearly $80\%$ with ground truth of the previous dialogue state. Other oracle experiments with ground truth slot-gate classification and ground truth value generation are also conducted, as shown in Table \[tab:ablation\].
Discussion
----------
The main contributions of this work may focus on exploiting the schema graph with graph-based attention networks. Slot-relations are also utilized in DSTQA [@zhou2019multi]. However, DSTQA uses a dynamically-evolving knowledge graph for the dialogue context, and we use a static schema graph. We absorb the dialogue context by using the previous (predicted) dialogue state as another input. We believe that the two different usages of the slot relation graph can be complementary. Moreover, these two methods are different in value prediction that DSTQA exploits a hybrid of value classifier and span prediction layer, which relies on a predefined ontology. SOM-DST [@kim2019efficient] is very similar to our proposed CSFN-DST with BERT. The main difference between SOM-DST and CSFN-DST is the usage of the schema graph, whereas several details of implementation are inconsistent. By removing the schema graph, CSFN-DST with BERT achieves about $52.50\%$ joint accuracy on MultiWOZ 2.1 (as shown in Table \[tab:ablation\]), which is very close to the performance ($52.57\%$) of SOM-DST. Meanwhile, CSFN-DST with BERT can obtain $59.12\%$ joint accuracy on MultiWOZ 2.1 (as shown in Table \[tab:ablation\]) with ground truth value generation, while SOM-DST can get $55.17\%$ [@kim2019efficient].
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
We introduce a multi-domain dialogue state tracker with context and schema fusion networks, which involves slot relations and learns deep feature representations for each domain-slot pair dependently. Slots from different domains and their relations organized as a schema graph. The previous predicted dialogue state and the current dialogue utterance are utilized for context encoding. Fusion networks with graph-based multi-head attention, internal and external attention mechanisms are proposed to encode dialogue context and schema fully. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art joint goal accuracy of open-vocabulary DST on both MultiWOZ 2.0 and 2.1 benchmarks. Ablation studies also show that the effectiveness of the schema graph. It will be a future work to incorporate relations among dialogue states, utterances and domain schemata.
[^1]: For open-vocabulary DST, possible values for each slot $s\in\mathcal{S}^d$ are not known in advance.
[^2]: `Bert-base-uncased` in <https://github.com/google-research/bert>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider maximum possible value for the sum of cardinalities of hyperedges of a hypergraph without a Berge $4$-cycle. We significantly improve the previous upper bound provided by Gerbner and Palmer. Furthermore, we provide a construction that slightly improves the previous lower bound.'
title: 'A note on maximum size of Berge-$C_4$-free hypergraphs'
---
Introduction
============
A Berge cycle of length $k$, denoted by Berge-$C_k$, is an alternating sequence of distinct vertices and distinct hyperedges of the form $v_1,h_1,v_2,h_2,\ldots v_k,h_k$ where $v_i,v_{i+1}\in h_i$ for each $i\in\{1,2,\ldots ,k-1\}$ and $v_kv_1\in h_k$.
Let $\mathcal H$ be a Berge-$C_4$-free hypergaph on $n$ vertices, Győri and Lemons [@gyori-lemons] showed that $\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)\leq (1+o(1))12\sqrt{2} n^{3/2}$. Gerbner and Palmer [@gebner-palmer] improved the upper bound proving that $\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)\leq \frac{\sqrt{6}}2 n^{3/2}+O(n)$, furthermore they showed that there exists a Berge-$C_4$-free hypergraph $\mathcal H$ such that $\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)\geq (1+o(1))\frac1{3\sqrt{3}} n^{3/2}.$
In this paper we improve theres bounds.
\[mainthm\] Let $\mathcal H$ be a Berge $C_4$-free hypergaph on $n$ vertices, then $$\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)\leq (1+o(1))\frac12 n^{3/2}.$$
Furthermore, there exists a $C_4$-free hypergraph $\mathcal H$ such that $$(1+o(1))\frac{1}{2{\sqrt6}}n^{3/2}\leq \sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)$$
This improves the upper-bound by factor of $\sqrt{6}$ and slightly increases the lower-bound. We introduce couple of important notations and definitions used throughout the paper. Length of a path is the number of edges in the path. For convenience, an edge or a pair of vertices $\{a,b\}$ is sometimes referred to as $ab$.
For a graph (or a hypergraph) $H$ , for convenience, we sometimes use $H$ to denote the edge set of the graph (hypergraph) $H$. Thus the number of edges (hyperedges) in $H$ is ${\left\lvert{H}\right\rvert}$.
Proof of Theorem \[mainthm\]
============================
We will now construct a graph, existence of which is proved in [@gebner-palmer] (page 10). Let us take a graph $H$ on a ground set of $\mathcal H$ by embedding edges into each hyperedge of $\mathcal H$. More specifically, for each $h\in \mathcal H$ we embed ${\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3$ edges on the vertices of $h$, such that collection of edges that were embedded in $h$ consists of pairwise vertex-disjoint triangles and edges. We say that $e\in H$ has color $h$ if $e$ was embedded in the hyperedge $h$ of the hyergraph $\mathcal H$. We will upper bound the number of edges in $H$, which directly gives us an upper bound on $\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)$.
\[obs\] For each vertex $x$ of the graph $H$, at most $2$ adjacent edges to $x$ have the same color. Moreover, if $xy$ and $xz$ have the same color $h$, then $yz\in H$ and the color of $yz$ is $h$ as well.
The following lemma is stated and proved in [@gebner-palmer](claim $16$, page 10).
\[nok27\] $H$ is $K_{2,7}$-free.
Now, we will upper bound the number of edges in $H$. It should be noted, that the only properties of $H$ that we use during the proof, are Observation \[obs\] and Lemma \[nok27\].
For any vertex $v\in V(H)$, let $d(v)$ denote the degree of $v$ in the graph $H$ and let $d$ be the average degree of the graph $H$.
\[maxdegree\] We may assume that a maximum degree in $H$ is less than $18\sqrt{n}$.
First, using the standard argument, let us show that we may assume that minimum degree in $H$ is more than $d/3$. Let $u\in V(H)$ be a vertex of degree at most $d/3$. Let us delete the vertex $u$ from $H$, moreover if two distinct edges $ux,uy$ have the same color in $H$, then delete an edge $xy$ as well (by Observation \[obs\] at most $d/6$ edges will be deleted this way). Let the obtained graph be $H'$. Clearly $H\setminus H'\leq d/3+d/6$, i.e. ${\left\lvert{H'}\right\rvert}\geq \frac{nd}2-\frac{d}2=\frac{(n-1)d}2$ and since $H'$ has $n'=n-1$ vertices, it means that the average degree of $H'$ is at least $d$, and it is easy to see that Observation \[obs\] and Lemma \[nok27\] still holds for $H$. So we could upper bound $H'$ in terms of $n'$ and get the same upper bound on $H$ in terms of $n$. We can repeatedly apply this procedure before we will obtain a graph, with increased (or the same) average degree, and for which Observation \[obs\] and Lemma \[nok27\] still holds. So it is easy to see, that we may assume that the minimum degree in $H$ is more than $d/3$.
Let us assume there is a vertex $u$ of degree at least $18\sqrt{n}$. It is easy to see that there are at least $18\sqrt{n}\cdot (d/3-1)$ paths of length $2$ starting at $u$, moreover each vertex of $H$ is the endpoint of at most $6$ of these $2$-paths, otherwise there would be a $K_{2,7}$, contradicting Lemma \[nok27\]. So $n>18\sqrt{n}\cdot (d/3-1)/6$, therefore $d<\sqrt{n}+3$, i.e. ${\left\lvert{H}\right\rvert}< n^{3/2}/2+1.5n$ and we are done. Therefore, we may assume that degree of each vertex of $H$ is less than $18\sqrt{n}$.
Let $N_1(v)=\{x\mid vx\in E(H)\}$ and $N_2(v)=\{y\notin N_1(v)\cup\{v\}\mid \exists x\in N_1(v)$ s.t. $yx\in E(H)\}$ denote the first and the second neighborhood of $v$ in $H$, respectively.
Let us fix an arbitrary vertex $v$ and let $G=H[N_1(v)]$ be a subgraph of $H$ induced by the set $N_1(v)$. Clearly the maximum degree in $G$ is at most $6$, otherwise we would find a $K_{2,7}$ in the graph $H$, which contradicts the lemma \[nok27\]. So $$\label{eq1}
{\left\lvert{E(G)}\right\rvert}\leq 3|N_1(v)|=3d(v).$$
Let $G_{aux}$ be an auxiliary graph with the vertex set $N_1(v)$ such that $xy\in E(G_{aux})$ if and only if there exists a $w\in N_2(v)$ with $wx,wy\in E(H)$. Let $G_{aux}'$ be the graph with an edge st $E(G_{aux})\setminus E(G)$, clearly
$$\label{eqaux}
{\left\lvert{G_{aux}}\right\rvert}\leq {\left\lvert{G_{aux}'}\right\rvert}+{\left\lvert{G}\right\rvert}\leq {\left\lvert{G_{aux}'}\right\rvert}+3d(v).$$
\[nok55\] ${\left\lvert{G_{aux}'}\right\rvert}<{d(v)}^{9/5}$.
If we assume that $G_{aux}'$ is $K_{5,5}$-free, then by Kovari-Sos-Turán [@Kovari-sos-turan] theorem ${\left\lvert{G_{aux}'}\right\rvert}\leq \frac{4^{1/5}}2{d(v)}^{9/5}<d(v)^{9/5}$. So it suffices to prove that $G_{aux}'$ is $K_{5,5}$-free
First, let us prove the following claim.
\[inclusion\] Let $xy$ be an edge of $G_{aux}'$ and let $h_x$ and $h_y$ be colors of $vx$ and $vy$ in $H$, respectively. Then either $x\in h_y$ or $y\in h_x$.
First note that $h_x\not = h_y$ otherwise, by observation \[obs\], $xy$ would be an edge of $G$ and therefore not and edge of $G_{aux}$. By definition of $G_{aux}'$ there exists $w\in N_2(v)$ such that $wx,wy\in H$. Let $h_1$ and $h_2$ be colors of $wx$ and $wy$ respectively. $h_1\not =h_2$, otherwise $xy\in G$, a contradiction. If $h_1=h_x$ or $h_2=h_y$ then $wv\in E(H)$ therefore $w\in N_1(v)$, a contradiction. Clearly $h_1,h_2,h_x,h_y$ are not all distinct, otherwise they would form a Berge-$C_4$. So either $h_1=h_y$ or $h_2=h_x$, therefore $x\in h_y$ or $y\in h_x$.
Now, let us assume for a contradiction that there is a $K_{5,5}$ in $G_{aux}'$ with parts $A$ and $B$. By the pigeon-hole principle, there exists $v_1,v_2,v_3\in A$ such that colors of $vv_1,vv_2$ and $vv_3$ are all different. Similarly, there exists $v_4,v_5,v_6\in B$ such that colors of $vv_4,vv_5$ and $vv_6$ are distinct. For each $1\leq i\leq 6$ let $h_i\in E(\mathcal H)$ be the color of $vv_i$. If $v_i\in A$, $v_j\in B$ and $h_i=h_j$, then $v_iv_j\in G$ therefore $v_iv_j\notin G_{aux}$, a contradiction. So $h_i$ is different for each $i\in \{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$.
So we have a $K_{3,3}$ in $G_{aux}'$ with parts $v_1,v_2,v_3$ and $v_4,v_5,v_6$ such that color $h_i$ of each $vv_i$ is distinct for each $1\leq i \leq 6$.
Let $D$ be a bipartite directed graph with parts $v_1,v_2,v_3$ and $v_4,v_5,v_6$, such that $\vec{v_iv_j}\in D$ if and only if $v_i\in h_j$ and $v_i$ and $v_j$ are in different parts. By Claim $\ref{inclusion}$ for each $1\leq i \leq 3$ and $4\leq j\leq 6$, either $\vec{v_iv_j}\in D$ or $\vec{v_jv_i}\in D$.
\[directedgraph\] Let $F_1$ and $F_2$ be directed graphs with the edge sets $E(F_1)=\{\vec{yx},\vec{zx},\vec{wz}\}$ and $E(F_2)=\{\vec{yx},\vec{zx},\vec{zw},\vec{uw}$}, where $x,y,z,w,u$ are distinct vertices. Then $D$ is $F_1$-free and $F_2$-free.
Let us assume that $D$ contains $F_1$. Then, without loss of generality we may assume that $\vec{v_4v_1},\vec{v_5v_1},\vec{v_2v_5}\in D$. So by definition of $D$, $v_4,v_5\in h_1$ and $v_2\in h_5$. Then we have, $vv_4\subset h_4$, $v_4v_5\subset h_1$, $v_5v_2\subset h_5$ and $v_2v\subset h_2$, therefore the hyperedges $h_4,h_1,h_5,h_2$ form a berge $C_4$ in $\mathcal H$, a contradiction.
If $D$ contains $F_2$, without loss of generality we may assume that $\vec{v_4v_1},\vec{v_5v_1},\vec{v_5v_2},\vec{v_6v_2}\in D$. So by definition of $D$, we have $v_4,v_5\in h_1$ and $v_5,v_6\in h_2$, so $v,h_4v_4,h_1v_5,h_2v_6,h_6$ is a Berge $C_4$, a contradiction.
Now, since each vertex of $D$ has at least $3$ incident edges, there is a vertex in $D$ with at least $2$ incoming edges, without loss of generality let this vertex be $v_1$ and let the incoming edges be $\vec{v_4v_1}$ and $\vec{v_5v_1}$. By Claim \[directedgraph\] $D$ does not contain $F_1$, therefore for each $2\leq i \leq 3$, $\vec{v_iv_4},\vec{v_iv_5}\notin D$ i.e. $\vec{v_4v_i},\vec{v_5v_i}\in D$ for every $1\leq i \leq 3$. If $\vec{v_6v_1}\in D$, then $\vec{v_4v_2},\vec{v_5v_2},\vec{v_5v_1},\vec{v_6v_1}$ would form $F_2$ which contradicts Claim \[directedgraph\], therefore $\vec{v_1v_6}\in D$. Similarly $\vec{v_2v_6}\in D$ (and $\vec{v_3v_6}\in D$), but now $\vec{v_1v_6},\vec{v_2v_6}$ and $\vec{v_4v_1}$ forms $F_1$, a contradiction.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now using the information above, we will complete the proof of the upper bound. By the Blackley-Roy inequality there exists a vertex $v\in V(H)$ such that there are at least $d^2$ ordered $2$-walks starting at vertex $v$. We now fix this vertex $v$ and define $G_{aux}$ and $G'_{aux}$ for $v$ similarly as before. Clearly at most $2d(v)$ of these $2$-walks may not be a path, so there are at least $d^2-2d(v)$ $2$-paths starting at $v$.
Let $B$ be a bipartite graph with parts $N_1(v)$ and $N_2(v)$ such that $xy\in B$ if and only if $vxy$ is a $2$-path of $H$ and $y\in N_2(v)$ (clearly $x\in N_1(v)$). The number of $2$ paths $vxy$ such that $xy\notin B$ is at most $2{\left\lvert{E(G)}\right\rvert}\leq 6d(v)$ (here we used ), therefore we have $$|E(B)|\geq d^2-2d(v)-6d(v)=d^2-8d(v).$$
Let $B'$ be a subgraph of $B$ with the edge set $E(B')=\{xy\in E(B)\mid \exists z\in N_1(v)\setminus \{x\}$ such that $yz\in E(B)\}$. Clearly, $xy,yz\in E(B')$ means that $xz\in E(G_{aux})$, moreover, by Lemma \[nok27\], for each $xz\in G_{aux}$ there is at most $6$ choices of $y\in N_2(v)$ such that $xy,yz\in E(B')$, therefore it is easy to see that the number of $2$-paths in $B'$ with terminal vertices in $N_1(v)$ is at most $6\cdot {\left\lvert{G_{aux}}\right\rvert}$, So ${\left\lvert{B'}\right\rvert}\leq 12{\left\lvert{G_{aux}}\right\rvert}$, therefore by Lemma \[nok55\] and we have ${\left\lvert{B'}\right\rvert}\leq 12(d(v)^{9/5}+3d(v))$, so $$\label{boundofb}
{\left\lvert{B\setminus B'}\right\rvert}\geq d^2-12d(v)^{9/5}-44d(v)$$
On the other hand, by definition of $B'$ each vertex of $N_2(v)$ is incident to at most $1$ edge of $B\setminus B'$, so ${\left\lvert{N_2(v)}\right\rvert}\geq {\left\lvert{B\setminus B'}\right\rvert}$, therefore by we have $n>{\left\lvert{N_2(v)}\right\rvert}\geq d^2-12d(v)^{9/5}-44d(v)$. Using Claim \[maxdegree\] we have $d^2<n+12\cdot (18\sqrt{n})^{9/5}+44\cdot 18\sqrt{n}$ i.e. $d^2<n+2184n^{0.9}+792\sqrt{n}$. So for large enough $n$ we have $$d<\sqrt{n}+1100n^{0.4}.$$ Therefore $${\left\lvert{H}\right\rvert}< \frac{1}{2}n^{2.5}+550n^{1.4}=\frac{1}{2}n^{1.5}(1+o(1))$$ $$\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)={\left\lvert{H}\right\rvert}\leq (1+o(1))\frac12 n^{3/2}.$$
Now it remains to prove the lower bound. Let $G$ be a bipartite $C_4$-free graph on $n/3$-vertices, with ${\left\lvert{E(G)}\right\rvert}=\left ( \frac{n}{6}\right )^{3/2}+o(n^{3/2})$ edges. Let us replace each vertex of $G$ by $3$ identical copies of itself, this will transform each edge to a $6$-set. Let the resulting $6$-uniform hypergraph be $\mathcal H$. Clearly $$\sum_{h\in \mathcal H}({\left\lvert{h}\right\rvert}-3)=3{\left\lvert{\mathcal H}\right\rvert}=\frac{1}{2{\sqrt6}}n^{3/2}+o(n^{3/2}).$$ Now let us show that $\mathcal H$ is Berge-$C_4$-free. Let us assume for a contradiction that there is a Berge $4$-cycle in $\mathcal H$, and let this Berge cycle be $a,h_{ab},b,h_{bc},c,h_{cd},d,h_{da}$. If $a,b,c,d$ are copies of $4$ or $3$ distinct vertices of $G$, then there would be a $C_4$ or $C_3$ in $G$ respectively, a contradiction. So $a,b,c,d$ are copies of only two vertices of $G$, say $x$ and $y$, so at least two of the pairs $ab$,$bc$,$cd$,$da$ correspond to $xy$ in $G$, therefore it is easy to see, that at least two of the hyperedges $h_{ab},h_{bc},h_{cd},h_{da}$ should be the same, a contradiciton.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I want to thank my colleagues Abhishek Methuku and Ervin Gyori for having extremely helpful discussions about this problem.
G. R. Blakley and P. Roy. A H[ö]{}lder type inequality for symmetric matrices with nonnegative entries. *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society* 16.6(1965): 1244–1245
D. Gerbner, C. Palmer. Extremal results for Berge hypergraphs. *SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics*, 31(4), 2314-2327, (2017).
E. Győri, N. Lemons. Hypergraphs with no cycle of length 4. *Discrete Math*.,312(9):1518–1520, (2012).
T. Kővári, V. Sós, P. Turán. On a problem of K. Zarankiewicz. In *Colloquium Mathematicae*, 3(1), (1954), 50–57.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In previous papers, we presented the discovery of a 12-s X-ray pulsar in the supernova remnant 73 providing the first direct evidence for an ultramagnetized neutron star, a magnetar, with an equivalent dipole field of nearly twenty times the quantum critical magnetic field ($m_e^2 c^3 / e \hbar$). Our conclusions were based on two epochs of measurement of the spin, along with an age estimate of the host supernova remnant. Herein, we present a spin chronology of the pulsar using additional [[*Ginga*]{}]{}, [[*ASCA*]{}]{}, [[*RXTE*]{}]{}, & [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} datasets spanning over a decade. Timing and spectral analysis confirms our initial results and severely limit an accretion origin for the observed flux. Over the 10 year baseline, the pulsar is found to undergo a rapid, constant spindown, while maintaining a steady flux and an invariant pulse profile. Within the measurement uncertainties, no systematic departures from a linear spin-down are found - departures as in the case of glitches or simply stochastic fluctuations in the pulse times-of-arrival (e.g. red timing noise). We suggest that this pulsar is akin to the soft $\gamma$-ray repeaters, however, it is remarkably stable and has yet to display similar outbursts; future $\gamma$-ray activity from this object is likely.'
author:
- 'E. V. Gotthelf$^1$, G. Vasisht$^2$, & T. Dotani$^3$'
title: |
On the Spin History of the X-ray Pulsar in Kes73:\
Further Evidence For an Utramagnetized Neutron Star
---
psfig.sty
73
Introduction
============
The discovery of 12-s pulsed X-ray emission from the compact source within 73 (Vasisht & Gotthelf 1997; herein VG97, Gotthelf & Vasisht 1997) came somewhat as a surprise, as this Einstein source () had been studied for some time (Kriss 1985; Helfand et al. 1994). The pulsar was initially detected in an archived [[*ASCA*]{}]{}observation (1993) of 73 (also SNR G27.4+0), and soon confirmed in an archived [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} dataset. The measured spindown from these detections indicated rapid braking on a timescale of $\tau_s \simeq
4\times 10^3$ yr, consistent with the inferred age of the supernova remnant. The similarity in age along with the geometric location of the pulsar in the center of the symmetric and well defined remnant strongly suggests that the two objects are related.
There is sufficient evidence to argue that the host supernova remnant 73 is relatively young, at age $\sim 2\times 10^3$ yr (Helfand et al. 1994; Gotthelf & Vasisht 1997). Morphologically, it resembles any classic, limb-brightened shell-type radio supernova remnant, $\sim
4'$ in diameter, located at an HI derived distance of $6.0-7.5$ kpc (Sanbonmatsu & Helfand 1992). Its diffuse X-ray emission is distributed throughout the remnant and has a spectrum characteristic of a hot plasma, $kT \simeq 0.8$ keV, along with fluorescence lines of several atomic species, including O-group elements, that indicate a young blast-wave of Type II or Ib origin, still rich in stellar ejecta. The relative abundance of ionized species of Si and S observed in the 73 spectrum, suggest a level of ionization in-equilibrium consistent with an age $\simlt 2\times 10^3$ yr.
Based on the observed characteristics of 73 and its X-ray pulsar, we suggested (VG97) that was similar to the ‘anomalous’ X-ray pulsars (Mereghetti & Stella 1995; van Paradijs, Taam & van den Heuvel 1995). We argued that could not be an accreting neutron star; this was based on evolutionary arguments and the relative youth of 73 and the fact that we found no evidence for accretion in our datasets. Instead, it was proposed that the X-ray pulsar was powered by an ultramagnetized neutron star with a dipole field of $B_s \simeq
7\times 10^{14}$ G, and was the first of its kind; magnetic braking was assumed to be the predominant spindown mechanism, with $B_s\propto
(P\dot P)^{1/2}$. Since then, large magnetic fields have also been inferred for the soft $\gamma$-ray repeaters 1806$-$20 and 1900$+$14 (see Kouveliotou 1998, 1999) via measurement of their spins and spindown with [[*RXTE*]{}]{} and [[*ASCA*]{}]{}.
In this paper we present a longterm spin history of the X-ray pulsar. We reinforce our original [[*ASCA*]{}]{} and [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} datasets with new [[*ASCA*]{}]{}, [[*RXTE*]{}]{}, & [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} pointings and ten year-old [[*Ginga*]{}]{} archival datasets, bringing the total number of timing observations of 73 to seven. We show that the spin evolution obeys a steady linear spindown at a rate consistent, within errors, with our original estimate; re-affirming our somewhat marginal [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} detection (VG97).
Observations
============
[[*ASCA*]{}]{} & [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} Datasets
--------------------------------------------
Kes73 was re-observed with [[*ASCA*]{}]{} (Tanaka 1994) on March 27-28, 1998, using an observing plan identical with the original 1993 observations. A complete description of the observing modes can be found in VG97. Here we concentrate on the high temporal resolution data ($62 \ \mu$s or 48.8 ms depending on data mode) acquired with the two Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS2 & GIS3) on-board [[*ASCA*]{}]{}. The datasets was edited using the standard Rev 2 screening criteria which resulted in an effective exposure time of 39 ks per GIS sensor. Photons from the two GISs were merged and arrival times corrected to the barycenter. A log of all observations presented herein are given in Table 1.
We also acquired a 1.5 day [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} observation of 73 on March 8-9, 1999 using the three operational narrow field instruments, the Low Energy Concentrator (LECS) and two Medium Energy Concentrators (MECS2 & MECS3). These imaging gas scintillation counters are similar to the GIS detectors, providing arcminute imaging over a $\sim
40^\prime$ field-of-view in a broad energy band-pass of $0.1 - 12$ kev (LECS) and $1 - 12$ kev (MECS), with similar energy resolution; the data consists of photon arrival times tagged with 16 $\mu$s precision. All data were pre-screened during the standard SAX pipeline processing to remove times of enhanced background resulting in usable exposure times of 57.9 ks for each of the MECSs and 26.5 ks for the LECS. Here we concentrate exclusively on photons obtained with the two MECS detectors, which makes up the bulk of the data. Data from the two MECS were merged and barycentered by the SAX team.
For all data sets we extracted barycenter corrected arrival times from a $\simeq 4'$ radius aperture centered on the central object in 73 and restricted the energy range to $2-10$ keV. We then searched these time series for coherent pulsation by folding the data about the expected periods derived from the ephemeris of VG97. In each case highly significant power is detected in the resulting periodograms corresponding to the central pulsar’s pulse period at the specific epoch. Figure 1 compares periodograms of the [[*ASCA*]{}]{} data of 1993 and 1998 produced in the manner described above. We plot these on the same scale to emphasized both the significance of the detection and the unambiguous change in period between the two epochs.
[[*Ginga*]{}]{} & [[*RXTE*]{}]{} Datasets
-----------------------------------------
With a period detection in hand, we re-analysed archival data from the [[*Ginga*]{}]{} (Makino 1987) and [[*RXTE*]{}]{} (Bradt 1993) missions. The main instrument on-board [[*Ginga*]{}]{} is the non-imaging Large Area Counter (LAC) which covers an energy range of $1-37$ kev with an effective area of $4000$ cm$^2$ over its $\sim 2 \times 2$ field-of-view. [[*Ginga*]{}]{} observed 73 twice in data modes with sufficient temporal resolution ($2 \ \mu$s or $16 \ \mu$s depending on data mode) and exposure to carry out the present analysis (see Table 1). These data were screened using the following criteria: i) Earth-limb elevation angle $ >5$ degrees ii) cut-off rigidity $> 8$ GeV/c, and iii) South Atlantic Anomaly avoidance. The LAC light curves were restricted to the $\sim 1 - 17$ keV energy band-pass and corrected to the solar heliocenter using available software[^1]
Kes73 was observed for 5 ks by [[*RXTE*]{}]{} during 1996 as part of the GO program. We analyzed archive data acquired with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) in “Good Xenon” data mode at 0.9 $\mu$s time resolution. The PCA instrument is similar to the LAC, with a smaller field-of-view and a greater effective area of $6,500$ cm$^2$. The two [[*RXTE*]{}]{} observation windows were scheduled so that no additional time filtering was required. After processing and barycentering the Good Xenon data according to standard methods, we selected events from layer 1 only and applied an energy cut of $\simlt 10$ keV.
As found with the imaging data, epoch folding around the anticipated period produced a highly significant period detection. These periods are consistent with the extrapolated [[*ASCA*]{}]{} derived ephemeris. In Figure 2 we display pulse profiles of 73 at two epochs separated by over a decade to look for possible long term changes. To improve the signal-to-noise in the latter observation, we have co-added phased aligned profiles from the 1998 [[*ASCA*]{}]{} and the 1999 [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} observations. No significant differences were found between the two pulse profiles, which are identical to the 1993 [[*ASCA*]{}]{} and 1996 [[*RXTE*]{}]{} profiles, to within statistical uncertainties.
: Timing Characteristics
------------------------
In order to accurately determine the detected period at each epoch we oversampled the pulse signal by zero-padded the lightcurves (binned at 1 s resolution) to generate $2^{20}$ point FFTs. We then fit for the centroid to the peak signal to determine the best period. In none of the cases do we detect significant higher harmonics, a fact consistent with the roughly sinusoidal shape of the pulsar’s profile.
To estimate the uncertainty in the period measurements we carried out extensive Monte-Carlo simulations. For each data set we generated a set of simulated time series whose periodicity, total count rate, and noise properties and observation gap are consistent with the actual data set for each epoch. We used the normalized profile folded into 10 bins, to compute the probability of a photon arriving in a given phase bin. Each realization of the simulated data was subjected to the same analysis as the actual data sets to obtain a period measurement. After 500 trials we accumulated a range of measured periods which was well represented by a normal distribution. The resulting standard deviation of this function is taken as the 1-sigma uncertainty in the period and is presented in table 1. The errors in the period are roughly consistent with the size of a period element divided by the signal-to-noise of each detection.
Each period measurement was assigned an epoch defined as the mid-observation time (in MJD) for that data set. The period measurements and their uncertainties were then fit with simple first-order and second-order models to evaluate the spindown characteristics. The parameters were $P_s$, $\dot P_s$ with the addition of the second derivative $\ddot P_s$ for the second order fit, with the spin history written as a Taylor expansion. The best fit to the linear model gives the following period ephemeris (Epoch MJD 49000), $P = 11.765732 \pm\
0.000024$ s; $\dot P = 4.133 \times 10^{-11} \pm\ 1.4 \times 10^{-13}$ s s$^{-1}$.
The linear spindown model was consistent with the data with fit residuals at the $10^{-4}$ s (or 0.1 micro-Hz) level. We found that these residual were not sensitive to a second derivative of the period. An upper-limit allowed by the available datasets and their associated errors is more than an order-of-magnitude larger than expected just due to classic vacuum dipole spindown; for a vacuum dipole rotator one expects $\ddot P_s
\simeq (2 - n) {\dot P_s^2} / P_s$; where $n = 3$ is the braking index in the vacuum dipole formalism.
Discussion
==========
In its observed characteristics, most resembles the anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs), with its slow, $\sim 10$ s pulse period, steep X-ray spectral signature, inferred luminosity of $\sim 4 \times
10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and lack of counterpart at any wavelength. It is, however, unique among these objects in its apparent temporal and spectral stability. The two AXPs for which sufficient monitoring data is available, 2259+586 and 1E 1048$-$59, show large excursions in flux ($\simgt 3$) and significant irregularities in their spin down ($ \log(| \delta P/P |) \sim -4$). Compared with these objects, the spindown of suggests a lower level of torque fluctuations. For , the magnitude of timing irregularities, given by the timing residuals after subtracting the linear model, is $\log
(|{\sigma /P}|) < -5$, where $\sigma \sim 10^{-4}$ s is the typical size of the measurement error (Table 1). The spindown of this object is apparently quieter than that observed in some middle-aged pulsars, which have red noise fluctuations in the pulse times-of-arrival of order $-$3 to $-$4 (e.g. Arzoumanian 1994).
There is mounting evidence that, as a class, AXPs are related to the soft $\gamma$-ray repeaters (SGR), given their similar X-ray spectral and timing properties. If the spindown were to show systematic departures from linearity as in the case of glitches, which might be accompanied by bursting activity (as is the case in the SGRs, and may be expected in if it is ultramagnetized), then such activity has so-far not been detected by orbiting $\gamma$-ray observatories, nor is it reflected in the spin history. Note that the glitch observed from SGR 1900+14 resulted in a period change an order of magnitude larger, $ \log(| \delta P/P |) \simeq -4.3$ (Kouveliotou 1999).
In the context of an evolutionary link between the SGRs and AXPs, the timing and spectral stability of suggest a quiescent state either pre- or post- SGR activity. The relative age of argues for an early state, possibly preceding $\gamma$-ray activity, as there is some evidence that is the youngest amongst the currently recognized AXPs and SGRs. Half the AXPs are known to be associated with supernova remnants, while of the four known soft repeaters - two have host remnants while another, SGR 1806$-$20, has associated plerion-like emission but no discernible supernova shell. All these objects are thought be at least $\simgt 10^4$ yr-old, with the oldest AXPs having been around for a few $\times 10^5$ years (spindown on timescales of a few hundred years observed in SGRs is no reflection of their true ages).
Rotational energy loss is insufficient to power the inferred luminosity of , unlike in the usual radio pulsar. In the SGRs, the ultimate mechanism for powering particle acceleration is naturally the release of magnetic free energy (both steady and episodic-seismic), rather than rotation. The episodic emission of $\gamma$-ray bursts it thought to be due to starquakes in the neutron star crust. This could suggest a future “turning-on” of as a $\gamma$-ray repeater on several thousand year timescale, presumably resulting from a slow buildup of stress between then core and surface of the neutron star due to, a yet, unknown state transition in the stellar crust.
The blackbody spectrum suggests a radiating surface of size $R_\infty
\simeq 8d^2_7$ km, were $d_7$ is the distance to 73 in units of 7 kpc, which is consistent with neutron stellar dimensions (assuming an isotropic emitter and ignored surface redshift and photospheric corrections to the observed spectral energy distribution). This rough estimate suggests low surface temperature anisotropies (as opposed to small hotspots), and is in agreement with the low modulation, broad pulse originating from near the stellar surface. In an ultramagnetized neutron star, outward energy transport from a decaying magnetic field can keep the surface at elevated temperatures, with high thermal luminosities ($\sim 10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$), not observed normal neutron stars at age $\sim 10^3$ yr. In contrast, researchers have argued (Heyl & Hernquist 1998) that the X-ray luminosities in such stars may be driven by the cooling of the neutron star through a strongly magnetized, light-element envelope without the need for appreciable field decay (see also Heyl & Kulkarni 1999). Along with these cooling emissions from the surface, the star may have a magnetically-driven, charged-particle outflow as is suggested by VLA observations of the SGR 1806$-$20 (Frail, Vasisht & Kulkarni 1997) via the energetics and small scale structure of its plerion. Evidence a more episodic particle ejection, rather than a steady wind, is inferred from the recent radio flare observations of SGR 1900+14, taken during a period of high activity (Frail, Kulkarni & Bloom 1999).
For , we can only attempt to place limits on a steady pair-wind luminosity: upper limits to radio emission from a putative plerionic structure surrounding the pulsar, suggest an averaged pair luminosity of less than $10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Similarly, limits on a hard X-ray tail suggest a present day wind luminosity to be less than $5\times 10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$; the latter condition assumes a tail with a photon index of 2, quite typical of plerions, and a soft X-ray radiation conversion efficiency of 10 percent. This bounds are well within the energy budget available from field decay, $$L_B \simeq (1/6)\dot BB R^3,$$ which is expected to power a bolometric luminosity of $\simlt 10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$; the fastest avenue for stellar field decay would be the modes of ambipolar diffusion for which theoretical arguments suggest a timescale of decay ($B /\dot B$) of $\sim 3 B_{15}^2$ kyr (Goldreich & Reisenegger 1992). Note that these upper limits are a factor $\sim 10^2$ larger than the star’s dipole luminosity of $4\pi^2I\dot P/P^3 \sim 10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This suggests that spindown torques on the star could conceivably be dominated by wind torques, although such a wind would have to be remarkably steady to not produce timing residuals larger than those observed (Thompson & Blaes 1998). Alternatively, if classical dipole radiations is the primary spindown mechanism, then the stellar magnetic field is $B \simeq 0.75B_{15}$ G.
To conclude, ongoing X-ray timing monitoring of the spin period is underway by independent groups, including ours, which will provide accurate measurement of the braking index of this pulsar. As previously mentioned, a large braking index may directly reflect on active field decay or field re-alignment inside the the star. The observed braking index in a pure dipole rotator with loss of torque due to field decay may be written as $$n_{obv} = 3 - 2({P\over \dot
P})({\dot B\over B}).$$ Given that the spindown timescale for this pulsar is about 9 kyr, a field decay time of about $\simlt 3 B_{15}^2$ kyr could impose a fairly large curvature on the spindown. Perversely, the situation may be far more complicated with different factors such as dipole radiation, winds driven by magnetic activity, and field decay all competing for torque evolution. This, however, remains to be tested through accurate longterm timing. Measuring the pulsar spin via a series of closely spaced observations may also reveal a wealth of information on possible glitching and the subsequent recovery by the star.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} EVG is indebted to Jules Halpern and Daniel Q. Wang for discussions and insights into timing noise and measurement error. We thank Angela Malizia for barycentering our [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} data. This research is supported by the NASA LTSA grant NAG5-22250.
Arzoumanian, Z., Nice, D. J., Taylor, J. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 1994, ApJ, 325
Boella, G., Butler, R. C., Perola, G. C., Pero, L., Scarsi, L. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 1997, A&ASS, 122, 299
Bradt, H. V., Rothschild, R. E. & Swank, J. H. 1993, A&AS, 97, 355.
Corbet, R. H. D., Smale, A. P., Ozaki, M., Koyama, K. & Iwazawa, K. 1995, ApJ, 443, 786
Cordes, J. M. & Helfand, D. J. 1980, ApJ, 239, 640
Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R. & Bloom, J. S. 1999, Nature, in press; astro-ph/981245
Frail, D. A., Vasisht, G. & Kulkarni, S. R. 1997, ApJ, 480, L129
Ghosh, P., Angelini, L. & White, N. E. 1997, ApJ, 478, 713
Goldreich, P. & Reisenegger, A. 1992, ApJ, 395, 250
Gotthelf, E. V. & Vasisht, G. 1997, ApJ, 486, L129
Helfand, D. J., Becker, R. H. & White, R. L. 1994, ApJ, 434, 627
Heyl, J. S. & Hernquist, L. 1998, MNRAS, 297, L69
Heyl, J. S. & Kulkarni, S. R. 1998, ApJ, 506, L61
Kriss, G. A., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J. & Canizares, C. J. 1985, ApJ, 288, 703
Kouveliotou, C. 1998, Nature, 391, 235
Kouveliotou, C., Strohmayer, T., Hurley, K., van Paradijs, J., Dieters, S., Woods, P., Thompson, C. & Duncan, R.C., 1999, astro-ph9809140
Makino, F. 1987, Astrophys. Letters Commun. 25, 223
Mereghetti, S. & Stella, L. 1995, ApJ, 442, L17 Sanbonmatsu, K. Y. & Helfand, D. J. 1992, AJ, 104, 2189
Parmar, A. N. 1997, A&A, 323, L29
Tanaka, Y., Inoue, H. & Holt, S. S. 1994, PASJ, 46(3), L37
Thompson, C. & Blaes, O. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 3219
van Paradijs, J., Taam, R. E. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1995, A&A 299, L41
Vasisht, G. & Gotthelf, E. V. 1997, ApJ, 486, L129 (VG97)
[lccccc]{} 08 May 1987 06:28 & [[*Ginga*]{}]{} & 37.6 & 46924.5142361 & 11.758320 & 7 24 Apr 1991 17:27 & [[*Ginga*]{}]{} & 11.6 & 48371.2447166 & 11.76346 & 23 16 Mar 1992 04:30 & [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} & 25.1 & 48698.1946593 & 11.7645 & …11 Oct 1993 14:56 & [[*ASCA*]{}]{} & 39.6 & 49272.0820309 & 11.76676 & 45 31 Aug 1996 14:21 & [[*RXTE*]{}]{} & 5.9 & 50326.6953400 & 11.7707 & 375 27 Mar 1998 22:30 & [[*ASCA*]{}]{} & 38.7 & 50900.4509668 & 11.77248 & 50 08 Apr 1999 03:41 & [[*Beppo*]{}SAX]{} & 57.8 & 51276.8889120 & 11.77387 & 34
=6.0cm
=6.0cm
[^1]: The barycentric correction to these periods is small and has been added in, along with the statistical error in the periods.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '©2013 A.B.Bogatyrev [^1]'
title: |
Image of Abel-Jacobi map\
for hyperelliptic genus 3 and 4 curves
---
The necessity for computation of abelian integrals often arises in problems of classical mechanics (see [@Go; @D] and references therein), conformal mappings of polygons [@B; @G], solitonic dynamics, general relativity [@EHKKL], solutions of rational optimization problems [@B2] and so on. Function theory on Riemann surfaces allows one to evaluate (with computer accuracy) such integrals without any quadrature rules. As an example, let us consider Riemann’s formula for the abelian integral with two simple poles at the points $R,Q$ of the curve $\cal X$:
\_[RQ]{}(P):=\^P d\_[RQ]{}= +const, \[intrep\] where $\theta[\cdot](\cdot,\cdot)$ is Riemann theta function with some odd integer characteristics $[\epsilon,\epsilon']$. It might seem that the usage of this formula still requires the computation of holomorphic abelian integrals involved in the Abel-Jacobi (AJ) map:
\[AJmap\] u(P):=\_[P\_0]{}\^P du\^g, du:=(du\_1,du\_2,…,du\_g)\^t, where $g$ is the genus of the curve $\cal X$ and $du_s$ are suitably normalized abelian differentials of the first kind. In this note we show how to avoid the evaluation of AJ map: the image of low genus $g<5$ hyperelliptic curve in its Jacobian is given as the solution of a (slightly overdetermined) set of equations including theta functions. Moving along the curve embedded in its Jacobian we can compute abelian integral by explicit formula (e.g. (\[intrep\])) and simultaneously compute some projection of the curve to the complex projective line (see e.g. [@FK; @B]). In this way we get a parametric representation of abelian integrals [@B; @G] which may be used either for the evaluation of integral, or for its inversion. See also [@EHKKL] for the alternative approach using hyperelliptic $\sigma$ and $\wp$ functions.
Introduction
============
Let us fix the notations. Consider genus $g$ hyperelliptic curve $\cal X$: $$w^2=\prod_{j=1}^{2g+2}(x-x_j),$$ with distinct branch points $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{2g+2}$. The curve admits involution $J(x,w):=(x,-w)$ with fixed points $P_s=(x_s,0)$, $s=1,\dots,2g+2$. We introduce a symplectic basis in the homologies of $\cal X$ as in the Fig. \[Basis\]. Dual basis of holomorphic differentials satisfies normalization $$\int_{a_j}du_s:=\delta_{js},$$ and generates the period matrix $$\int_{b_j}du_s=:\Pi_{js}.$$
(150,55) (0,0)
It is convenient to represent points $u\in\mathbb{C}^g$ as theta characteristics, i.e. couple of real g-vector columns $\epsilon, \epsilon'$: u=(’+)/2. The points of Jacobian Jac([X]{}):=\^g/L(), L():=\^g+\^g, \[Jac\] in this notation correspond to two vectors with real entries modulo 2. Second order points of Jacobian are $2\times g$ matrices with binary entries. In particular, the the images of the Weierstrass points of $\cal X$ under the AJ map (\[AJmap\]) with the initial point $P_0:=P_{2g+2}$ are as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$P_s$ $u(P_s)~ mod~ L(\Pi)$ $[\epsilon, \epsilon']^t$
------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
$P_1$ $\Pi_1/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c} 100\dots\\000\dots\end{array}\right]$
$P_2$ $(\Pi_1+E_1)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c} 100\dots\\100\dots\end{array}\right]$
$P_3$ $(\Pi_2+E_1)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c} 010\dots\\100\dots\end{array}\right]$
$P_4$ $(\Pi_2+E_1+E_2)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c}010\dots\\110\dots\end{array}\right]$
$P_5$ $(\Pi_3+E_1+E_2)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c}0010\dots\\1100\dots\end{array}\right]$
$P_{2g-1}$ $(\Pi_g+E_1+E_2+\dots+E_{g-1})/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c} 0\dots01\\1\dots10\end{array}\right]$
$P_{2g}$ $(\Pi_g+E_1+E_2+\dots+E_g)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c} 0\dots01\\11\dots1\end{array}\right]$
$P_{2g+1}$ $(E_1+E_2+\dots+E_g)/2$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c}00\dots0\\11\dots1\end{array}\right]$
$P_{2g+2}$ $0$ $\tiny
\left[\begin{array}{c}00\dots0\\00\dots0\end{array}\right]$ \[AJPj\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here $E_s$ and $\Pi_s$ are the columns of the identity matrix and the period matrix respectively.
The following series has very high convergence rate and well controlled accuracy [@DHB]. \[thetadef\] (u, ):=\_[m\^g]{} (2m\^tu+i m\^tm), u\^g;=\^t\^[gg]{};>0. Matrix argument $\Pi$ of theta function may be omitted if it does not lead to a confusion. This function (\[thetadef\]) has the following easily checked quasi-periodicity properties with respect to the lattice $L(\Pi)$: \[quasiperiod\] (u+m’+m; )=(-im\^tm-2im\^tu)(u;), m,m’\^g.
Theta function may be considered as a multivalued function in the Jacobian or as a section of a certain line bundle. The zero set of theta function – the theta divisor – is well defined in the Jacobian since the factors in right hand side of (\[quasiperiod\]) do not vanish. The theta divisor is described by so called Riemann vanishing theorems [@RF; @FK]. One of the important ingredients in those theorem is a vector of Riemann’s constants $\cal K$ which depends on the choice of homology basis and the initial point in AJ map. In the above setting the vector of Riemann’s constants may be found by a straightforward computation [@Mu] or by some combinatorial argument [@FK] and corresponds to a characteristic $${\cal K}(P_0) \sim \left[\begin{array}{c}\dots11111\\ \dots10101\end{array}\right]^t.$$
Theta divisor is described by the following
$\quad\theta(e)=0$ iff $e=u(D_{g-1})+{\cal K}\quad mod~L(\Pi)$ for some degree $g-1$ positive divisor $D_{g-1}$ on the curve. \[ThDiv\]
In particular this means that genus 2 curve in its Jacobian is just the solution of one equation $\theta(u+{\cal K})=0$. Now we consider higher genera.
Genus three hypereliptic curves
===============================
Let $P,Q$ be two distinct points on the genus 3 hyperelliptic curve $\cal X$. The solution of the set of two equations \[theta2\]
[c]{} (u-u(P)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(Q)+[K]{})=0,
in the Jacobian $Jac(X)$ is the union of $u({\cal X})$ – the image of the curve under AJ map – and its shift $\quad u({\cal X})+u(P+Q)$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $u$ be a point in the intersection of two shifted theta divisors (\[theta2\]). The representation of the theta divisor from Theorem \[ThDiv\], suggests that there are two degree 2 positive divisors $D_2$ and $D'_2$ on the curve $\cal X$ such that $$u=u(D_2+P)=u(D'_2+Q) \quad mod~L(\Pi).$$ We consider two cases:\
1) When two linearly equivalent divisors $D_2+P\sim$ $D'_2+Q$ are non-special, they coincide and therefore $
u\in u({\cal X})+u(P+Q)
$ in the Jacobian of the curve.\
2) When $i(D_2+P)=$ $i(D'_2+Q)>0$, each divisor contains $J$ -equivalent points which together give zero input to the AJ map. Therefore $u\in u({\cal X})$.
Conversely, consider any point $u$ in the union of $u({\cal X})$ and its shift by $u(P+Q)$. In other words, $u=u(S)$ or $u=u(S+P+Q)$ for some point $S$ of our curve. The first equation in the system (\[theta2\]) is true because the argument of theta function satisfies the condition of Theorem \[ThDiv\] with $D_2:=S+JP$ or $D_2:=S+Q$ respectively. Same argument (with proper choice of $D_2$ ) fits for the other equation.
We see that two equations are not enough to localize the image of AJ map since the parasitic component $u({\cal X})+u(P+Q)$ arises. Adding yet another equation of this type, we achieve the goal.
Let $P,Q,R$ be two distinct points on the genus 3 hyperelliptic curve $\cal X$. The solution of the set of three equations \[theta3\]
[c]{} (u-u(P)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(Q)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(R)+[K]{})=0
in the Jacobian $Jac({\cal X})$ is the union of $u({\cal X})$ – the image of the curve under AJ map – and just one point $u(P+Q+R)$.
[**Proof.**]{} Taking into account the previous theorem, we have to find the intersection of two different shifts of the same curve $u({\cal X})$: by $u(P+Q)$ and by $u(P+R)$. The point in this intersection has two representations $$u=u(S+P+Q)=u(S'+P+R)$$ for some points $S,S'$ of the curve. If $i(S+P+Q)=i(S'+P+R)=0$ then two mentioned divisors coincide: $S=R$, $S'=Q$ and therefore $u=u(P+Q+R)$. Assume that speciality index is positive. Then each of the divisors contains two J-equivalent points whose AJ-images are opposite. Hence, $u\in u({\cal X})$.
[**Remark.**]{} There is a temptation to put $P=JQ$ in the system (\[theta2\]) and to get the curve $u(\cal X)$ as a solution of just two equations. However, the only points of the curve with known value of AJ map are its Weierstrass points $P_s$ – see the table above. With this choice of auxiliary points, the systems (\[theta3\]) and the forthcoming system (\[theta4\]) may be rewritten in terms of theta functions with integer characteristics.
Genus four hypereliptic curves
==============================
We need an auxiliary statement:
\[Jpts\] Let $D_s$ be a degree $s$ positive divisor on genus 4 hyperelliptic curve and $u(D_3)=u(D_5)$. Then $D_5$ contains $J$-equivalent points.
[**Proof**]{} Let us detach a point from the larger divisor: $D_5=D_4+P$, then $D_4$ is linear equivalent to $D_3+JP$. Now if $i(D_4)>0$ then $D_4$ contains $J$-equivalent points. Otherwise $D_4$ is non-special and it contains $JP$, hence $D_5\ge P+JP$.
Let $P_1,P_2$; $Q_1,Q_2$ be four distinct points on the genus 4 hyperelliptic curve $\cal X$ and $P_1\neq JP_2$; $Q_1\neq JQ_2$. The solution of the set of three equations \[theta3\*\]
[r]{} (u+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(P\_1+P\_2)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(Q\_1+Q\_2)+[K]{})=0,
in the Jacobian is the union of $u(\cal X)$ – the image of the curve under AJ map – and its shifts by four vectors $u(P_j+Q_s)$, $j,s=1,2$.
[**Remark**]{} The condition of this theorem implies that $u(P_1+P_2)\neq u(Q_1+Q_2) ~~mod~L(\Pi)$. Indeed, if it were not the case, then by Abel’s theorem $P_1$ and $P_2$ were zeroes of degree 2 function from $\mathbb{C}({\cal X})$. This function is essentially unique and therefore $P_1=JP_2$.
[**Proof**]{}. Let $u$ be a point in the intersection of three shifted theta divisors (\[theta3\*\]). Due to the representation of the theta divisor, there are three positive divisors $D_3$, $D'_3$, $D''_3$, each of degree 3 such that $$u=u(D_3)=u(D'_3+P_1+P_2)=u(D''_3+Q_1+Q_2)
\quad mod~L(\Pi).$$ The divisors $D'_5:=D'_3+P_1+P_2$ and $D''_5:=D''_3+Q_1+Q_2$ in two latter equations contain $J$-equivalent points in accordance with the Lemma \[Jpts\]. We consider two cases:\
1) When $i(D_3)>1$, then the divisor contains two points which give opposite input to the AJ mapping. Hence, $u\in u({\cal X})$. 2) When $i(D_3)=1$ (non-special divisor), both divisors $D'_5$ and $D''_5$ with $J$-equivalent points thrown away, coincide with $D_3$. Now $D_3$ contains at least one point of $P_1, P_2$ and one point of $Q_1,Q_2$. Hence, $u\in u({\cal X})+u(P_j+Q_s)$ for some $j$ and $s$.
Conversely, for the points $u$ in the shifted AJ-images of the curve $\cal X$, the arguments of the theta functions in (\[theta3\*\]) satisfy the condition of the Theorem \[ThDiv\]. Say, for the point $u=u(S+P_1+Q_2)$, $S\in{\cal X}$, the divisor $D_3=S+P_1+Q_2$ for the first equation; $D_3=S+JP_2+Q_2$ for the second equation; $D_3=S+P_1+JQ_1$ for the third equation in (\[theta3\*\]). For $u=u(S)$, the divisor $D_3=S+P_1+JP_1$ for the first equation; $D_3=S+JP_1+JP_2$ for the second equation; $D_3=S+JQ_1+JQ_2$ for the third equation in the system.
Adding yet another equation of this type to (\[theta3\*\]) allows us to localize the image of AJ map for genus 4 hyperelliptic curves. Eight parasitic points however arise in the solution.
Let $P_s,Q_s,R_s$, $s=1,2$ be six distinct points on the genus 4 hyperelliptic curve $\cal X$ and the points of each of three pairs $P_s,Q_s,R_s$ are not $J$-equivalent. The solution of the set of four equations \[theta4\]
[r]{} (u+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(P\_1+P\_2)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(Q\_1+Q\_2)+[K]{})=0,\
(u-u(R\_1+R\_2)+[K]{})=0,
in the Jacobian $Jac({\cal X})$ is the union of $u({\cal X})$ – the image of the curve under AJ map – and eight points $u(P_j+Q_k+R_s)$, $j,k,s=1,2$.
[**Proof.**]{} Again, we have to find the intersection of the solutions obtained in the previous theorem. Let us shift the same curve $u({\cal X})$ by $u(P_s+Q_j)$ and by $u(P_m+R_k)$. The point $u$ in this intersection has two representations $$u=u(S+P_s+Q_j)=u(S'+P_m+R_k)$$ for some points $S,S'$ of the curve. If $i(S+P_s+Q_j)=i(S'+P_m+R_k)=1$ then two mentioned non-special divisors coincide: this may only happen in case $m=s$, $S=R_k$ and $S'=Q_j$ and therefore $u=u(P_s+Q_j+R_k)$. Assuming that speciality index is greater than 1, we come to a conclusion that $u\in u({\cal X})$.
[15]{}
V.V. Golubev, Lectures on integration of the equations of motion of a rigid body about a fixed point. – Israel Program for Scient., 1960. (transl.from Russian)
Rauch, H.E. and H.M. Farkas, Theta functions with applications to Riemann surfaces – Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore, 1974
B.A.Dubrovin, Riemann Surfaces and Nonlinear Equations – AMS, 2002
H.M. Farkas and I.Kra, Riemann Surfaces – Springer Verlag, NY, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1980
D.Mumford, Tata lectures on theta I,II,III – Birkhaüser, 1983.
A.Bogatyrev, Conformal mapping of rectangular heptagons// Sb.Math: 203:12 (2012); arXiv:1109.0888.
O.A.Grigor’ev, Numerical-analytical method for conformal mapping of polygons with six right angles//Comp. Math. & Math. Phys., 53:10 (2013), pp. 1447-1456
V.Enolski, E.Hackmann, V. Kagramanova, J.Kunz, C.Lämmerzahl et al., Inversion of a general hyperelliptic integral and particle motion in Horava-Lifshitz black hole space-time //J. Math. Phys. 53, 012504 (2012)
Deconinck, B.; Heil, M.; Bobenko, A.; van Hoeij, M. and Schmies, M. Computing Riemann Theta Functions// Math. Comput. 73, 1417-1442, 2004.
A.Bogatyrev, Extremal polynomials and Riemann surfaces – Springer Monographs in Mathematics, 2012.
[^1]: Supported by RFBR grants 13-01-00115 and RAS Program “Modern problems of theoretical mathematics”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '[Fernando Cardoso, Claudio Cuevas and Georgi Vodev[^1]]{}'
title: 'High frequency resolvent estimates for perturbations by large long-range magnetic potentials and applications to dispersive estimates'
---
[**Abstract.**]{} We prove optimal high-frequency resolvent estimates for self-adjoint operators of the form $G=\left(i\nabla+b(x)\right)^2+V(x)$ on $L^2({\bf R}^n)$, $n\ge 3$, where the magnetic potential $b(x)$ and the electric potential $V(x)$ are long-range and large. As an application, we prove dispersive estimates for the wave group $e^{it\sqrt{G}}$ in the case $n=3$ for potentials $b(x), V(x)=O(|x|^{-2-\delta})$ for $|x|\gg 1$, where $\delta>0$.
Introduction and statement of results
=====================================
The purpose of the present paper is to study the high frequency behavior of the resolvent of self-adjoint operators on $L^2({\bf R}^n)$, $n\ge 3$, of the form $$G=\left(i\nabla+b(x)\right)^2+V(x),$$ where $b(x)=\left(b_1(x),...,b_n(x)\right)$ is a vector-valued magnetic potential and $V$ is an electric potential, $b_j$ and $V$ being real-valued functions. To describe the class these functions belong to, we introduce the polar coordinates $r=|x|$, $w=\frac{x}{|x|}\in {\bf S}^{n-1}$. They are of the form $b(x)=b^L(x)+b^S(x)$, $V(x)=V^L(x)+V^S(x)$, where $b^L$ and $V^L$ are $C^1({\bf R}^+)$, ${\bf R}^+=(0,+\infty)$, functions with respect to the radial variable $r$. We suppose that there exist constants $C>0$, $0<\delta\ll 1$ so that for all $(r,w)\in {\bf R}^+\times{\bf S}^{n-1}$ we have $$\left|V^L(rw)\right|\le C,\eqno{(1.1)}$$ $$\partial_rV^L(rw)\le C\psi_\delta(r),\eqno{(1.2)}$$ $$\left|V^S(rw)\right|\le C\langle r\rangle^{-1-\delta},\eqno{(1.3)}$$ $$\left|\partial_r^kb^L(rw)\right|\le Cr^{1-k}\psi_\delta(r),\quad k=0,1,\eqno{(1.4)}$$ $$\left|b^S(rw)\right|\le C\eta_\delta(r),\eqno{(1.5)}$$ where $\psi_\delta(r)=r^{-1+\delta}\langle r\rangle^{-2\delta}$, $\eta_\delta(r)=r^{\delta}\langle r\rangle^{-1-2\delta}$. Finally, we suppose that the function $b^S(rw)$ is continuous in $r$ uniformly in $w$. More precisely, we assume that the function $g_\delta(r,w)=b^S(rw)/\eta_\delta(r)$ satisfies $$\forall\epsilon>0\,\exists\theta=\theta(\epsilon)>0 \,\,\mbox{so that} \,\,
\left|g_\delta(r+\theta\sigma,w)-g_\delta(r,w)\right|
\le \epsilon$$ $$\mbox{for all}\,\, r>0, 0<\sigma\le 1,\,w\in{\bf S}^{n-1}.\eqno{(1.6)}$$ Our main result is the following
Under the assumptions (1.1)-(1.6), for every $\delta'>0$ there exist constants $C,\lambda_0>0$ so that for $\lambda\ge\lambda_0$, $0<\varepsilon\le 1$, $0\le|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1$, we have the estimate $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-1}.\eqno{(1.7)}$$ Moreover, if in addition we suppose that $b^S\equiv 0$ and the functions $b=b^L$ and $V=V^L+V^S$ satisfy $$\left|\frac{\partial(r^2V^L(rw))}{\partial r}\right|\le Cr\psi_\delta(r),\eqno{(1.8)}$$ $$\left|V^S(rw)\right|\le C\langle r\rangle^{-2-\delta},\eqno{(1.9)}$$ $$\left|\partial_r^kb(rw)\right|\le Cr^{-k}\psi_\delta(r),\quad k=0,1,\eqno{(1.10)}$$ then for $\delta'$, $\lambda$, $\varepsilon$ as above and $|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1$, we have the estimate $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-2}
\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-2}.\eqno{(1.11)}$$
In fact, some of the conditions above can be weakened. Indeed, using Theorem 1.1 we prove the following
Let $b\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n;{\bf R}^n)$, $V\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$ satisfy $$\langle x\rangle^\delta|b(x)|+|V(x)|\le C,\,\,\forall x\in{\bf R}^n,\eqno{(1.12)}$$ with some constants $C>0$, $0<\delta\ll 1$. Suppose also that there exists a constant $r_0\gg 1$ so that $b=b^L+b^S$, $V=V^L+V^S$ with functions $b^L,b^S\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n;{\bf R}^n)$, $V^L,V^S\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$, $b^L$ and $V^L$ belonging to $C^1([r_0,+\infty))$ with respect to the radial variable $r$, and satisfying $$\left|\partial_rb^L(rw)\right|+\left|\partial_rV^L(rw)\right|+\left|b^S(rw)\right|+\left|V^S(rw)\right|\le Cr^{-1-\delta}
\eqno{(1.13)}$$ for all $r\ge r_0$, $w\in {\bf S}^{n-1}$. Finally, we suppose that the functions $b^L(rw)$ and $b^S(rw)$ are continuous with respect to $r$ uniformly on $[0,+\infty)\times{\bf S}^{n-1}$ and that $b(0)=0$. Then the estimate (1.7) holds true.
These resolvent estimates are sharp in $\lambda$ in the sense that we have the same for the free Laplacian. The estimate (1.7) is well known to hold for non-trapping compactly supported perturbations of the Laplacian (in which case it can be derived from the propagation of the singularities, e.g. see [@kn:V1]) and in particular when $b,V\in C_0^\infty({\bf R}^n)$, $n\ge 2$. It is also proved in many situations for operators of the form $-\Delta_g+V$ under the non-trapping condition, where $\Delta_g$ denotes the (negative) Laplace-Beltrami operator on an infinite volume unbounded Riemannian manifold (e.g. see [@kn:RT], [@kn:V1]). Note that without the non-trapping condition we have in general resolvent estimates with $O\left(e^{\gamma\lambda}\right)$, $\gamma>0$, in the right-hand side (see [@kn:CV1]). The estimate (1.7) is well known for operators $-\Delta+V$ on ${\bf R}^n$ for short-range potentials $V\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n)$. In the case when the magnetic potential is not identically zero, it can also be easily proved for small short-range magnetic potentials (e.g. see [@kn:DF2]). For large short-range magnetic potentials $b(x)$ and electric potentials $V(x)$ the estimate (1.7) is proved in [@kn:EGS] (see Proposition 4.3) in all dimensions $n\ge 3$, provided $b(x)$ is a continuous function. For large long-range magnetic and electric potentials the estimate (1.7) is proved in [@kn:R], provided $b,V\in C^\infty({\bf R}^n)$ and $\partial_x^\alpha b(x), \partial_x^\alpha V(x)=O_\alpha\left(
\langle x\rangle^{-\delta-|\alpha|}\right)$, $\delta>0$. In fact, the method of [@kn:R] requires this condition for $|\alpha|\le 2$, only. Note also that resolvent estimates like (1.7) play crucial role in the proof of uniform local energy, smoothing, Strichartz and dispersive estimates for the wave and the Schrödinger equations, which in turn explains the big interest in proving such kind of estimates in various situations. Therefore, the sharpness in $\lambda$ is important as a loss in $\lambda\gg 1$ in the resolvent estimate produces a loss of derivatives in the applications mentioned above.
The price to pay for assuming regularity of the potentials only with respect to the radial variable $r$ in the conditions of Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.2 is that we must also assume that the magnetic potential $b(x)$ vanishes at the origin $x=0$. In fact, we can remove this latter condition if the regularity is assumed with respect to the variable $x$. More precisely, we have the following
Let $b=b^L+b^S$, $V=V^L+V^S$, where $b^L\in C^1({\bf R}^n;{\bf R}^n)$, $b^S\in C^0({\bf R}^n;{\bf R}^n)$, $V^L\in C^1({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$, $V^S\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n;{\bf R})$ satisfy $$\left|V^L(x)\right|+\langle x\rangle^{1+\delta}\sum_{|\alpha|=1}\left|\partial_x^\alpha V^L(x)\right|\le C,\eqno{(1.14)}$$ $$\left|V^S(x)\right|\le C\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta},\eqno{(1.15)}$$ $$\sum_{|\alpha|\le 1}\langle x\rangle^{|\alpha|+\delta}\left|\partial_x^\alpha b^L(x)\right|\le C,\eqno{(1.16)}$$ $$\left|b^S(x)\right|\le C\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta},\eqno{(1.17)}$$ $$\forall\epsilon>0\,\exists\theta=\theta(\epsilon)>0 \,\,\mbox{so that} \,\,\left|b^S(x+\theta y)-b^S(x)\right|
\le \epsilon\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta}$$ $$\mbox{for all}\,\, x,y\in{\bf R}^{n},\,|y|\le 1,\eqno{(1.18)}$$ with some constants $C>0$ and $0<\delta\ll 1$. Then the estimate (1.7) holds true.
As mentioned above, this result is proved in [@kn:EGS] in the case $b^L\equiv V^L\equiv 0$ by a different method. Here we extend it to more general perturbations and provide a simpler proof.
We will use Theorem 1.1 to prove dispersive estimates for the wave group $e^{it\sqrt{G}}$ for self-adjoint operators $G$ as above in the case $n=3$. More precisely, we are interested in generalizing the following three dimensional dispersive estimate $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G_0}}G_0^{-1-\epsilon}\chi_a(\sqrt{G_0})\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C_{a,\epsilon}|t|^{-1},
\quad\forall t\neq 0,\eqno{(1.19)}$$ for every $a,\epsilon>0$, where $G_0$ denotes the self-adjoint realization of the free Laplacian $-\Delta$ on $L^2({\bf R}^3)$ and $\chi_a\in C^\infty({\bf R})$, $\chi_a(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda\le a$, $\chi_a(\lambda)=1$ for $\lambda\ge a+1$. We suppose that the magnetic potential $b$ is $C^1({\bf R}^+)$ with respect to the radial variable $r$, while no regularity is assumed on the electric potential $V$. We also suppose that there exist constants $C>0$ and $0<\delta\ll 1$ such that $$\left|V(rw)\right|+|b(rw)|\le C\langle r\rangle^{-2-\delta},\eqno{(1.20)}$$ $$\left|b(rw)\right|\le Cr^\delta\quad{\rm for}\quad r\le 1,\eqno{(1.21)}$$ $$\left|\partial_rb(rw)\right|\le Cr^{-1+\delta}\langle r\rangle^{-1-2\delta}.\eqno{(1.22)}$$ Clearly, the conditions of Theorem 1.1 are fulfilled (with $b^S\equiv V^L\equiv 0$) for $b$ and $V$ satisfying (1.20), (1.21) and (1.22), so the estimates (1.7) and (1.11) are valid. When $n=3$ we have the following
Under the assumptions (1.20), (1.21) and (1.22), there exists a constant $a>0$ so that the following dispersive estimate holds $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G}}G^{-3/2-\epsilon}\chi_a(\sqrt{G})\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C_{\epsilon}|t|^{-1},
\quad\forall t\neq 0,\eqno{(1.23)}$$ for every $\epsilon>0$. Moreover, for every $\delta'>0$ there exists a constant $a>0$ so that we have the estimate $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G}}G^{-1-\epsilon}\chi_a(\sqrt{G})
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\le C_{\epsilon,\delta'}|t|^{-1},
\quad\forall t\neq 0,\eqno{(1.24)}$$ for every $\epsilon>0$.
[**Remark.**]{} In fact, one can show that the estimates (1.23) and (1.24) hold true for every $a>0$. Indeed, according to the results of [@kn:KT] the condition (1.20) guarantees that the operator $G$ has no embedded strictly positive eigenvalues, which in turn implies that the resolvent estimates (1.7) and (1.11) are valid for every $\lambda_0>0$ with constants $C>0$ depending on $\lambda_0$.
The estimates (1.23) and (1.24) are not optimal–for example, in (1.21) there is a loss of one derivative. The desired result would be to prove the dispersive estimate $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G}}G^{-1-\epsilon}\chi_a(\sqrt{G})\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C_{\epsilon}|t|^{-1},
\quad\forall t\neq 0,\eqno{(1.25)}$$ for every $\epsilon>0$ and some $a>0$. When $b\equiv 0$ and for a large class of rough potentials $V$ the estimate (1.25) follows from [@kn:DP]. In higher dimensions $n\ge 4$ an analogue of (1.25) is proved in [@kn:B] for Schwartz class potentials $V$ and in [@kn:CV2] for potentials $V\in C^{\frac{n-3}{2}}({\bf R}^n)$, $4\le n\le 7$, while in [@kn:V2] dispersive estimates with a loss of $\frac{n-3}{2}$ derivatives are proved for potentials $V\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n)$, $V(x)=O\left(\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{n+1}{2}-\delta}\right)$, $\delta>0$. Proving (1.25) when the magnetic potential $b(x)$ is not identically zero, however, is a difficult and an open problem even if $b$ is supposed small and smooth. Our conjecture is that (1.25) should hold for $b\in C_0^1({\bf R}^3)$ and $V\in L^\infty({\bf R}^3)$, $V(x)=O\left(\langle x\rangle^{-2-\delta}\right)$, $\delta>0$, while in higher dimensions $n\ge 4$ we expect to have an optimal dispersive estimate (that is, without loss of derivatives) similar to (1.25) for $b\in C_0^{\frac{n-1}{2}}({\bf R}^n)$ and $V\in C_0^{\frac{n-3}{2}}({\bf R}^n)$. Note that dispersive estimates for the wave group with a loss of $\frac{n}{2}$ derivatives have been recently proved in [@kn:CCV] in all dimensions $n\ge 2$ for a class of potentials $b\in C^1({\bf R}^n)$ and $V\in L^\infty({\bf R}^n)$. Note also that an estimate similar to (1.24) is proved in [@kn:DF] for a class of small potentials $b$ and $V$ still in dimension three.
Theorem 1.1 plays a crucial role in the proof of the dispersive estimates (1.23) and (1.24). Note that we cannot use Corollary 1.3 instead, since a function $b(x)$ satisfying the conditions (1.20), (1.21) and (1.22) is not necessarily continuous in $x$. Finally, we expect that Theorem 1.4 can be extended to all dimensions $n\ge 3$ for potentials $b(x), V(x)=O\left(\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{n+1}{2}-\delta}\right)$.
Resolvent estimates
===================
Clearly, it suffices to prove the resolvent estimates for $0<\delta'\le\delta$. We will first consider the case $b^S\equiv V^S\equiv 0$, so $b=b^L$ and $V=V^L$. Let $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$. Clearly, in this case (1.7) follows from the a priori estimate $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(|x|)^{1/2}f\right\|_{L^2({\bf R}^n)}\le C\lambda^{-1}
\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(|x|)^{-1/2}\left(
G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)f\right\|_{L^2({\bf R}^n)}.\eqno{(2.1)}$$ It suffices to consider the case “+“ only. To prove (2.1) we will pass to polar coordinates $(r,w)\in {\bf R}^+\times{\bf S}^{n-1}$. Recall that $L^2({\bf R}^n)\cong L^2\left({\bf R}^+\times{\bf S}^{n-1},r^{(n-1)/2}drdw\right)$. Set $X=
\left({\bf R}^+\times{\bf S}^{n-1},drdw\right)$, $u=r^{(n-1)/2}f$, $$P=\lambda^{-2}r^{(n-1)/2}\left(G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)r^{-(n-1)/2}.$$ It is well known that $$r^{(n-1)/2}\Delta r^{-(n-1)/2}=\partial_r^2+\frac{\Delta_w-c_n}{r^2},\eqno{(2.2)}$$ where $$c_n=\frac{(n-1)(n-3)}{4}$$ and $\Delta_w$ denotes the (negative) Laplace-Beltrami operator on ${\bf S}^{n-1}$ written in the coordinates $w$. It is easy to see that (2.1) follows from the estimate $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}u\right\|_{H^1(X)}\le C\lambda\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{-1/2}Pu\right\|_{L^2(X)},
\eqno{(2.3)}$$ where the norm in the left-hand side is defined as follows $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}u\right\|_{H^1(X)}^2=\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+
\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}r^{-1}
\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2,$$ where ${\cal D}_r=i\lambda^{-1}\partial_r$, $\Lambda_w=-\lambda^{-2}\Delta_w$. Througout this section $\|\cdot\|$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ will denote the norm and the scalar product in the Hilbert space $L^2({\bf S}^{n-1})$. Hence $\|u\|^2_{L^2(X)}=\int_0^\infty\|u(r,\cdot)\|^2dr$. Using (2.2) one can easily check that the operator $P$ can be written in the form $$P={\cal D}_r^2+r^{-2}\widetilde\Lambda_w+\lambda^{-2}W(r,w)-1+i\varepsilon\lambda^{-2}$$ $$+\lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^nw_j
\left(b_{j}(rw){\cal D}_r+{\cal D}_rb_{j}(rw)\right)$$ $$+\lambda^{-1}r^{-1}
\sum_{j=1}^n\left(b_{j}(rw)Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)+
Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)b_{j}(rw)\right),$$ $$W=V(rw)+|b(rw)|^2-i(n-1)r^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^nw_jb_j(rw),$$ where $\widetilde\Lambda_w=\Lambda_w+\lambda^{-2}c_n$, $w_j=x_j/r$, ${\cal D}_w=i\lambda^{-1}\partial_w$, $Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)=i\lambda^{-1}Q_j(w,\partial_w)$, $Q_j(w,\xi)\in C^\infty(T^*{\bf S}^{n-1})$ are real-valued, independent of $r$ and $\lambda$, and homogeneous of order 1 with respect to $\xi$. Decompose $W$ as $W^L+W^S$, where $$W^L=V(rw)+\left|b(rw)\right|^2,$$ $$W^S=-i(n-1)r^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^nw_jb_j(rw).$$ It is easy to see that the assumptions (1.1), (1.2) and (1.4) imply $$\left|W^L(r,w)\right|\le C,\eqno{(2.4)}$$ $$\partial_rW^L(r,w)\le C\psi_\delta(r),\eqno{(2.5)}$$ $$\left|W^S(r,w)\right|\le C\psi_\delta(r).\eqno{(2.6)}$$ Set $$E(r)=-\left\langle\left(r^{-2}\widetilde\Lambda_w-1+\lambda^{-2}W^L\right)u(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle+
\left\|{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\|^2$$ $$-2\lambda^{-1}r^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n{\rm Re}\,\left\langle b_{j}(rw)Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)u(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle.$$ We have the identity $$E'(r):=\frac{dE(r)}{dr}=\frac{2}{r}\left\langle r^{-2}\widetilde\Lambda_wu(r,w),u(r,w)
\right\rangle-\lambda^{-2}\left\langle
\frac{\partial W^L}{\partial r}u(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle$$ $$-2\lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n{\rm Re}\,\left\langle\frac{\partial(b_{j}(rw)/r)}{\partial r}
Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)u(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle$$ $$-2\lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n{\rm Re}\,\left\langle w_j\frac{\partial b_{j}(rw)}{\partial r}
u(r,w),{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\rangle
+2\lambda{\rm Im}\,\left\langle \widetilde Pu(r,w),{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\rangle,$$ where $$\widetilde P=P-i\varepsilon\lambda^{-2}-\lambda^{-2}W^S.$$ Observe now that by (1.4) we have $$\left|\frac{\partial b(rw)}{\partial r}\right|\le C\psi_\delta(r),\eqno{(2.7)}$$ $$\left|\frac{\partial(b(rw)/r)}{\partial r}\right|\le Cr^{-3/2}\psi_\delta(r)^{1/2}.\eqno{(2.8)}$$ Hence, using (2.5), (2.7) and (2.8), we obtain $$E'(r)\ge\frac{2}{r}\left\langle r^{-2}\widetilde\Lambda_wu(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle-\gamma r^{-3}\sum_{j=1}^n\left\|
Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)u(r,w)\right\|^2$$ $$-\lambda^{-1}\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\|^2-O_{\gamma}
(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u(r,w)\right\|^2-2\lambda M(r),\eqno{(2.9)}$$ $\forall \gamma>0$ independent of $\lambda$ and $r$, where $$M(r)= \left|\left\langle \widetilde Pu(r,w),{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\rangle\right|.$$ Since $\|Q_j(w,{\cal D}_w)u\|\le C\|\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\|\le C\|\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\|$, taking $\gamma$ small enough we can absorb the second term in the right-hand side of (2.9) by the first one and obtain $$E'(r)\ge\frac{1}{r}\left\langle r^{-2}\widetilde\Lambda_wu(r,w),u(r,w)\right\rangle-\lambda^{-1}
\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\|^2$$ $$-
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u(r,w)\right\|^2-2\lambda M(r).\eqno{(2.10)}$$ Using that $\widetilde\Lambda_w\ge 0$, we deduce from (2.10) $$E(r)=-\int_r^\infty E'(t)dt\le \lambda^{-1}\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+2\lambda \int_0^\infty M(t)dt.\eqno{(2.11)}$$ Let now $\psi(r)>0$ be such that $\int_0^\infty\psi(r)dr<+\infty$. Multiplying both sides of (2.11) by $\psi$ and integrating from $0$ to $\infty$, we get $$\int_0^\infty\psi(r)E(r)dr\le O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+O(\lambda)\int_0^\infty M(r)dr.\eqno{(2.12)}$$ In particular, (2.12) holds with $\psi=\psi_{\delta'}(r)$ for any $0<\delta'\le\delta$. It is easy also to check that $$0<-\frac{d}{dr}\left(r\psi_{\delta'}(r)\right)\le C\psi_{\delta'}(r),$$ so we can use (2.12) with $\psi=-\frac{d}{dr}\left(r\psi_{\delta'}(r)\right)$ to obtain $$\int_0^\infty r\psi_{\delta'}(r)E'(r)dr=-\int_0^\infty\frac{d}{dr}\left(r\psi_{\delta'}(r)\right)E(r)dr$$ $$\le O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+O(\lambda)\int_0^\infty M(r)dr.\eqno{(2.13)}$$ Since $r\psi_{\delta'}(r)\le 1$, combining (2.10) and (2.13) we conclude $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}
\le O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}$$ $$+
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+O(\lambda)\int_0^\infty M(r)dr.\eqno{(2.14)}$$ On the other hand, in view of (2.4) we can choose $\lambda$ big enough so that $1-\lambda^{-2}W^L\ge 1/2$. Therefore, for $\lambda\gg 1$ we have the inequality $$\int_0^\infty\psi_{\delta'}(r)E(r)dr\ge \left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}
+\frac{1}{3}\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}-2\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u
\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}.\eqno{(2.15)}$$ By (2.12), (2.14) and (2.15), we conclude $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{\widetilde H^1(X)}:=\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}
+\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u
\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}$$ $$\le O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+
O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}+O(\lambda) \int_0^\infty M(r)dr.\eqno{(2.16)}$$ Set $$P^\sharp=\widetilde P+i\varepsilon\lambda^{-2}=P-\lambda^{-2}W^S(r,w),$$ $$M^\sharp(r)= \left|\left\langle P^\sharp u(r,w),{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\rangle\right|,
\quad N(r)= \left|\left\langle Pu(r,w),{\cal D}_ru(r,w)\right\rangle\right|.$$ In view of (2.6), we have $$\lambda \int_0^\infty M^\sharp(r)dr\le \lambda\int_0^\infty N(r)dr+O(\lambda^{-1})
\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}u\right\|^2_{L^2(X)}.\eqno{(2.17)}$$ We also have $$\lambda \int_0^\infty M(r)dr\le \lambda \int_0^\infty M^\sharp(r)dr+\varepsilon\lambda^{-1}\left(\|u\|_{L^2(X)}^2
+\left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2\right),\eqno{(2.18)}$$ $$\lambda\int_0^\infty N(r)dr\le O_\gamma(\lambda^2)\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{-1/2}Pu\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+\gamma
\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2,\eqno{(2.19)}$$ for every $\gamma>0$ independent of $\lambda$. On the other hand, in view of (2.4) and (2.6), we have $$\varepsilon\lambda^{-2}\|u\|_{L^2(X)}^2={\rm Im}\,\left\langle Pu,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}+(n-1)\lambda^{-2}\sum_{j=1}^n
\left\langle r^{-1}w_jb_j(rw)u,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}$$ $$\le \left|\left\langle Pu,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}\right|+O(\lambda^{-2})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}
u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2,\eqno{(2.20)}$$ $${\rm Re}\,\left\langle Pu,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}=\left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+
\left\|r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+\left\langle\left(\lambda^{-2}W^L-1\right)u,u
\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}$$ $$+2\lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n{\rm Re}\,\left\langle w_jb_{j}(rw){\cal D}_ru,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}+
2\lambda^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n{\rm Re}\,\left\langle r^{-1}b_{j}(rw)Q_ju,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}$$ $$\ge \left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+
\left\|r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2-O(1)\left\|u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2$$ $$-O(\lambda^{-1})\left(
\left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+
\left\|r^{-1}\widetilde\Lambda_w^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+\left\|u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2\right)$$ $$\ge \frac{1}{2}\left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2-O(1)\left\|u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2,$$ provided $\lambda$ is taken large enough, which in turn implies $$\left\|{\cal D}_ru\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2\le O(1)\left\|u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+
2\left|\left\langle Pu,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}\right|.\eqno{(2.21)}$$ Combining (2.18), (2.20) and (2.21), we get $$\lambda \int_0^\infty M(r)dr\le O(\lambda)\int_0^\infty M^\sharp(r)dr+O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\psi_\delta^{1/2}
u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+O(\lambda)
\left|\left\langle Pu,u\right\rangle_{L^2(X)}\right|$$ $$\le O(\lambda)\int_0^\infty M^\sharp(r)dr+
O_\gamma(\lambda^2)\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{-1/2}Pu\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2+O(\gamma+\lambda^{-1})
\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u\right\|_{L^2(X)}^2.\eqno{(2.22)}$$ By (2.16), (2.17), (2.19) and (2.22), we conclude $$\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u\right\|_{\widetilde H^1(X)}\le \left(O_\gamma(\lambda^{-1})
+O(\gamma)\right)^{1/2}\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{1/2}u
\right\|_{\widetilde H^1(X)}+O_\gamma(\lambda)\left\|\psi_{\delta'}^{-1/2}Pu\right\|_{L^2(X)},\eqno{(2.23)}$$ where we have used that $\psi_\delta\le\psi_{\delta'}$ for $\delta'\le\delta$. Now, taking $\gamma$ small enough, independent of $\lambda$, and $\lambda$ big enough, we can absorb the first term in the right-hand side of (2.23) to obtain (2.3). To prove (1.7) for all multi-indices $|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1$ we will use the following
If $|b(x)|+|V(x)|\le C'=Const$, then for every $s\in{\bf R}$ there exist constants $C>0$ independent of $b$ and $V$ and $\lambda_0>0$ depending on $C'$ so that for $\lambda\ge\lambda_0$ and $0\le|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1$ we have the estimate $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-2}.\eqno{(2.24)}$$
[*Proof.*]{} Without loss of generality we may suppose that $s\ge 0$. Let us first see that (2.24) is valid for the free operator $G_0$. This is obvious for $s=0$. For $s>0$ we will use the identity $$\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{s}=\langle x\rangle^{s}\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}-
\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\left[\Delta,\langle x\rangle^{s}\right]\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}.\eqno{(2.25)}$$ Since $$\left[\Delta,\langle x\rangle^{s}\right]=O\left(\langle x\rangle^{s-1}\right)\partial_x+
O\left(\langle x\rangle^{s-2}\right),$$ we obtain from (2.25) (with $|\alpha|\le 2$) $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^\alpha \left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{s}
\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le \left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^\alpha \langle x\rangle^{s}\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}
\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_{|\beta|\le 1}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^\alpha \left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{s-1}
\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\left\|\partial_x^\beta\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{|\alpha|-2}+O(\lambda^{-1})\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^\alpha \left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{s-1}
\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}.\eqno{(2.26)}$$ Iterating (2.26) a finite number of times and taking into account that the operator $\partial_x^{\alpha_2}$ commutes with the free resolvent, we get (2.24) for $G_0$. To prove (2.24) for the perturbed operator we will use the resolvent identity $$\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}=\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}-\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}(G-G_0)
\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}.\eqno{(2.27)}$$ By (2.27) we get $$\sum_{|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1}\lambda^{-|\alpha_1|-|\alpha_2|}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le\sum_{|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1}\lambda^{-|\alpha_1|-|\alpha_2|}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_{|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|\le 1}\sum_{|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|\le 1}\lambda^{-|\alpha_1|-|\alpha_2|}
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times \left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\beta_2}
\left(G_0\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{-2}+O(\lambda^{-1})\sum_{|\alpha_1|,|\beta_1|\le 1}\lambda^{-|\alpha_1|-|\beta_1|}
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-s}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
\left(G\pm i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\langle x\rangle^{s}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}.\eqno{(2.28)}$$ Taking now $\lambda$ big enough we can absorb the second term in the right-hand side of (2.28) and obtain (2.24).
$\Box$
Let us see that (1.7) for all multi-indices $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ follows from (1.7) with $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$ and Lemma 2.1. To this end, we will use the resolvent identity $$\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}=\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}+(\lambda^2\mp i\varepsilon-i\lambda^2)
\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-2}$$ $$+(\lambda^2\mp i\varepsilon-i\lambda^2)^2\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}.$$ Hence $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le \left\|\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+C\lambda^2\left\|\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\left\|
\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+C\lambda^4\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times \left\|\langle x\rangle^{\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-2}+C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le \widetilde C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-1}.$$ We will now prove (1.7) in the general case. Let $\phi\in C_0^\infty({\bf R}^+)$, $\phi\ge 0$, $\int\phi(\sigma)d\sigma=1$, and given any $0<\theta\le 1$, set $$B_\theta(r,w)=\theta^{-1}\eta_\delta(r)\int_{{\bf R}} g_\delta(r',w)\phi\left(\frac{r'-r}{\theta}\right)dr'=
\eta_\delta(r)\int_{{\bf R}} g_\delta(r+\theta \sigma,w)\phi(\sigma)d\sigma,$$ $b_\theta^S(x):=B_\theta(|x|,\frac{x}{|x|})$. In view of the assumption (1.6), given any $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\theta>0$ so that for all $x\in {\bf R}^n$ we have $$\left|b_\theta^S(x)-b^S(x)\right|\le\eta_\delta(|x|)\int_{{\bf R}}\left|g_\delta(|x|+\theta\sigma,\frac{x}{|x|})-
g_\delta(|x|,\frac{x}{|x|})\right|
\phi(\sigma)d\sigma\le \epsilon\eta_\delta(|x|).\eqno{(2.29)}$$ It is also clear that (1.5) implies the bounds $$\left|b_\theta^S(rw)\right|\le C\eta_\delta(r),\eqno{(2.30)}$$ $$\left|\partial_rb_\theta^S(rw)\right|\le C_\epsilon \psi_\delta(r).\eqno{(2.31)}$$ We will use the above analysis and the easy observation that the constant $C$ in the right-hand side of (1.7) depends only on the parameter $\delta'$, provided $0<\delta'\le\delta$. In view of (1.1), (1.2), (1.4), (2.30) and (2.31), we can apply the already proved estimate (1.7) to the operator $$G_1=-\Delta+i(b^L+b_\theta^S)\cdot\nabla +i\nabla\cdot(b^L+b_\theta^S)+V^L+\left|b^L\right|^2$$ to get the estimate $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G_1-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-1}\eqno{(2.32)}$$ for $\lambda\ge\lambda_0(\epsilon)>0$ with a constant $C>0$ independent of $\epsilon$, $\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$. On the other hand, in view of (1.3), (1.5) and (2.29), the difference $G-G_1$ is a first order differential operator of the form $$G-G_1=O\left(\epsilon\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta}\right)\cdot\nabla+
\nabla\cdot O\left(\epsilon\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta}\right)+O\left(\langle x\rangle^{-1-\delta}\right).$$ Using this together with (2.32) and the resolvent identity $$(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon)^{-1}=(G_1-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon)^{-1}-(G_1-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon)^{-1}
(G-G_1)(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon)^{-1},$$ we obtain $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le \left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}
\left(G_1-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_{|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|\le 1}\epsilon^{|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}
\left(G_1-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\partial_x^{\beta_2}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{-1}+C\sum_{|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|\le 1}\epsilon^{|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|}\lambda^{|\beta_1|-1}
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\partial_x^{\beta_2}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{-1}+O\left(\epsilon+\lambda^{-1}\right)\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+O(\epsilon\lambda^{-1})\sum_{|\beta_2|=1}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\partial_x^{\beta_2}
(G-i\lambda^2)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times\left(1+\lambda^2
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta}{2}}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\right)$$ $$\le C\lambda^{-1}+O\left(\epsilon+\lambda^{-1}\right)\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2},\eqno{(2.33)}$$ where we have used that $\delta'\le\delta$ and Lemma 2.1. Taking $\epsilon>0$ small enough, independent of $\lambda$, and $\lambda$ big enough we can absorb the second term in the right-hand side of (2.33) and obtain (1.7) in the general case when $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$. For all multi-indices $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ the estimate (1.7) follows from (1.7) with $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$ and Lemma 2.1 in the same way as above.
To prove (1.11) we will use the commutator identity $$\partial_r^2+\frac{\Delta_w-c_n}{r^2}+\frac{1}{2}\left[r\partial_r,\partial_r^2+\frac{\Delta_w-c_n}{r^2}\right]=0.\eqno{(2.34)}$$ We obtain from (2.34) that the operators $\widetilde G=r^{(n-1)/2}Gr^{-(n-1)/2}$ and $\widetilde\Delta=r^{(n-1)/2}\Delta r^{-(n-1)/2}$ satisfy the identity $$\widetilde G+\frac{1}{2}\left[r\partial_r,\widetilde G\right]=\widetilde G+\widetilde\Delta+
\frac{1}{2}\left[r\partial_r,\widetilde G+\widetilde\Delta\right]:={\cal Q}.\eqno{(2.35)}$$ We rewrite (2.35) as follows $$\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon+\frac{1}{2}\left[r\partial_r,\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right]
=-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon+{\cal Q},$$ which yields the identity $$\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}-\frac{1}{2}\left[r\partial_r,\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+
i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\right]$$ $$=(-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon)\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)^{-2}+
\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}{\cal Q}\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}.\eqno{(2.36)}$$ Set $$\widetilde W^L=V^L(rw)+\left|b(rw)\right|^2,$$ $$\widetilde W^S=V^S(rw)-i(n-1)r^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^nw_jb_j(rw).$$ Observe now that $${\cal Q}=\frac{1}{2r}\frac{\partial(r^2\widetilde W^L)}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\widetilde W^S+
\partial_rr\widetilde W^S-r\widetilde W^S\partial_r\right)$$ $$+\frac{i}{2}
\sum_{j=1}^nw_j\left(\frac{\partial(rb_j)}{\partial r}\partial_r+\partial_r\frac{\partial(rb_j)}{\partial r}\right)+
\frac{i}{2r}\sum_{j=1}^n\left(\frac{\partial(rb_j)}{\partial r}Q_j(w,\partial_w)+Q_j(w,\partial_w)
\frac{\partial(rb_j)}{\partial r}\right).$$ It follows from the assumptions (1.4), (1.8), (1.9) and (1.10) that $$\left|\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial(r^2\widetilde W^L)}{\partial r}\right|+\left|\frac{\partial(rb)}{\partial r}\right|+
\langle r\rangle\left|\widetilde W^S\right|\le C\psi_\delta(r).\eqno{(2.37)}$$ By (2.36) and (2.37) we obtain $$\lambda^2\left\|\langle r\rangle^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+i\varepsilon\right)^{-2}
\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\langle r\rangle^{-1}\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$\le \left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2+
i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$+O(\lambda)\sum_{\pm}\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}{\cal D}_r
\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$+O(\lambda)\sum_{\pm}\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2\pm
i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$\times\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}{\cal D}_r\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2\mp
i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$+O(\lambda)\sum_{\pm}\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2\pm
i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)}$$ $$\times\left\|\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}r^{-1}\Lambda_w^{1/2}
\left(\widetilde G-\lambda^2\mp i\varepsilon\right)^{-1}\psi_{\delta'}(r)^{1/2}
\right\|_{L^2(X)\to L^2(X)},\eqno{(2.38)}$$ where we have used that $\psi_\delta\le\psi_{\delta'}$ for $\delta'\le\delta$. It is clear now that (1.11) with $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$ follows from (1.7) and (2.38). Furthemore, it is easy to see that when $|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|\ge 1$ the estimate (1.11) follows from (1.7), (1.11) with $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$ and Lemma 2.1. Indeed, we have $$\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i
\varepsilon\right)^{-2}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times
\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\left(G-i\lambda^2\right)\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-2}
(G-i\lambda^2)\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\times \left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\left(G+i\lambda^2\right)^{-1}
\langle x\rangle^{\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le O(\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-4})\sum_{k=0}^2\lambda^{2k}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}
\left(G-\lambda^2\pm i\varepsilon\right)^{-k}
\langle x\rangle^{-\frac{3+\delta'}{2}}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$\le C\lambda^{|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|-2}.$$
$\Box$
[*Proof of Corollary 1.2.*]{} We will use Theorem 1.1 and the observation that the constant $C$ in the right-hand side of (1.7) depends only on the parameter $\delta'$, provided $\delta'\le \delta$ (an argument already used above in the case when $b^S\equiv V^S\equiv 0$ and which is true in the general case). Since by assumption $b(0)=0$ and the function $b$ is continuous in $r$, given any $\epsilon>0$ there is $0<\theta\le 1$ so that $|b(x)|\le\epsilon$ for $|x|\le \theta$. Let $\zeta\in C_0^\infty({\bf R})$, $0\le\zeta\le 1$, $\zeta(\tau)=1$ for $|\tau|\le 1/2$, $\zeta(\tau)=0$ for $|\tau|\ge 1$. We are going to apply Theorem 1.1 to the operator $$G_2=-\Delta+i(1-\zeta)(|x|/\theta)b(x)\cdot\nabla +i\nabla\cdot b(x)(1-\zeta)(|x|/\theta)+V(x)+\left|b(x)\right|^2.$$ Let $\chi\in C^\infty({\bf R})$, $0\le\chi\le 1$, $\chi(r)=0$ for $r\le r_0+1$, $\chi(r)=1$ for $r\ge r_0+2$. Set $$\widetilde b^L(x)=\chi(|x|)b^L(x),\quad \widetilde V^L(x)=\chi(|x|)V^L(x),$$ $$\widetilde b^S(x)=(1-\zeta)(|x|/\theta)\left(b^S(x)+(1-\chi)(|x|)b^L(x)\right),$$ $$\widetilde V^S(x)=V^S(x)+(1-\chi)(|x|)V^L(x)+\zeta(|x|/\theta)(2-\zeta(|x|/\theta))|b(x)|^2.$$ It is easy to see that the operator $G_2$ is of the form $$G_2=\left(i\nabla+\widetilde b^L+\widetilde b^S\right)^2+\widetilde V^L+\widetilde V^S,$$ and that the conditions of Corollary 1.2 imply that the functions $\widetilde b^L$, $\widetilde b^S$, $\widetilde V^L$ and $\widetilde V^S$ satisfy (1.1)-(1.6) with possibly a new constant $\delta>0$ independent of $\epsilon$. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1 the operator $G_2$ satisfies the estimate (1.7) with a constant $C$ in the right-hand side independent of $\epsilon$. On the other hand, the difference $G-G_2$ is a first order differential operator of the form $O(\epsilon)\cdot\nabla+\nabla\cdot O(\epsilon)$ with coefficients supported in $|x|\le 1$. Taking $\epsilon>0$ small enough, independent of $\lambda$, and proceeding in the same way as in the proof of (2.33) above, we obtain that the operator $G$ satisfies (1.7), too.
$\Box$
[*Proof of Corollary 1.3.*]{} It is similar to the proof of Corollary 1.2 above. Since by assumption $b(x)=O(\langle x\rangle^{-\delta})$, given any $\epsilon>0$ there is $x_\epsilon\in{\bf R}^n$, $|x_\epsilon|\gg 1$, so that $|b(x)|\le\epsilon$ for $|x-x_\epsilon|\le 1$. We would like to apply Theorem 1.1 to the operator $$G_3=-\Delta+i(1-\zeta)(|x-x_\epsilon|)b(x)\cdot\nabla +i\nabla\cdot b(x)(1-\zeta)(|x-x_\epsilon|)+V(x)+\left|b(x)\right|^2.$$ To this end, introduce the polar coordinates $r=|x-x_\epsilon|$, $w=\frac{x-x_\epsilon}{|x-x_\epsilon|}$. It is easy to see that the conditions (1.14)-(1.18) imply that the coefficients of the operator $G_3$ satisfy (1.1)-(1.6) in these new polar coordinates with the same constant $\delta>0$. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1 the operator $G_3$ satisfies the estimate (1.7) with weights $\langle x-x_\epsilon\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}$ and with a constant $C$ in the right-hand side independent of $\epsilon$. On the other hand, the difference $G-G_3$ is a first order differential operator of the form $O(\epsilon)\cdot\nabla+\nabla\cdot O(\epsilon)$ with coefficients supported in $|x-x_\epsilon|\le 1$. Taking $\epsilon>0$ small enough, independent of $\lambda$, and proceeding in the same way as in the proof of (2.33) above, we obtain that the operator $G$ satisfies (1.7), too, with weights $\langle x-x_\epsilon\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}
\sim \langle x\rangle^{-\frac{1+\delta'}{2}}$.
$\Box$
Dispersive estimates
====================
Let $\varphi\in C_0^\infty((0,+\infty))$. It is easy to see that the estimates (1.23) and (1.24) follow from the following semi-classical dispersive estimates (e.g. see Section 2 of [@kn:CV2]).
Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.4, there exist constants $C,h_0>0$ such that for all $0<h\le h_0$, $t\neq 0$, we have the estimate $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G})\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le Ch^{-3}|t|^{-1}.\eqno{(3.1)}$$ Moreover, for every $\delta'>0$ there exist $C,h_0>0$ such that for all $0<h\le h_0$, $t\neq 0$, we have the estimate $$\left\|e^{it\sqrt{G}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G})\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}
\le Ch^{-2}|t|^{-1}.\eqno{(3.2)}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We are going to use the formula $$e^{it\sqrt{G_0}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G_0})=(\pi i)^{-1}\int_0^\infty e^{it\lambda}\varphi(h\lambda)
\left(R_0^+(\lambda)-R_0^-(\lambda)\right)\lambda
d\lambda,\eqno{(3.3)}$$ where $R_0^\pm(\lambda)=(G_0-\lambda^2\pm i0)^{-1}$ are the three dimensional outgoing and incoming free resolvents with kernels given by $$[R_0^\pm(\lambda)](x,y)=\frac{e^{\pm i\lambda|x-y|}}{4\pi|x-y|}.$$ We also have the formula $$e^{it\sqrt{G}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G})=(\pi i)^{-1}\int_0^\infty e^{it\lambda}\varphi(h\lambda)
\left(R^+(\lambda)-R^-(\lambda)\right)\lambda
d\lambda,\eqno{(3.4)}$$ where $R^\pm(\lambda)=(G-\lambda^2\pm i0)^{-1}$ are the outgoing and incoming perturbed resolvents satisfying the relation $$R^\pm(\lambda)-R_0^\pm(\lambda)=R_0^\pm(\lambda)LR^\pm(\lambda)=:T^\pm(\lambda)=T_1^\pm(\lambda)+T_2^\pm(\lambda),
\eqno{(3.5)}$$ where $$T_1^\pm(\lambda)=R_0^\pm(\lambda)L
R_0^\pm(\lambda),\quad T_2^\pm(\lambda)=R_0^\pm(\lambda)LR^\pm(\lambda)LR_0^\pm(\lambda),$$ $$L=G-G_0=ib(x)\cdot\nabla+i\nabla\cdot b(x)+|b(x)|^2+V(x).$$ In view of (3.3), (3.4) and (3.5) we can write $$e^{it\sqrt{G}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G})-e^{it\sqrt{G_0}}\varphi(h\sqrt{G_0})=
(i\pi h)^{-1}\int_0^\infty e^{it\lambda}\widetilde\varphi(h\lambda)T(\lambda)d\lambda,\eqno{(3.6)}$$ where we have put $\widetilde\varphi(\lambda)=\lambda\varphi(\lambda)$, $T=T^+-T^-$. It is easy to see that the estimates (3.1) and (3.2) follow from (3.6) and the following
The operator-valued functions $T(\lambda):L^1\to L^\infty$ and $T(\lambda)\langle
x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}:L^2\to L^\infty$ are $C^1$ for $\lambda$ large enough and satisfy the estimates (with $k=0,1$) $$\left\|\partial_\lambda^k T(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C\lambda,\eqno{(3.7)}$$ $$\left\|\partial_\lambda^k T(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\le C.\eqno{(3.8)}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We will need the following properties of the three dimensional free resolvent.
We have the estimates $$\left\|\partial_\lambda^k\left(R_0^+(\lambda)-R_0^-(\lambda)\right)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C\lambda,\quad k=0,1,
\eqno{(3.9)}$$ $$\left\|\partial_\lambda^kR_0^\pm(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}
+\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k-\delta'}\partial_\lambda^kR_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}\le C,\quad
k=0,1,\eqno{(3.10)}$$ $$\left\|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}
+\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\partial_x^\alpha\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}\le C\lambda,
\quad |\alpha|=1.\eqno{(3.11)}$$ Moreover, if $|\alpha|=1$, given any $\gamma>0$ independent of $\lambda$ the operator $\partial_x^\alpha R_0^\pm(\lambda)$ can be decomposed as ${\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\pm(\lambda)+{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}$, where $$\left\|{\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\pm(\lambda)^*\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}
+\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta'}{\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}\le C_\gamma\lambda,\eqno{(3.12)}$$ $$\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}
+\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}\right\|_{L^1\to L^1}\le\gamma.\eqno{(3.13)}$$
[*Proof.*]{} The estimate (3.9) follows from the fact that the kernel of the operator $$\partial_\lambda^k\left(R_0^+(\lambda)-
R_0^-(\lambda)\right)$$ is $O(\lambda)$, while (3.10) follows from the fact that the kernel of the operator $\partial_\lambda^kR_0^\pm(\lambda)$ is $O\left(|x-y|^{k-1}\right)$ uniformly in $\lambda$. It is also easy to see that if $|\alpha|=1$, the kernel of $\partial_x^\alpha\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)$ is $O(\lambda)$, which clearly implies (3.11). Furthemore, observe that the kernel of $\partial_x^\alpha R_0^\pm(\lambda)$ is equal to $$\frac{\partial^\alpha|x-y|}{\partial x^\alpha}\left(\pm i\lambda\frac{e^{\pm i\lambda|x-y|}}{|x-y|}-
\frac{e^{\pm i\lambda|x-y|}}{|x-y|^2}\right)$$ $$=\frac{\partial^\alpha|x-y|}{\partial x^\alpha}\left(\pm i\lambda\frac{e^{\pm i\lambda|x-y|}}{|x-y|}+
\frac{1-e^{\pm i\lambda|x-y|}}{|x-y|^2}+\frac{\rho(|x-y|/\gamma')-1}{|x-y|^2}\right)$$ $$-
\frac{\partial^\alpha|x-y|}{\partial x^\alpha}
\frac{\rho(|x-y|/\gamma')}{|x-y|^2}:=K_{1,\alpha}^\pm(x,y)+K_{2,\alpha}(x,y),$$ where $\gamma'>0$ and $\rho\in C_0^\infty({\bf R})$, $0\le\rho\le 1$, $\rho(\sigma)=1$ for $|\sigma|\le 1$, $\rho(\sigma)=0$ for $|\sigma|\ge 2$. Denote by ${\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\pm(\lambda)$ (resp. ${\cal K}_{2,\alpha}$) the operator with kernel $K_{1,\alpha}^\pm$ (resp. $K_{2,\alpha}$). Clearly, $K_{1,\alpha}^\pm=O_{\gamma'}(\lambda)|x-y|^{-1}$, which implies (3.12). On the other hand, the left-hand side of (3.13) is upper bounded by $$C\int_{{\bf R}^3} \frac{\rho(|x-y|/\gamma')}{|x-y|^2}dy\le C
\int_{|z|\le\gamma'}|z|^{-2}dz\le \widetilde C\gamma'.\eqno{(3.14)}$$ Choosing $\gamma'=\gamma/\widetilde C$ we get (3.13).
$\Box$
Using Theorem 1.1 and Lemma 3.3 together with (1.20) and the fact that the operator $\partial_x^\alpha$ commutes with the free resolvent, we obtain $$\sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\partial_\lambda^kT(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}
\le \sum_\pm\left\|\frac{dR_0^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda}
LR^\pm(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$+\sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\left(R_0^+(\lambda)
L\frac{d^kR^+(\lambda)}{d\lambda^k}-R_0^-(\lambda)
L\frac{d^kR^-(\lambda)}{d\lambda^k}\right)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le C\sum_\pm\sum_{0\le|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|\le 1}\left\|\partial_x^{\alpha_1}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}
\partial_x^{\alpha_2} R^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+ C\sum_\pm\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le 1}\left\|R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}
\partial_x^{\alpha}\partial_\lambda^k R^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+ C\sum_\pm\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{|\alpha|= 1}\left\|{\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\mp(\lambda)^*
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}
\partial_\lambda^k R^\pm(\lambda)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}$$ $$+ C\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{|\alpha|= 1}\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}
\left\|\left(\partial_\lambda^kR^+(\lambda)-
\partial_\lambda^k R^-(\lambda)\right)\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le C_\gamma+O(\gamma)\sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\partial_\lambda^kT(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta'}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\eqno{(3.15)}$$ for every $\gamma>0$. Taking $\gamma$ small enough we can absorb the second term in the right-hand side of (3.15) and get (3.8). Let us see now that the operator $T_1=T_1^+-T_1^-$ satisfies (3.7). By Lemma 3.3 we have $$\sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\partial_\lambda^kT_1(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le \sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\frac{d^kR_0^+(
\lambda)}{d\lambda^k}LR_0^+(\lambda)-\frac{d^kR_0^-(\lambda)}{d\lambda^k}LR_0^-(\lambda)
\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$+\left\|R_0^+(\lambda)L\frac{dR_0^+(\lambda)}{d\lambda}-R_0^-(\lambda)L\frac{dR_0^-(\lambda)}
{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le C\sum_\pm\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{|\alpha|\le 1}\left\|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_\lambda^k R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_\pm\sum_{|\alpha|\le 1}\left\|R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\partial_x^\alpha
\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_\pm\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{|\alpha|=1}\left\|\partial_\lambda^k R_0^\pm(\lambda)
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}
{\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_\pm\sum_{|\alpha|=1}\left\|{\cal K}_{1,\alpha}^\mp(\lambda)^*
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}
\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\sum_{k=0}^1\sum_{|\alpha|=1}\left\|\partial_\lambda^k\left(R_0^+(\lambda)-R_0^-(\lambda)\right)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}
\left(\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}\right\|_{L^1\to L^1}+\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}\right)
\le C\lambda.\eqno{(3.16)}$$ Given a multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$ such that $|\alpha|\le 1$, define the function $b_\alpha$ as follows: $b_0=\left(|b|^2+V\right)/2$, and if $|\alpha|=1$, $\alpha_j=1$, then $b_\alpha:=b_j$. The operator $T_2=T_2^+-T_2^-$ satisfies $$\sum_{k=0}^1\left\|\partial_\lambda^kT_2(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le \sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3\le 1}
\left\|\sum_\pm \pm\frac{d^{k_1}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_1}}L\frac{d^{k_2}R^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_2}}L
\frac{d^{k_3}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_3}}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le \sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3\le 1}\sum_{|\alpha_1|,|\alpha_2|,|\beta_1|,|\beta_2|\le 1,\,|\alpha_1|+|\alpha_2|\le 1,\,
|\beta_1|+|\beta_2|\le 1}A_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2}(\lambda)=:{\cal A}(\lambda),\eqno{(3.17)}$$ where $$A_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2}(\lambda)=\left\|\sum_\pm \pm\frac{d^{k_1}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}
{d\lambda^{k_1}}\partial_x^{\alpha_1}b_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\frac{d^{k_2}R^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_2}}
\partial_x^{\beta_2}b_{\beta_1,\beta_2}\partial_x^{\beta_1}
\frac{d^{k_3}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_3}}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty},$$ where $b_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}=b_{\alpha_1}$ if $\alpha_2=0$, $b_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}=b_{\alpha_2}$ if $\alpha_1=0$. To bound these norms we will consider several cases.
Case 1. $\alpha_1=\beta_1=0$. By Theorem 1.1, Lemma 3.3 and (1.20), we have $$A_{k_1,k_2,k_3}^{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2}(\lambda)\le C\sum_\pm \left\|\frac{d^{k_1}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}
{d\lambda^{k_1}}\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_1-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$\times\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_2-\delta/2}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}\frac{d^{k_2}R^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_2}}
\partial_x^{\beta_2}\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_3-\delta/2}
\frac{d^{k_3}R_0^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda^{k_3}}\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$\le O(\lambda)\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_2-\delta/2}\partial_x^{\alpha_2}R^\pm(\lambda)^{1+k_2}
\partial_x^{\beta_2}\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-k_2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\le C\lambda.\eqno{(3.18)}$$
Case 2. $|\alpha_1|+|\beta_1|\ge 1$, $k_1=1$ if $|\alpha_1|=1$ and $k_3=1$ if $|\beta_1|=1$. This case is treated in precisely the same way as Case 1.
Case 3. $k_1=k_2=0$, $k_3=1$, $|\alpha_1|=1$, $\alpha_2=0$. By Theorem 1.1, Lemma 3.3 and (1.20), we have $$A_{0,0,1}^{\alpha_1,0,\beta_1,\beta_2}(\lambda)\le C\sum_\pm \left\|{\cal K}_{1,\alpha_1}^\mp(\lambda)^*
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$\times\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}R^\pm(\lambda)
\partial_x^{\beta_2}\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}
\partial_x^{\beta_1}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha_1}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}\left\|\sum_\pm \pm R^\pm(\lambda)\partial_x^{\beta_2}
b_{\beta_1,\beta_2}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le C_\gamma\lambda+O(\gamma)\left\|\sum_\pm \pm R_0^\pm(\lambda)\partial_x^{\beta_2}
b_{\beta_1,\beta_2}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$+O(\gamma)\left\|\sum_\pm \pm R_0^\pm(\lambda)L R^\pm(\lambda)\partial_x^{\beta_2}
b_{\beta_1,\beta_2}\partial_x^{\beta_1}\partial_\lambda R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}.\eqno{(3.19)}$$ In the same way as in the proof of (3.16) one can see that the second term in the right-hand side of (3.19) is $O(\lambda)$. On the other hand, it is clear that the third one is bounded by $O(\gamma){\cal A}(\lambda)$. In other words, (3.19) yields $$A_{0,0,1}^{\alpha_1,0,\beta_1,\beta_2}(\lambda)\le C_\gamma\lambda+O(\gamma){\cal A}(\lambda).\eqno{(3.20)}$$
Case 4. $k_1=1$, $k_2=k_3=0$, $|\beta_1|=1$, $\beta_2=0$. This case is treated in the same way as Case 3.
Case 5. $k_1=k_3=0$, $k_2=1$, $|\alpha_1|=|\beta_1|=1$, $\alpha_2=\beta_2=0$. By Theorem 1.1, Lemma 3.3 and (1.20), we have $$A_{0,1,0}^{\alpha_1,0,\beta_1,0}(\lambda)\le C\sum_\pm \left\|{\cal K}_{1,\alpha_1}^\mp(\lambda)^*
\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^\infty}$$ $$\times\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\frac{dR^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda}
\langle x\rangle^{-3/2-\delta/2}\right\|_{L^2\to L^2}\left\|\langle x\rangle^{-1/2-\delta/2}
{\cal K}_{1,\beta_1}^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^2}$$ $$+C\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha_1}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}\left\|\sum_\pm \pm \frac{dR^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda}
b_{\beta_1,0}\partial_x^{\beta_1}R_0^\pm(\lambda)\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$+C\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\beta_1}\right\|_{L^1\to L^1}\left\|\sum_\pm \pm R_0^\pm(\lambda)\partial_x^{\alpha_1}
b_{\alpha_1,0}\frac{dR^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$+C\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\alpha_1}^*\right\|_{L^\infty\to L^\infty}\left\|{\cal K}_{2,\beta_1}\right\|_{L^1\to L^1}
\left\|\sum_\pm \pm \frac{dR^\pm(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}.\eqno{(3.21)}$$ By (3.9), (3.16) and (3.17), we have $$\left\|\frac{d(R^+(\lambda)-R^-(\lambda))}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le
\left\|\frac{d(R_0^+(\lambda)-R_0^-(\lambda))}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}+
\left\|\frac{dT(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}$$ $$\le C\lambda+\left\|\frac{dT_2(\lambda)}{d\lambda}\right\|_{L^1\to L^\infty}\le C\lambda+{\cal A}(\lambda).\eqno{(3.22)}$$ Similarly, one can easily see that the second and the third terms in the right-hand side of (3.21) are bounded by $C\lambda+O(\gamma){\cal A}(\lambda)$. Thus we obtain $$A_{0,1,0}^{\alpha_1,0,\beta_1,0}(\lambda)\le C_\gamma\lambda+O(\gamma){\cal A}(\lambda).\eqno{(3.23)}$$ Summing up the above inequalities we conclude $${\cal A}(\lambda)\le C_\gamma\lambda+O(\gamma){\cal A}(\lambda).\eqno{(3.24)}$$ Taking $\gamma>0$ small enough, independent of $\lambda$, we can absorb the second term in the right-hand side of (3.24) and conclude that ${\cal A}(\lambda)=O(\lambda)$. This together with (3.16) and (3.17) imply (3.7).
$\Box$
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} A part of this work has been carried out while F. C. and C. C. were visiting the Université de Nantes, France. F. Cardoso has been partially supported by the agreement Brazil-France in Mathematics–Proc. 49.0733/2010-7, and C. Cuevas has been partially supported by the CNRS-France. The first two authors are also partially supported by the CNPq-Brazil.
=12 pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
, [*Optimal $L^\infty$ decay estimates for solutions to the wave equation with a potential*]{}, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations [**19**]{} (1994), 1319-1369.
, [*Uniform estimates of the resolvent of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on infinite volume Riemannian manifolds. II*]{}, Ann. H. Poincaré [**3**]{} (2002), 673-691.
, [*Optimal dispersive estimates for the wave equation with $C^{\frac{n-3}{2}}$ potentials in dimensions $4\le n\le 7$*]{}, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations, to appear.
, [*Semi-classical dispersive estimates* ]{}, submitted.
, [*Decay estimates for the wave and Dirac equations with a magnetic potential*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. [**60**]{} (2007), 357-392.
, [*Strichartz and smoothing estimates for dispersive equations with magnetic potentials*]{}, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations [**33**]{} (2008), 1082-1112.
, [*On the wave equation with a large rough potential*]{}, J. Funct. Analysis [**227**]{} (2005), 30-77.
, [*Strichartz and smoothing estimates for Schrödinger operators with almost critical magnetic potentials in three and higher dimensions*]{}, Forum. Math. [**21**]{} (2009), 687-722.
, [*Carleman estimates and absence of embedded eigenvalues*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**267**]{} (2006), 419-449.
, [*Asymptotique de la phase de diffusion à haute energie pour des perturbations du second order du Laplacien*]{}, Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup. [**25**]{} (1992), 107-134.
, [*Effective limiting absorption principles, and applications*]{}, preprint 2011.
, [*Local energy decay of solutions to the wave wave equation for nontrapping metrics*]{}, Ark. Mat. [**42**]{} (2004), 379-397.
, [*Dispersive estimates of solutions to the wave equation with a potential in dimensions $n\ge 4$*]{}, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations [**31**]{} (2006), 1709-1733.
F. Cardoso
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
Departamento de Matemática,
CEP. 50540-740 Recife-Pe, Brazil,
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Cuevas
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
Departamento de Matemática,
CEP. 50540-740 Recife-Pe, Brazil,
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Vodev
Université de Nantes,
Département de Mathématiques, UMR 6629 du CNRS,
2, rue de la Houssinière, BP 92208,
44332 Nantes Cedex 03, France,
e-mail: [email protected]
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In this note we study a class of specifications over $d$-dimensional Wiener measure which are invariant under uniform translation of the paths. This degeneracy is removed by restricting the measure to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the increments of the coordinate process. We address the problem of existence and uniqueness of Gibbs measures and prove a central limit theorem for the rescaled increments. These results apply to the study of the ground state of the Nelson model of a quantum particle interacting with a scalar boson field.\
**Keywords:** Gibbs measures, Nelson model, scaling limits.\
**MSC (2000): 82B05; 60K35**
address: |
Dip. di Matematical Applicata “U.Dini” – Università di Pisa\
via Bonanno 25b\
56125 Pisa - Italia.
author:
- Massimiliano Gubinelli
date: 'March 2006, rev. 1'
title: |
Gibbs measures for\
self-interacting Wiener paths
---
Introduction
============
The theory of Gibbs measures for lattice spin models or continuous point processes is by now a well established subject of probability theory. References on the subject are the book of Georgii [@Georgii], the early monograph by Preston [@Preston], the readable and concise introduction of Föllmer [@Follmer] and the pedagogical review by van Enter et al. [@jsp].
Gibbs measures on path spaces are a more unexplored domain and only recently a series of works started a systematic study of a class of Gibbs measures on paths motivated by applications in Quantum Mechanics [@BLS; @BHLMS02; @BetzLor03; @Betz03]. However, part of these results are obtained through functional analytic approaches which does not help to fully understand the probabilistic structure of these models.
An interesting class of Gibbs measures is obtained by perturbing the Wiener measure ${\mathcal{W}}$ on $C({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ by the exponential of a (finite-volume) energy of the form $$H_T(x) = \int_{-T}^T V(x_t) dt + \int_{-T}^T dt \int_{-T}^T ds W(x_t,x_s,t-s)$$ where $x$ is the path and the functions $V$ and $W$ are interpreted as interactions potentials. In this way we obtain finite-volume measures $\mu_T$ given by $$ \mu_{\lambda,T}(dx) = \frac{e^{-\lambda H_T(x)}}{Z_T} {\mathcal{W}}(dx)$$ The study of these measures in the limit $T \to \infty$ has been addressed in the works cited above and a series of conditions on $V$ and $W$ have been found which are sufficient for the existence of the limit (in the topology of local weak convergence) and for its uniqueness.
Here we are interested in a class of models whose energy function enjoy an invariance under shift of the paths $x \to x + c$ where $c$ is a fixed vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. In particular we take $V = 0$ and let $W(\xi,\xi',t) = W(\xi-\xi',t)$ so that our finite-volume energy reads $$H_T(x) = \int_{-T}^T dt \int_{-T}^T ds\, W(x_t-x_s,t-s).$$
A relevant model for which we will prove existence of a unique Gibbs measure for small coupling is the ($d=3$, UV regularized) Nelson model corresponding to the interaction energy given by the function $$\label{eq:nelson-3d}
W(\xi,t) = -\frac{1}{1+|\xi|^2+|t|^2}.$$
Nelson model is a member of a wide class of potentials justified by applications to Quantum Mechanics which are in the form $$\label{eq:spectral}
W(\xi,t) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \frac{dk}{2\omega(k)} |\rho(k)|^2 e^{- i k\cdot \xi - \omega(k) t}$$ where $\omega(k) : {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is the dispersion law of a scalar boson field. Nelson model corresponds to the case $\omega(k) = |k|$ and $\rho(k)$ with a fast decay at infinity (ultraviolet cutoff) and $|\rho(0)| > 0$ (no infrared cutoff).
In [@BS03] Betz and Spohn prove that if $\rho$ satisfy the following integrability conditions: $$\label{eq:bs-cond}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} dk |\rho(k)|^2
\left( \omega(k)^{-1} + \omega(k)^{-2} + \omega(k)^{-3}\right) < \infty$$ then the rescaled coordinate process $X^{({\varepsilon})}_t =
{\varepsilon}^{-1/2} X_{t/{\varepsilon}}$ weakly converge as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ to a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion. Note that this result does not cover the $d=3$ Nelson model since eq. (\[eq:bs-cond\]) is not satisfied. Moreover they proved that if $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} dk |\rho(k)|^2 |k|^2
\left( \omega(k)^{-2} + \omega(k)^{-4}\right) < \infty,$$ the limiting Brownian motion has a non-trivial diffusion constant (i.e. different from zero). Their approach is based on the use of an auxiliary Gaussian field which allow to “linearize” the interaction and to see the process $X$ as the projection of a Markov process on a larger state space. The functional central limit theorem then follows by using a technique due to Kipnis and Varadhan.
In [@Spohn87] it is pointed out that this class of models can be naturally recast as models of spins on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ with single spin space $C([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}^d)$. This is obtained by cutting the path into pieces and considering each piece as a spin. In this representation the interaction becomes multi-body and under natural conditions on the time decay of $W$, this multi-body interaction is long range with a power decay. The main problem with this approach is that the Wiener measure does not factorizes appropriately after such decomposition. Moreover the shift invariance of the Hamiltonian prevents to have tightness of the family of measures $\{\mu_{\lambda,T}\}_{T > 0}$ (e.g. when pinned at $\{-T,T\}$).
The natural solution to both problems is to consider *increments* of the Wiener path as the basic variables. No relevant information is lost on the (local or global) behavior of the path. Since increments over disjoint intervals are independent, the reference measure now factorizes over the product of countably many independent degrees of freedom. Techniques form the theory of one dimensional spin systems can be successfully applied. This approach will give also estimates on the decay of correlation and on the strong mixing coefficients of the Gibbs measures. Then the central limit theorem (CLT) can be proved using standard results on strongly mixing processes. However we should point out that our conditions for the CLT does *not* cover the 3d Nelson model.
Plan of the paper {#plan-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
------------------
In Sec. \[sect:increments\] we introduce the space of increments and the reference Gaussian measure induced by the Wiener measure on the paths. In Sec. \[sec:existence\] we prove existence of the Gibbs measures under very mild conditions and in Sec. \[sec:uniqueness\] we give some more restrictive conditions under which uniqueness can be proved. Sec. \[sec:lower\] is devoted to the proof of uniform lower bounds for the diffusion constant under the Gibbs measures. Finally in Sec. \[sec:diffusive\] we prove the CLT for a suitable class of interactions.
Brownian increments {#sect:increments}
===================
Fixed a finite union of intervals $I \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ consider the linear subspace ${\mathcal{X}}_I \subset C(I^2,{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $x \in {\mathcal{X}}_I$ iff $x_{tt} = 0$ for any $t \in I$ and satisfy the cocycle condition $$\label{eq:cocycle}
x_{su} + x_{ut} = x_{st}, \qquad s,t,u \in I$$ Let ${\mathcal{X}}:= {\mathcal{X}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_T := {\mathcal{X}}_{[-T,T]}$ for each $T > 0$.
On ${\mathcal{X}}$ consider the Gaussian measure $\mu$ such that, if $\{X_{st}\}_{s,t \in{\mathbb{R}}}$ is the coordinate process: $$\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^\mu [X_{st }]= 0, \qquad \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^\mu [X_{st}^2] = |s-t|$$ and $X_{st},X_{uv}$ are independent iff $(s,t)$ and $(u,v)$ are disjoint intervals. This process can be easily understood as deriving from a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $B$ by setting $X_{st} = B_t - B_s$. Take $a \le b$ and let $\mathcal{F}_{[a,b]} = \sigma(X_{st} : a \le s \le t \le b)$ the $\sigma$-field generated by the increments in the interval $[a,b]$ and let $\mathcal{F}^{T,c}_{[a,b]} = \sigma(X_{st} : [s,t] \subset [-T,T] \backslash [a,b])$. In general, for a finite union of intervals $I \subset {\mathbb{R}}$ we let ${\mathcal{F}}_I = \sigma(X_{ts}: [t,s] \subseteq I)$. Given an interval $I$ and two paths $x,y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ we let $z = (x \otimes_I y)$ the unique path in ${\mathcal{X}}$ such that $z|_{I\times
I} = x |_{I\times I}$ and $z|_{I^c\times
I^c} = y |_{I^c\times I^c}$. Translations $\{\tau_a : a\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$ acts on ${\mathcal{X}}$ in the canonical way: $(\tau_a x)_{st} = x_{s+a,t+a}$.
In the following $C$ will stay for any positive constant, not necessarily the same from line to line and not depending on anything else unless otherwise stated.
Gibbs measures {#sec:existence}
==============
The specification $\Pi$ is the family of proper probability kernels $\pi_I(\cdot|\cdot)$ with $I$ running on the set ${\mathcal{I}}$ of all intervals of ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\begin{split}
\pi_I(dx|y) = Z_{I}^{-1}(y) e^{-\lambda U_{I}(x) -\lambda V_{I}(x,y)} \mu_I\times \delta_{I^c,y}(dx)
\end{split}$$ for any $I \in {\mathcal{I}}$, where $\delta_{I^c,y}$ is the Dirac measure on ${\mathcal{X}}_{I^c}$ concentrated on the path $y|_{I^c\times I^c}$, $U_I$ is an ${\mathcal{F}}_I$ measurable function and $V_I$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_I \times {\mathcal{F}}_{I^c}$ measurable given by $$\label{eq:def-U}
U_I(x) = \int_{I\times I} dt ds \, W(x_{st},t-s)$$ $$\label{eq:def-V}
V_I(x,y) = \int_{J(I)} dt ds \, [W((x \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) -W((0 \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) ]$$ where $W \in C({\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{R}}; {\mathbb{R}})$ and $$\label{eq:cone}
J(I) = (I^+ \times I^-) \cup (I^- \times I^+) \cup (I \times I^c) \cup (I^c \times I)$$ with $I^+$ and $I^-$ the positive and negative half lines cut off by $I$ ($I^c = I^- \cup I^+$). Note that $J(I)$ is the “cone” of influence of the increments in the interval $I$. That is, increments outside $J(I)$ are independent from increments inside $I$ and any increment inside $J(I)$ can be written as a sum of an increment in $I$ and increments outside $J(I)$.
The specification $\Pi$ is translation invariant (cfr. Preston[@Preston], page 48), i.e. for any $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and any $I \in \mathcal{I}$ we have $\pi_I(\tau_a f| \tau_a y) =
\pi_{\tau_a(I)}(f|y)$ where $\tau_a$ acts on functions as $\tau_a f
(x) = f(\tau_a(x))$ and on intervals as $\tau_a([b,c]) = [b+a,c+a]$.
The definition (\[eq:def-V\]) of the interaction between the increments in $I$ and outside $I$ is justified by the fact that only relative energies matter in the specification $\Pi$. As we will shortly see, we can allow for models where the irrelevant constant we subtracted can be infinite.
For $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$, $\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $a \ge 0$ define $$Q(x,\xi,a) := \int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int_{0}^\infty ds \, |W(\xi+x_{st},a+s-t)-W(x_{st},a+s-t)|.$$
On $W$ we will make the following assumptions:
- $\sup_{x \in {\mathcal{X}}} |U_I(x)| \le C |I|^2$ and $
\sup_{x \in {\mathcal{X}}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dt \, |W(x_{0t},|t|)| < \infty
$;
- For $\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $
\sup_{a \ge 0} \sup_{x \in {\mathcal{X}}} Q_T(x,\xi,a) \le C (1+|\xi|).
$
\[lemma:good-pi\] Assume $(H1)$ and $(H2)$, then the specification $\Pi$ is well defined and $$\label{eq:bound-V}
|V_{[a,b]}(x,y)| \le C (1+|b-a|+|x_{ab}|)$$ for any $a<b$ and all $x,y \in {\mathcal{X}}$.
Let $I = [a,b]$ for some $a<b$. By hypothesis $(H1)$ $U_I(x)$ is well under control so we have only to care about $V_I$. According to eq. (\[eq:cone\]) the cone $J(I)$ can be split in two regions $R_1 = I^+ \times I^- \cup I^- \times I^+$ and $R_2 = I \times I^c \cup I^c \times I$. The second requirement of hypothesis $(H1)$ is enough to show that $$\int_{R_2} dt ds \, [W((x \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) -W((0 \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) ] \le C |I|.$$ For the region $R_1$ we proceed as follows. Let $[a,b]=I$ and consider the integral $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{J} & = \int_{I^+\times I^-} dt ds\, [W((x \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) -W((0 \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) ]
\\ & = \int^{+\infty}_b dt \int_{-\infty}^a ds \, [W((x \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) -W((0 \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s) ]
\\ & = \int^{+\infty}_b dt \int_{-\infty}^a ds \, [W(x_{ab}+y_{tb}+y_{sa},t-s) -W(y_{tb}+y_{sa},t-s) ]
\end{split}$$ where we used the cocycle property to write $(x \otimes_I y)$ as a sum of increments. By a change of variables we obtain $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{J} = &\int^{+\infty}_0 dt \int_{-\infty}^0 ds \, [W(x_{ab}+y_{b+t,b}+y_{a+s,a},t-s+b-a)
\\ & \qquad \qquad -W(y_{b+t,b}+y_{a+s,a},t-s+b-a) ]
\end{split}$$ and now it is not difficult to check that $\mathcal{J} = Q(\tilde y, x_{ab},b-a)$ for some $\tilde y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ so the integral $\mathcal{J}$ is well defined under hypothesis $(H2)$. Applying the same argument for the set $I^-\times I^+$ and summarizing what we have found we end up with the bound (\[eq:bound-V\]).
\[th:existence\] Assume $(H1)$ and $(H2)$, then there exists at least one translation invariant Gibbs measure for the specification $\Pi$.
Existence will follow from Theorem 3.1 of Preston [@Preston] once we have shown that the specification $\Pi$ satisfy the following two conditions (referred respectively as $(3.11)$ and $(3.8)$ in the given reference):
- *(uniform control)* for every interval $I$ there exists a finite measure $\omega_I$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_I$ and another interval $K$ such that the kernels $\{\pi_K(\cdot|y)|_{{\mathcal{F}}_I} : y \in {\mathcal{X}}\}$ are uniformly absolutely continuous w.r.t $\omega_I$;
- *(quasilocality)* given some local function $f$ (i.e. $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_I$ for some interval $I$), some interval $K$ and ${\varepsilon}> 0$ then there exists an interval $K'$ and a ${\mathcal{F}}_{K'}$ measurable function $g_{K'}$ such that $|\pi_K(f|y)-g_{K'}(y)| < {\varepsilon}$ for any $y \in {\mathcal{X}}$.
Let us check $(a)$. Fix $y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ and take an interval $K$ such that $I \subset K$. For $f \in \mathcal{F}_I$, $f \ge 0$ we have $$\begin{split}
\pi_K(f|y) & = \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_K} f(x ) e^{-\lambda U_K(x)
-\lambda V_K(x,y)} \mu_K(dx)}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_K} e^{-\lambda U_K(x)
-\lambda V_K(x,y)} \mu_K(dx)}
\\ & = \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) f(x) e^{-\lambda U_K(x \otimes_I z)
-\lambda V_K(x \otimes_I z, y)}}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) e^{-\lambda U_K(x \otimes_I z)
-\lambda V_K(x \otimes_I z, y)}}
\end{split}$$ where $H = K \backslash I$. From Lemma \[lemma:good-pi\] and setting $K = [a,b]$ we have the following uniform bound $$|V_K(x \otimes_I z,y)| \le C (1+|K|+|(x \otimes_I z)_{ab}|).$$ The expression on the r.h.s. can be bounded using the inequality $$|(x \otimes_I z)_{ab}| = |z_{ac}+x_{cd}+z_{db}| \le |z_{ac}| + |z_{db}| + |x_{cd}|$$ where we set $I = [c,d]$ so that $a < c < d < b$ and used the cocycle property. Moreover $|U_K(x)| \le C |K|^2$ so, for some constant $M_K$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
\pi_K(f|y) & \le M_K \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) f(x) e^{\lambda C|x_{cd}| + \lambda C (|z_{ac}|+|z_{db}|)}}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) e^{-\lambda C|x_{cd}| - \lambda C (|z_{ac}|+|z_{db}|)}}
\\ & \le M_K \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) e^{\lambda C (|z_{ac}|+|z_{db}|)} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) f(x) e^{\lambda C|x_{cd}|}}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_H} \mu_H(dz) e^{- \lambda C (|z_{ac}|+|z_{db}|)} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} \mu_I(dx) e^{-\lambda C|x_{cd}|}}
\end{split}$$ Under $\mu_K(dz)$ the r.v. $z_{ac}$ and $z_{db}$ have Gaussian distribution so their modulus is exponentially integrable. The denominator is strictly greater than zero by Jensen’s inequality and the integrability of the modulus, so setting $$\label{eq:omega}
\omega_I(dx) := \frac{e^{\lambda C|x_{cd}|} \mu_I(dx)}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} e^{\lambda C|x_{cd}|} \mu_I(dx)}$$ we have that there exists a constant $M'_K$ such that $\pi_K(f|y) \le M'_K \omega_I(f)$ for any $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_I$ and any $y \in {\mathcal{X}}$, proving property $(a)$.
Let us now turn to quasilocality. Given $I,K,f$ as in $(b)$, for any interval $K'$ such that $K \subset K'$ define $$g_{K'}(y) := \frac{\int_{X_K} \mu_K(dx) f(x \otimes_K y) e^{-\lambda U_K(x) -\lambda V_{K}^{K'}(x,y)} }{
\int_{X_K} \mu_K(dx) f(x \otimes_K y) e^{-\lambda U_K(x) -\lambda V_{K}^{K'}(x,y)}}$$ where $$\label{eq:V-approx}
V_K^{K'}(x,y) := \int_{J(K)\cap K'} dt ds \, [W((x \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s)-W((0 \otimes_I y)_{st},t-s)].$$ Observe that, by definition, $g_{K'}$ is a ${\mathcal{F}}_{K'}$ measurable function and by $(H2)$ and arguments like those used in lemma \[lemma:good-pi\] we see that $V_{K}^{K'}(x,y)$ converges uniformly to $V_K(x,y)$ as $K' \uparrow {\mathbb{R}}$. Then $g_{K'}(y)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{K' \cup I}$ measurable and $g_{K'}(y) \to \pi_K(f|y)$ uniformly as $K' \uparrow {\mathbb{R}}$ (cfr. Preston [@Preston], Prop. 5.3). This proves $(b)$. So we can apply Thm 3.7 of Preston and conclude that the set of Gibbs measures for the specification $\Pi$ is non-empty.
Moreover conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ and the translation invariance of the specification $\Pi$ are also enough to apply Thm. 4.3 of Preston which ensures that there exists at least one Gibbs measure which is invariant under the countable abelian group of rational translations $\{\tau_a : a \in \mathbb{Q}\}$. This is enough to conclude.
The hypothesis $(H2)$ above is more general than to require the potential to be *absolutely summable* (see [@Georgii]) , which would be equivalent to have $$\int_{-\infty}^{0}ds \int_{0}^{\infty} dt\, |W(x_{st},t-s)| < \infty$$ uniformly for $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$. The Nelson model given by eq. (\[eq:nelson-3d\]) is an example of non-absolutely summable potential for which is necessary to consider relative energies.
Nelson model satisfies assumptions $(H1)$ and $(H2)$. In particular, for $(H2)$ we have $$\nabla_\xi Q(x,\xi,a) = 2 \int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int_{0}^\infty ds \,
\frac{1}{(1+|\xi+x_{st}|^2+|a+s-t|^2)^2} (\xi+x_{st})$$ so that $$\begin{split}
|\nabla_\xi Q(x,\xi,a)| & \le 2 \int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int_{0}^\infty ds \,
\frac{1}{(1+|\xi+x_{st}|^2+|a+s-t|^2)^{3/2}}
\\ & \le 2 \int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int_{0}^\infty ds \,
\frac{1}{(1+|a+s-t|^2)^{3/2}}
\\ & \le C (1+|a|)^{-1}
\end{split}$$
Define the measure $$\mu_{\lambda,T}(dx) := Z_{\lambda,T}^{-1} e^{-\lambda H_T(x)} \mu(dx)$$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ with $$H_T(x) := \int_{-T}^T dt \int_{-T}^T ds \, W(x_{st},s-t)$$
\[prop:tight\] Assume $(H1)$ and $(H2)$. Then the family of measures $\{\mu_{\lambda,T} \}_{T \ge 1}$ is tight (for the topology of local convergence). Any cluster point is a Gibbs measure for the specification $\Pi$.
Consider the approximate kernels $\pi^T_I$ given by $$\begin{split}
\pi^T_I(dx|y) = Z_{I,T}^{-1}(y) e^{-\lambda U_{I}(x) -\lambda V^T_{I}(x,y)} \mu_I\times \delta_{[-T,T]\backslash I,y}(dx)
\end{split}$$ for any interval $I \subseteq[-T,T]$, where $V^T_I = V_I^{[-T,T]}$ (recall eq. (\[eq:V-approx\])). Then for $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_I$ with $I \subseteq [-T,T]$ we have $$\label{eq:comp}
\begin{split}
\mu_{\lambda,T}(f) = \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \pi^T_K(f|y) \mu_{\lambda,T}(dy)
\end{split}$$ for any interval $K \subseteq [-T,T]$. The kernels $\pi^T_K$ can be controlled like the kernels $\pi_K$ with the measure $\omega_I$ defined in eq. (\[eq:omega\]), i.e. $\pi^T_K(f|y) \le M_K' \omega_I(f)$ for some constant $M'_K$ depending on $K$. Then same is true for the measures $\mu_{\lambda,T}$ showing the tightness. The continuity of the function $W$ and the absolute convergence of the integrals defining the potentials $U$ and $V$ ensures that the functions $y \mapsto \pi_I^T(f|y)$ and $y \mapsto \pi_I(f|y)$ are continuous for any continuous bounded local $f$, moreover $\pi_I^T(f|y) \to \pi_I(f|y)$ as $T \to \infty$ uniformly in $y$. Then passing to the limit in eq. (\[eq:comp\]) we get that any accumulation point $\mu_\lambda$ of the family $\{\mu_{\lambda,T}\}_T$ satisfy the equation $\mu_\lambda(f) = \mu_\lambda (\pi_{K}(f|\cdot))$ for any interval $K$ and any continuous bounded local $f$. This implies that $\mu_\lambda$ is a Gibbs measure for the specification $\Pi$.
Uniqueness {#sec:uniqueness}
==========
In the rest of this paper we will assume always that conditions $(H1)$ and $(H2)$ holds. A straightforward condition for uniqueness of the Gibbs measure is given by
- $$\int_0^\infty dt \int^0_{-\infty} ds \,|W(x_{st},t-s)-W(0,t-s)| \le C$$ uniformly in $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$.
Note that $(H3)$ implies $(H2)$.
\[prop:unique1\] Assuming $(H1)$ and $(H3)$ there exists a unique Gibbs measure for the specification $\Pi$.
Observe that under $(H3)$ and for any interval $I$ we have a uniform bound $|V_I(x,y)| \le C_V$ independent of $I$. Indeed the cone $J(I)$ can be written as the (non-disjoint) union of the sets $(I^-)^c \times I^-$, $I^- \times (I^-)^c$, $I^+ \times (I^+)^c$, $(I^+)^c \times I^+$ and for each of these sets w the double integral in the definition of $V_I$ is bounded uniformly thanks to $(H3)$.
Then for any bounded $f \in {\mathcal{F}}_I$ with $f \ge 0$ $$\begin{split}
\pi_I(f|y) & = \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} f(x ) e^{-\lambda U_I(x)
-\lambda V_I(x,y)} \mu_I(dx)}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} e^{-\lambda U_I(x)
-\lambda V_I(x,y)} \mu_I(dx)}
\le e^{2\lambda C_V} \frac{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} f(x ) e^{-\lambda U_I(x)
} \mu_I(dx)}{\int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} e^{-\lambda U_I(x)
} \mu_I(dx)}
\end{split}$$ so $\pi_I(f|y) \le e^{2\lambda C_V} \widetilde\omega_I(f)$ where $$\widetilde\omega_I(dx) := \frac{ e^{-\lambda U_I(x)} \mu_I(dx)}{ \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_I} e^{-\lambda U_I(x) }\mu_I(dx)}$$ Moreover we can also estimate $\pi_I(f|y)$ from below as $\pi_I(f|y) \ge e^{-2\lambda C_V} \widetilde\omega_I(f)$. Together these bounds imply: $$ \pi_I(f|y) \ge e^{-4 \lambda C_V}
\pi_I(f|z)$$ uniformly for any couple $z,y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ and any interval $I$. This, according to a theorem of Georgii [@Georgii] (Prop. 8.38) implies uniqueness of the Gibbs measure.
Condition $(H3)$ is satisfied whenever $$\sup_{\xi} |W(\xi,t)| \le C (1+|t|)^{-(2+\delta)}$$ for some $\delta > 0$ or when $$W(\xi,t) = C (1+|\xi|^2+|t|^2)^{-(3/2+\delta)}$$ always for some $\delta > 0$.
Mapping to a discrete model
---------------------------
For any size $L > 0$ the space ${\mathcal{X}}$ splits into a product space of countably many copies of ${\mathcal{X}}_L = C([0,L]^2,{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ as follows. Introduce the sequence on intervals $\tau_i = [iL,(i+1)L]$, $i \in
\mathbb{Z}$ and for $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$ let $x_i = x|_{\tau_i \times \tau_i}$ considered as an element of ${\mathcal{X}}_L$. Let $F : {\mathcal{X}}\to {\mathcal{X}}_L^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be the map $(F x)(i) = x_i$ for any $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$. Note that it is well defined the inverse map $F^{-1} : {\mathcal{X}}_L^{\mathbb{Z}} \to {\mathcal{X}}$ and that through $F$ we can identify ${\mathcal{X}}\simeq {\mathcal{X}}_L^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Moreover using $F^{-1}$ the measure $\mu$ factorizes accordingly : $\mu =
F^{-1}_* (\otimes_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \mu_L^{(n)})$ where each $\mu^{(n)}_L$ is the Wiener measure over increments in the interval $\tau_n$. Using this mapping the path measure can be seen as a one-dimensional (unbounded) lattice spin system with single spin space ${\mathcal{X}}_L$.
In particular we can see the total energy $W_I(x|y) = U_I(x) + V_I(x,y)$ in a bounded interval as originating from potentials $U_{ij}$ such that $$U_{ij}(x) = \int_{iL}^{(i+1)L} dt \int_{jL}^{(j+1)L} ds\, W(x_{ts},t-s)$$ in the following way: $
W_I(x|y) =\sum_{i,j : I \cap I_{ij} \neq \emptyset} U_{ij}(x \otimes_I y)
$ where $I_{ij}$ is the smallest closed interval containing the set $\{iL,(i+1)L,jL,(j+1)L\}$.
Introduce condition $(H3b)$:
- There exists constants $C<\infty$ and $\gamma > 2$ such that $$\sup_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}|W(\xi,t)| \le C (1+|t|)^{-\gamma}.$$
Let $\pi_{I,[-n,n]}(\cdot|\cdot)$ be the following probability kernels $
\pi_{I,[-n,n]}(\cdot|y) = \pi_{[-n,n]}(\cdot|y)|_{{\mathcal{F}}_I}
$. Note that the map $y \mapsto \pi_{I,[-n,n]}(\cdot|y)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{[-n,n]^c}$ measurable.
\[th:dobr2\] Under condition $(H3b)$ there exist a unique Gibbs measure $\mu_\lambda$ for the specification $\Pi$. Moreover for any interval $I=[a,b]$, the marginal distribution $\mu_{\lambda,I}$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_I$, satisfy $$\label{eq:corr-bounds-xx}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^\mu \left|\frac{d\mu_{\lambda,I}}{d\mu_I} - \frac{d\pi_{I,[-n,n]}(\cdot|y)}{d\mu_I}
\right| \le \chi(n-\max(|a|,|b|))$$ uniformly in $y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ where $\chi(n)$ is a decreasing function which can be chosen to be $\chi(n) = A' |\log n|^{3-\gamma} |n|^{2-\gamma}$ for some constant $A'>0$.
The theorem follows directly from Thm. 1 in [@dobr-uni] (whose proof is contained in [@dobr3]). Indeed it is easy to check that under condition $(H3b)$ the discretized model (e.g. with $L=1$) fulfills all the required hypotheses. In particular, setting $M_U(k) = \sup_{|i-j| \ge k} \sup_x
|U_{ij}(x)|$, it holds that $
\sum_{k \ge 0} k M_U(k) < \infty
$ and there exists a non-increasing function $\psi(n) = A
|n|^{2-\gamma}$ such that $
\sum_{k \ge n} k M_U(k)\le \psi(n)
$. So, according to this result we can choose the function $\chi(n)$ to be $\chi(n) = A' |\log n|^{3-\gamma} |n|^{2-\gamma}$.
The contraction technique
-------------------------
In a more general setup than conditions $(H3)$ or $(H3b)$ we are able to prove the uniqueness of the Gibbs measure in the small coupling regime (i.e. when $\lambda$ is small) using the contraction technique introduced by Dobrushin [@Dobr1; @Dobr2].
Let $\|\cdot\|$ denote the sup norm on ${\mathcal{X}}_L$ and $\|\cdot\|_1$ the Lipschitz semi-norm on $C({\mathcal{X}}_L,{\mathbb{R}})$: $$\|f\|_1 := \sup_{x\neq y \in {\mathcal{X}}_L} \frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{\|x-y\|}$$
Given two probability measures $\mu$, $\nu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}_L$ define the Kantorovich-Rubinstein-Vasherstein (KRV) distance $$d(\mu,\nu) := \sup_{f} \frac{|\mu(f)-\nu(f)|}{\|f\|_1}$$ where the sup is taken for $f \in C({\mathcal{X}}_L,{\mathbb{R}})$.
Let $C({\mathcal{X}})$ the space of continuous functions on ${\mathcal{X}}$ which are uniform limit of bounded local functions (i.e. depending only on finitely many ${\mathcal{X}}_L$ factors). For $f \in C({\mathcal{X}})$ let $$\label{eq:lip1}
\|f\|_{1,i} := \sup \left\{ \frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{\|x_i-y_i\|} :
x,y \in{\mathcal{X}}\quad \text{$ x_j=y_j$ for $j \neq i$} \right\}$$ and let $\text{Lip}({\mathcal{X}})$ the class of functions $f \in C({\mathcal{X}})$ which satisfy $$|f(x)-f(y)| \le \sum_i \|x_i-y_i\| \|f\|_{1,i}, \qquad \sum_i
\|f\|_{1,i} < \infty$$
Let $\pi_i := \pi_{\tau_i}$. Define the Dobrushin interaction matrix $C$ as $$C_{ik} :=
\sup\left\{\left. \frac{d(\pi_{i}(\cdot|y),\pi_{i}(\cdot|z))}{\|y_k-z_k\|}
\right | \; y,z \in{\mathcal{X}}: \text{$ y_j=z_j$ for $j \neq k$} \right\}$$
A *tempered measure* $\nu$ is a measure on ${\mathcal{X}}$ for which there exists $z \in {\mathcal{X}}$ such that $$\sup_i \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \|x_i-z_i\| \nu(dx) < \infty$$
Note that, as a by product of the proof of Thm. \[th:existence\] we have that, under conditions $(H1)$ and $(H2)$ there exists tempered Gibbs measures for the specification $\Pi$.
The following result is originally due to Dobrushin [@Dobr1; @Dobr2]. The formulation in terms of the KRV metric is taken from Föllmer [@Follmer] (see also [@kuensch]) where interested readers can find the relative proofs.
Whenever $$\label{eq:uniq-cond}
\sup_k \lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{i} (C^n)_{ik} = 0$$ there exists a unique tempered Gibbs measure $\mu_\lambda$ for the specification $\Pi$.
Note that a sufficient condition for eq. (\[eq:uniq-cond\]) is given by $\sup_k \sum_{i} C_{ik} < 1$.
Next we will apply these general results to our model. Let us introduce another class of potentials which is more general than $(H3)$:
- For some $K(W) <\infty$ and some $\alpha > 3$ we have $$\sup_{\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} |\nabla_\xi \nabla_\xi W(\xi,t) | \le \frac{K(W)}{(1+|t|)^{\alpha}}.$$
\[th:dobr\] Under hypothesis $(H4)$ we have $$\label{eq:boundCthm}
C_{ij} \le C \lambda K(W) \sigma^2
(1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha}.$$ for some constant $C<\infty$ and some $\sigma^2 < \infty$. Therefore, for small $\lambda$ there exists a unique tempered Gibbs measure $\mu_\lambda$ for the specification $\Pi$.
We want to check that the specification $\Pi$ satisfy the requirements for the application of Dobrushin’s uniqueness criterion (\[eq:uniq-cond\]).
Take $y,z \in {\mathcal{X}}$ and let $y^r = y + r (z-y)$ for $r\in [0,1]$. Then use the fundamental theorem of calculus to write $$\begin{split}
\pi_i(f|z)-\pi_i(f|y) & =
\int_0^1 dr \partial_r \left[Z_i(y^r)^{-1} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_L}
f(x \otimes_i y) e^{-\lambda U_i(x) -\lambda V_i(x,y^r)} \mu_i(dx)
\right]
\\ & + \left[Z_i(z)^{-1} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_L}
[f(x \otimes_i z)-f(x \otimes_i y)] e^{-\lambda U_i(x) -\lambda
V_i(x,z)} \mu_i(dx) \right]
\\ & = \int_0^1 dr A(r) + B
\end{split}$$ where we let $$Z_i(y) := \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_L} e^{-\lambda U_i(x) -\lambda V_i(x,y)} \mu_i(dx).$$
The $B$ term is estimated by $
|B| \le \sum_{k\neq i} \|f\|_{1,k} \|z_k-y_k\|
$ which is finite if $f \in \text{Lip}({\mathcal{X}})$.
Let $J_i = J(\tau_i)$ and $J_{ij} = J_i
\cap J_j$. For simplicity take first $y,z \in {\mathcal{X}}$ such that $y=z$ outside $\tau_j$ and compute $$|\partial_r (V_i(x,y^r)-V_i(w,y^r))| \le \int_{J_{ij}} dt ds \sup_\xi
|\nabla_\xi \nabla_\xi W(\xi,t-s)|\, \|x_i-w_i\| \|y_j-z_j\|$$ If $i \neq j$ this integral contains only contributions with time span greater than $L|i-j-1|$ so if we assume that $$\sup_\xi |\nabla_\xi\nabla_\xi W(\xi,t)| \le K(W) (1+|t|)^{-\alpha}$$ we get $$|\partial_r (V_i(x,y^r)-V_i(w,y^r))| \le C K(W) (1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha}
\|x_i-w_i\| \|y_j-z_j\|.$$
For general $y,z \in {\mathcal{X}}$ we have $$\label{eq:estimate-V}
|\partial_r (V_i(x,y^r)-V_i(w,y^r))| \le C K(W) \sum_{j \neq i} (1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|x_i-w_i\| \|y_j-z_j\|.$$
And with $\pi_i(\cdot|y^r) = \nu^r$ $$\begin{split}
A(r) & = \partial_r \int f(\cdot \otimes_i y) d\nu^r
= \partial_r \left[Z_i(y^r)^{-1} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}_L}
f(x \otimes_i y) e^{-\lambda U_i(x) -\lambda V_i(x,y^r)} \mu_i(dx)
\right]
\\ &= \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} (f(x\otimes_i y)-f(w \otimes_i y)) \left[ \lambda \partial_r
V_i(x\otimes_i y^r) - \partial_r \log Z_i(y^r) \right] \nu^r(dx)
\end{split}$$ for any $w \in {\mathcal{X}}_L$.
This implies $$\label{eq:estimate-A}
\begin{split}
|A(r)|^2 & \le \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} (f(x\otimes_i y)-f(w \otimes_i y))^2 \nu^r(dx)
\text{Var}_{\nu^r}\left[ \lambda \partial_r
V_i(\cdot \otimes_i y^r )\right]
\\ & \le \|f\|_{1,i}^2 \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \|x_i-w\|^2 \nu^r(dx)
\text{Var}_{\nu^r}\left[ \lambda \partial_r
V_i(\cdot \otimes_i y^r )\right]
\\ & \le \|f\|_{1,i}^2 \sigma_i^2
\text{Var}_{\nu^r}\left[ \lambda \partial_r
V_i(\cdot \otimes_i y^r )\right]
\end{split}$$ where $
\sigma_i^2 := \sup_{y\in{\mathcal{X}}} \inf_{w \in {\mathcal{X}}_L} \int_{{\mathcal{X}}} \|x_i-w\|^2
\pi_i(dx|y).
$ Eq. (\[eq:estimate-V\]) implies $$\left\{\text{Var}_{\nu^r}\left[ \lambda \partial_r
V_i(\cdot \otimes_i y^r )\right]\right\}^{1/2} \le
C K(W) \sigma_i \sum_j
\lambda (1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|$$ and using this estimate into eq. (\[eq:estimate-A\]) we get $$\left|A(r) \right| \le C K(W) \|f\|_{1,i} \sigma_i^2 \sum_j
\lambda (1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|.$$ Then $$\label{eq:lip-bound}
\begin{split}
\left|\pi_i(f|y)-\pi_i(f|z)\right| & \le
C \lambda K(W) \|f\|_{1,i} \sigma_i^2
\sum_{j \neq i} (1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|
\\ & \qquad +
\sum_{j\neq i} \|f\|_{1,j} \|z_j-y_j\|
\end{split}$$ According to this bound, if $f \in \text{Lip}({\mathcal{X}})$ we have also $\pi_i(f|\cdot) \in
\text{Lip}({\mathcal{X}})$ provided $\alpha > 3$.
For $f(x) = f(x_i)$ the bound (\[eq:lip-bound\]) reads $$\begin{split}
\left|\pi_i(f|y)-\pi_i(f|z)\right| & \le
C \lambda K(W) \|f\|_{1,i} \sigma_i^2 \sum_{j \neq i}
(1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|
\end{split}$$ which means that $$d(\pi_i(\cdot|y),\pi_i(\cdot|z)) \le C\lambda K(W) \sigma_i^2 \sum_{j \neq i}
(1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|.$$ Moreover if $y=z$ outside $\tau_j$ (i.e. if $y|_{\tau_k} = z|_{\tau_k}$ for any $k \neq j$) then $$d(\pi_i(\cdot|y),\pi_i(\cdot|z)) \le C \lambda K(W) \sigma_i^2
(1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha} \|y_j-z_j\|$$ which in turn implies $
C_{ij} \le C \lambda K(W) \sigma_i^2
(1+|i-j|)^{2-\alpha}.
$ So provided $
\sigma = \sup_i \sigma_i < \infty
$ and $\alpha > 3$ we have that $\sum_i C_{ij} \le C' \sigma^2 \lambda K(W) L^{-1}$ and for $\lambda$ sufficiently small we obtain $\sup_j \sum_{i} C_{ij} < 1$ and by applying Dobrushin criterion we can conclude that there exists a unique tempered Gibbs measure $\mu_\lambda$ associated to the specification $\Pi$. The condition $\sigma^2 < \infty$ follows easily from $(H1)$ and $(H2)$ and the computations of Thm. \[th:existence\].
In the case of the Nelson model we have $$|\nabla_\xi \nabla_\xi W(\xi,t)| \le C {(1+|t|^2)^{-2}}$$ uniformly in $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, so $\alpha = 4$ and we can apply the above result.
Lower bound on the diffusion constant {#sec:lower}
=====================================
Here we provide a lower bound for the second moment of the increments under the Gibbs measure. This will be useful below in the proof of the CLT.
\[th:lower\] Under condition $(H4)$ there exists a positive constant $\sigma^2_->0$ such that $$\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] \ge \sigma^2_- |a-b|$$ uniformly in $T,a,b$.
Integration by parts on $\mu$ is given by the formula $$\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu} [X_{ab} F] = \int_{a}^b dt \, \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu}[ D_t F ]$$ where $D_t$ is the Malliavin derivative (see e.g. [@nualart]). This, of course, when both sides make sense. By integration by parts we have for disjoint intervals $[a,b]$, $[c,d]$ with $b < c$: $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab} X_{cd}] & = -
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [A_{ab} X_{cd}]
=
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [- B_{ab,cd} + A_{ab} A_{cd}]
\end{split}$$ with $$A_{ab} = \int_{a}^{b}ds\, \lambda D_{s}(H_T(X))
$$ B\_[ab,cd]{} = \_[a]{}\^[b]{}ds \_[c]{}\^[d]{}dt D\_t D\_[s]{}(H\_T(X)). $$ While $$\label{eq:ibp-1}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] & = |a-b| -
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [A_{ab} X_{ab}]
\end{split}$$ Apply Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to $\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [A_{ab} X_{ab}] $ to get the lower bound $$\label{eq:ineq-1}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] \ge
|a-b| -
\left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [A_{ab}^2] \right)^{1/2}
\left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}}[ X_{ab}^2]\right)^{1/2}.$$ One more integration by parts on the r.h.s of eq. (\[eq:ibp-1\]) gives $$\label{eq:ibp-2}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] &
= |a-b| - \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ B_{ab,ab}] + \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ A_{ab}^2]
\end{split}$$ which gives another inequality $$\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ A_{ab}^2] \le \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] + \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ |B_{ab,ab}|].$$ Use the fact that $|x+y|^{1/2} \le |x|^{1/2} + |y|^{1/2}$ to get $$\label{eq:ineq-2}
\left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ A_{ab}^2]\right)^{1/2} \le \left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ]\right)^{1/2} + \left( \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ |B_{ab,ab}|]\right)^{1/2}.$$ Combining together eq. (\[eq:ineq-1\]) and eq. (\[eq:ineq-2\]) we get the lower bound $$\label{eq:bound-fin-1}
2 \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] \ge
|a-b| - \left( \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ |B_{ab,ab}|]\right)^{1/2}
\left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}}[ X_{ab}^2]\right)^{1/2}.$$
If we compute the Malliavin derivatives, we get: $$\begin{split}
D_{t} (H_T(X)) & = 2 \int_{-T}^T du \int_{u}^T dv \, D_t
W(X_{uv},u-v)
\\ & = 2 \int_{-T}^{t} du \int_{t}^{T} dv \,
W_{x}(X_{uv},u-v)
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
D_{t} D_{s}(H_T(X)) & = 2 \int_{-T}^T du \int_{u}^T dv \, D_t D_s
W(X_{uv},u-v)
\\ & = 2 \int_{-T}^{s} du \int_{t}^{T} dv \,
W_{xx}(X_{uv},u-v)
\end{split}$$ where $W_{x}(\xi,t) = \nabla_\xi W(\xi,t)$ and $W_{xx}(\xi,t) = \nabla_\xi \nabla_\xi W(\xi,t)$. Using condition $(H4)$ we get $$\begin{split}
| D_{t} D_{s}(H_T(X))| & \le
2 \int_{-T}^{s} du \int_{t}^{T} dv \, \frac{C}{(1+|u-v|)^{\alpha}}
\le
C (1+|s-t|)^{2-\alpha}.
\end{split}$$ And since $\alpha > 3$ we obtain the bound $
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [ |B_{ab,ab}|] \le C\lambda |a-b|
$ uniformly in $T$.
Using this last estimate in the inequality (\[eq:bound-fin-1\]) above we get $$2 \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] \ge
|a-b| - (C\lambda)^{1/2}|a-b|^{1/2}
\left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}}[ X_{ab}^2]\right)^{1/2}$$ Calling $y = \left(\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}}[ X_{ab}^2]\right)^{1/2} |a-b|^{-1/2}$ we have $
2 y^2 -1 + (C\lambda)^{1/2}y \ge 0
$ with $y \ge 0$. This implies that $y \ge \sigma_-$ for some $\sigma_-> 0$ and we have obtained the lower bound $
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2 ] \ge \sigma^2_- |a-b|
$.
Using $
2|ab| \le |a|^2+|b|^2
$ we have $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2] & \le |a-b| + \frac{1}{2}
\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2]
+ \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} \left[A_{ab}^2 \right]
\end{split}$$ and then $\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} [X_{ab}^2] \le 2 |a-b| + \operatorname{{\mathbb E}}^{\mu_{\lambda,T}} \left[A_{ab}^2\right]
$. This equation and the decay of correlations can provide upper bounds for the diffusion constant.
Diffusive behavior {#sec:diffusive}
==================
According to Thms. \[th:dobr2\] and \[th:dobr\] under condition $(H3b)$ or $(H4)$ (the latter in the small coupling regime) we have a unique Gibbs measure which we denote $\mu_\lambda$ as above and for which we have polynomial decay of correlations. Then we address the problem of the long-time behavior of the increment process under diffusive rescaling. Thm. \[th:lower\] rules out the possibility of sub-diffusive behavior of the paths whenever the interaction decays fast enough. This holds irrespective of the magnitude of the coupling constant $\lambda$ and of the character of the potential (attractive or repulsive). The next theorem establishes that (under some more restrictive assumption than those needed to obtain uniqueness of the Gibbs measure) we actually have diffusive behavior of the increment process.
Assume $(H4)$ holds. Then in either of the following two situations:
- condition $(H3b)$ with $\gamma > 3$, or
- small $\lambda$ and $\alpha >
4$;
the r.v. $X^{{\varepsilon}}_{t,s} = {\varepsilon}^{1/2} X_{{\varepsilon}^{-1}t,{\varepsilon}^{-1}s}$ weakly converges to an isotropic Gaussian vector as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Consider the random variables $Y_i = \langle v, X_{Li,L(i+1)}\rangle
\in {\mathcal{F}}_{\tau_i}$ for some fixed vector $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and for $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ let ${\mathcal{A}}_\Lambda = \sigma(X_i, i \in
\Lambda)$. If $\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2 \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ let $d(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2) = \inf( |n-k|, n \in \Lambda_1, k \in
\Lambda_2)$. Define the following mixing coefficients for the measure $\mu_\lambda$: $$\alpha_{l,k}(n) = \sup\{|\mu_\lambda(A_1 \cap A_2) -\mu_\lambda(A_1)
\mu_\lambda(A_2)| : A_i \in {\mathcal{A}}_{\Lambda_{i}}, |\Lambda_1| \le k,
|\Lambda_2| \le l, d(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2) \ge n\}$$ and $$\rho(n) = \sup\{|\mathrm{Cov}_{\mu_\lambda}(Z_1,Z_2)| : Z_i \in
L^2(\mu_\lambda,{\mathcal{A}}_{\{k_i\}}), \|Y_i\|_2 \le 1, |k_1-k_2| \ge n\}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_p$ denote the $L^p$ norm with respect to the measure $\mu_\lambda$.
Then, according to a theorem of Bolthausen [@Bolth], if the following two conditions holds $$\label{eq:cond}
\|Y_i\|_{2+\delta} < \infty, \qquad
\sum_{m=1}^\infty \alpha_{2,\infty}^{\delta/(2+\delta)}(m) < \infty$$ for some $\delta > 0$ and if $$\label{eq:cov-b}
\sigma^2 = \sum_{n} \mathrm{Cov}_{\mu_\lambda}(Y_0, Y_n) > 0$$ then the r.v. $S_{n} = (\sigma^2 n)^{-1/2}\sum_{0 \le k
\le n} Y_k$ converges to a standard Gaussian r.v.
So it will be enough to check the two conditions (\[eq:cond\]) and (\[eq:cov-b\]). For eq. (\[eq:cov-b\]) note that $
\sigma^2 = \lim_{n \to \infty} n^{-1}\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}_{\mu_\lambda} (X_{Ln,0})^2
$ and by the bound proved in Thm. \[th:lower\] we have that this quantity is bounded below by $\sigma^2_- Ln$ with $\sigma^2_- > 0$, so that we can conclude $\sigma^2 > 0$.
As for condition (\[eq:cond\]) note that each $Y_i$ has moments of any order due to the fact that the expectation on the measure $\mu_\lambda$ can be bounded above by expectation on the measure $\omega_{[0,L]}$ defined in the proof of Thm. \[th:existence\] which can the be directly estimated and shown to be finite.
Under assumption $(a)$ we are in the conditions to apply Thm. \[th:dobr2\] and the inequality (\[eq:corr-bounds-xx\]) is enough to prove that $\alpha_{2,\infty}(n) \le C \chi(n) = C' |n|^{2-\gamma}$. Then for $\gamma > 3$ condition (\[eq:cond\]) can be satisfied by choosing $\delta$ sufficiently large.
It remains to check that the mixing coefficient $\alpha(n)$ is sufficiently summable in case $(b)$. A technical difficulty is that the contraction coefficients for the KRV metric are not suitable to estimate the strong mixing coefficients $\alpha_{l,k}(m)$. This because we cannot uniformly approximate the indicator functions (needed to estimate probabilities) with functions in $\mathrm{Lip}({\mathcal{X}})$. However this technical difficulty can be easily overcome by using a slightly different norm in the Dobrushin contraction technique. Let $\|f\|_{*,i}$ the following local “quasi”-Lipschitz semi-norm: $$\|f\|_{*,i} := \sup \left\{ \frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{\theta_{x_i,y_i}+\|x_i-y_i\|} :
x,y \in{\mathcal{X}}\quad \text{$ x_j=y_j$ for $j \neq i$} \right\}$$ where $\theta_{x,y} = 1$ if $x \neq y$ and $\theta_{x,y} = 0$ otherwise, for any two elements $x,y \in {\mathcal{X}}_L$. This new semi-norm would replace the semi-norm $\|f\|_{1,i}$ defined in eq. (\[eq:lip1\]). Then it is easy to see that all the arguments carry over also with this new semi-norm and that under this semi-norm we can approximate uniformly the indicator function of a set $A \in
{\mathcal{A}}_{\Lambda}$ by the Lipschitz functions $\Gamma_{A,\rho}(x) = \exp(-\rho^{-1}\inf_{y \in A} |x-y|)$. Then, adapting Prop. 2.5 of [@kuensch] we are able to prove that, under the condition $\sup_i \sum_{j} C_{ij} |i-j|^{1+{\varepsilon}} <
\infty$ for some ${\varepsilon}> 0$ (i.e. $\alpha > 4$) we have $\alpha_{2,\infty}(n) \le C |n|^{-1-{\varepsilon}}$ and this is enough to conclude the proof.
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank H. Spohn and J. Lőrinczi for interesting discussions about the Nelson model and related problems which motivated the present work. The detailed comments of an anonymous referee have contributed to improve the overall quality of the paper.
[10]{}
V. Betz. Existence of [G]{}ibbs measures relative to [B]{}rownian motion. , 9(1):85–102, 2003.
V. Betz, F. Hiroshima, J. L[ő]{}rinczi, R. A. Minlos, and H. Spohn. Ground state properties of the [N]{}elson [H]{}amiltonian: a [G]{}ibbs measure-based approach. , 14(2):173–198, 2002.
V. Betz and J. L[ő]{}rinczi. Uniqueness of [G]{}ibbs measures relative to [B]{}rownian motion. , 39(5):877–889, 2003.
V. Betz, J. L[ő]{}rinczi, and H. Spohn. Gibbs measures on brownian paths: Theory and applications. 2003.
V. Betz and H. Spohn. A central limit theorem for gibbs measures relative to brownian motion. 2003.
E. Bolthausen. On the central limit theorem for stationary mixing random fields. , 10:1047–1050, 1982.
R. L. Dobrushin. Description of a random field by means of conditional probabilities and the conditions governing its regularity. , 13:197–244, 1968.
R. L. Dobrushin. Prescribing a system of random variables by conditional distributions. , 15:458–486, 1970.
R. L. Dobrushin. Analyticity of correlation functions in one-dimensional classical system with slowly decreasing potentials. , 32:269–289, 1973.
R. L. Dobru[š]{}in. Analyticity of correlation functions in one-dimensional classical systems with polynomially decreasing potential. , 94(136):16–48, 159, 1974.
H. F[ö]{}llmer. Random fields and diffusion processes. In [*École d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XV–XVII, 1985–87*]{}, volume 1362 of [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, pages 101–203. Springer, Berlin, 1988.
H.-O. Georgii. , volume 9 of [*de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics*]{}. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1988.
H. K[ü]{}nsch. Decay of correlations under [D]{}obrushin’s uniqueness condition and its applications. , 84:207–222, 1982.
D. Nualart. . Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
C. Preston. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 534.
H. Spohn. Effective mass of the polaron: a functional integral approach. , 175(2):278–318, 1987.
A. C. D. van Enter, R. Fern[á]{}ndez, and A. D. Sokal. Regularity properties and pathologies of position-space renormalization-group transformations: scope and limitations of [G]{}ibbsian theory. , 72(5-6):879–1167, 1993.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We have fabricated and characterized a n-doped InSb Faraday isolator in the mid-IR range (9.2 $\mu$m). A high isolation ratio of $\approx$30 dB with a transmission over 80% (polarizer losses not included) is obtained at room temperature. Further possible improvements are discussed. A similar design can be used to cover a wide wavelength range ($\lambda \sim 7.5-30\ \mu$m).'
author:
- Laurent Hilico
- Albane Douillet
- 'Jean-Philippe Karr'
- Eric Tournié
title: 'Faraday optical isolator in the 9.2 $\mu$m range for QCL applications'
---
Introduction
============
Recent progress in quantum cascade laser (QCL) technology towards high power cw operation and off-the-shelf availability for a widening wavelength range has enlarged their application fields, for instance in molecular spectroscopy, lidar applications or THz imaging. Thanks to their wide tunability and integrability, QCLs are superseding alternative sources such as molecular gas lasers or lead-salt lasers [@faist94; @capasso10; @hugi10]. One of the main drawbacks of QCLs is their extreme sensitivity to optical feedback that may prevent stable operation, hence the need for high optical isolation, especially for high-resolution spectroscopy applications in which precise frequency control is required.
QCLs are linearly polarized sources. A simple way to achieve optical isolation is to use a wire grid polarizer and a quarter-wave plate [@mansfield80]. However, the price to pay is rather high since the laser beam has to keep a circular polarization: any modification of the feedback beam polarization reduces the isolation ratio. The alternative solution relies on the Faraday effect, and was studied between the 60’s and the 90’s by several authors in the context of CO$_2$ laser applications. Mid-infrared Faraday isolation has been demonstrated using several Faraday media and different processes such as free carrier contribution at room temperature or interband and free carrier spin contributions at cryogenic temperatures [@dennis68; @boord74; @jacobs74; @tomasetta79; @aggarwal88; @carlisle89; @klein89]. Isolation ratios up to 30 dB and insertion losses of 1.5 dB (71 % transmission) have been reported. n-doped InSb, which benefits from a strong free carrier Faraday effect, appears to be the most promising material in the 9-10 $\mu$m range [@boord74]. Nevertheless, it also suffers from rather large optical absorption and low heat conductivity, which make it unsuited for isolation of high-power CO$_2$ lasers. For this reason, development efforts were stopped, and currently no mid-IR Faraday isolator is commercially available.
Our initial motivation to fabricate such a device is the experiment developed in the Paris group, which we briefly describe here to illustrate an application requiring both a high isolation ratio and linearly polarized light. The experiment aims at a high-precision measurement of a Doppler-free two-photon vibrational transition frequency in the H$_2^+$ molecular ion in the 9.2 $\mu$m range in order to obtain a new determination of the proton-to-electron mass ratio [@roth08; @korobov09]. We developed a cw QCL source with a frequency control at the kHz level by a phase lock against a stabilized CO$_2$ laser [@bielsa07; @bielsa08]. The QCL beam ($\approx$54 mW) is mode-matched to a high finesse ($\approx$1000) Fabry-Perot cavity, that is required both to ensure a Doppler-free geometry with perfectly counterpropagating beams, and to enhance the transition rate (two-photon ro-vibrational transitions in H$_2^+$ being very weak). Optical feedback from the high-finesse cavity is a problem in such an experiment; in the initial setup, isolation was obtained by combining a quarter-wave plate and polarizer with an acousto-optic modulator providing a 6 dB additional isolation through its strongly polarization-dependent efficiency [@karr08a]. The total isolation ratio, slightly over 30 dB, was just sufficient to achieve stable operation of the QCL. However, probing the transitions with a circularly polarized beam has two important drawbacks: (i) two-photon transition rates in H$_2^+$ are almost an order of magnitude smaller with respect to the linear polarization case [@karr08a], and (ii) transition frequencies are much more sensitive (by 4-5 orders of magnitude) to the Zeeman shift due to the $|\Delta M| = 2$ selection rule [@karr08b], requiring a high level of magnetic field control.
In this paper, we report the performances of the device we have fabricated, which is based on the same material (n-doped InSb) as most earlier realizations, but takes advantage of improvements in wafer quality and permanent magnets. After a brief review of Faraday effect in InSb, we describe the isolator setup and our experimental results. In the last section, we compare the performances of our device with published data and discuss the feasibility of a double-stage mid-infrared Faraday isolator.
Free carrier Faraday effect in InSb
===================================
At room temperature, infrared absorption and Faraday effect in n-doped InSb are dominated by the free electron contribution [@boord74] and can be described in the frame of the Drude model. The polarization rotation in a magnetic field B for a wafer thickness L is given by $\theta=VBL$ where $$V=\frac{\theta}{BL}=\frac{\mu_0 N q^3\lambda^2}{8\pi^2\ n\ m^{*2}\ c}\label{eq_exp_verdet},$$ is the Verdet constant [@Boer90], and the absorption coefficient $\alpha$ is $$\alpha=\frac{\mu_0\ N\ q^2\ \lambda^2}{4\pi^2\ n\ c\ m^*\ \tau}\label{alpha},$$ where $n=4$ is the material refractive index, $m^*$ is the carrier effective mass, $N$ the carrier density and $\tau$ the effective carrier relaxation time. Equation (\[eq\_exp\_verdet\]) (resp. (\[alpha\])) are valid if the conditions $\omega_r\ll\omega_c\ll\omega\leq\omega_p\ll n\omega$ (resp. $\omega_r\ll\omega$) are satisfied, where $\omega_c$ is the cyclotron frequency, $\omega$ the optical field frequency, $\omega_p$ the plasma frequency, and $\omega_r = 1/\tau$. Note that both Faraday rotation and absorption follow a $\lambda^2$ law.
The relevant figure of merit when assessing the performances of a material for optical isolation is the Faraday rotation $F_m$ per dB of attenuation and per Tesla. When assessing device performances (with a given magnetic field), it is best to use the Faraday rotation per dB attenuation $F_d$. They are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F}
F_m&=&\frac{\theta}{\alpha L B}=\frac{qc\tau}{2\mu_0\ m^*}\\
F_d&=&F_m B.\end{aligned}$$ In order to optimize $F_d$, one should have a $B$-field as strong as possible, and semiconductors of low effective mass and low resistivity, as discussed in [@boord74]. The figures of merit appear to be independent of the carrier density $N$, but a more detailed approach allows to study the influence of donor concentration and temperature [@boord74]; for InSb at 300 K, the optimal value is around $N \approx$ 2.10 $^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$. We measured $N = 2.35$ $10^{17}$ to $2.5$ $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ in our samples (see Table \[tab\_wafer\_charact\]) by Hall effect measurements.
Let us check that the validity condition of equations (\[eq\_exp\_verdet\]-\[alpha\]) is met in our experimental conditions. The carrier effective mass in InSb is $m^*\approx$ 0.014$\ m_e$ [@ioffe-web]; taking as carrier density $N = 2.35$ $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, the plasma frequency is $\omega_p=(\mu_0 N q^2 c^2/m^*)^{1/2} \approx2\pi \times$37 THz. With B $\approx$ 1 T the cyclotron frequency is $\omega_c\approx2\pi \times2$ THz. The effective carrier relaxation time $\tau$ is $\approx$ 1.4 10$^{-12}$ s, so $\omega_r \approx2\pi \times0.1$ THz and the laser frequency is $\omega\approx2\pi \times32$ THz. One has indeed $\omega_r\ll\omega_c\ll\omega\leq\omega_p\ll n\omega$.
Experimental setup
==================
The experimental setup is depicted in figure \[fig\_manip\]. The longitudinal magnetic field is produced by a standard permanent magnet. The solid line in figure \[fig\_rotation\] shows the $B$-field profile. The maximum field is 1.16 T. Four high-quality Te n-doped InSb wafers from Wafer Technology were cut into 4x4 mm square plates, antireflection coated and glued on a 0.5 mm pitch hollow copper screw to adjust the wafer position in the magnet. The wafers come from different slices of the same InSb ingot and exhibit slightly different characteristics that are reported in Table \[tab\_wafer\_charact\]. They are labeled 18, 43, 43B and 51 A.
All intensity measurements were done using two power-meters, one being used as a reference to cancel out possible laser power drifts. The wafer reflection coefficient was measured at small incidence to separate the incident and reflected beams. The residual reflectivity is $\leq$ 3%, instead of 36% without coating. The transmission coefficient $T$ at $\lambda = 9.166 \mu$ m (measured without polarizers) lies between 74 and 80% at room temperature for all samples. For Faraday rotation measurements, one wire grid polarizer was installed at each end of the Faraday rotator. The polarization rotation was monitored by rotating the second polarizer so as to minimize the transmitted intensity.
{width="7cm"}\[fig\_manip\]
{width="7cm"}\[fig\_rotation\]
Results
=======
First, we measured the Faraday rotation angles and absorption coefficients of three 520 $\mu$m-thick samples at three different wavelengths, using a CO$_2$ laser oscillating on the 9R42 (9.166 $\mu$m), 9P42 (9.753 $\mu$m) and 10P38 (10.787 $\mu$m) lines. Figure \[fig\_absorption\_rotation\] shows that both follow a $\lambda^2$ law, with respective slopes of 0.0065 cm$^{-1}$($\mu$m)$^{-2}$ and 0.76 deg($\mu$m)$^{-2}$. Comparison with equations (\[eq\_exp\_verdet\]-\[alpha\]) yields $m^*$=0.026 $m_e$ and $\tau$=1.4 10$^{-12}$ s. This effective mass is larger than the value of [@ioffe-web], but consistent with the value of 0.022 given in [@Zawadski].
{width="7cm"}\[fig\_absorption\_rotation\]
Since polarization rotations of about 60 deg were measured at 9.166 $\mu$m, the wafers were thinned to 390 $\mu$m to obtain rotation by about 45 deg for the maximum $B$-field. Figure \[fig\_rotation\] shows the polarization rotation as a function of the wafer position $z$ in the magnet. As expected, it follows the $B$-field profile, and the value of the Verdet constant (see eq. (\[eq\_exp\_verdet\])) can be extracted from this data. All characteristics are reported in Table \[tab\_wafer\_charact\], as well as the corresponding figure of merit, showing that wafer 51A has the best performances.
------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------------ ----- ------ ----------- --------------
$L$ $N$ $\theta_{max}$ $V$ $R$ $T$ $\alpha$ $F_d$
wafer $\mu$m cm$^{-3}$ deg. deg. T$^{-1}$mm$^{-1}$ % % cm$^{-1}$ deg.T$^{-1}$
43 390 2.5 10$^{17}$ 44 97.3 3.1 78.4 4.63 210
18 520 2.5 10$^{17}$ 59 97.8 3.1 74.0 4.6 213
43B 390 2.35 10$^{17}$ 48 106 2.8 76.1 5.54 191
51A 390 2.35 10$^{17}$ 49 108 3.7 79.8 3.86 280
------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------------ ----- ------ ----------- --------------
: Wafer characteristics: thickness $L$, carrier density $N$, polarization rotation maximum angle $\theta_{max}$, Verdet constant $V$, reflection and transmission coefficients $R$ and $T$, absorption coefficient $\alpha$ and wafer figure of merit $F_d$, for $\lambda$=9.166 $\mu$m.[]{data-label="tab_wafer_charact"}
The minimum transmitted intensity observed in polarization rotation measurements gives the Faraday isolation ratio. We measured between 27 dB and 30 dB, a value limited by the polarizer extinction ratio and by the power meter accuracy, but not by $B$-field or wafer dopant concentration inhomogeneities. The measured wire grid polarizer transmission is 90 %, so the overall transmission of the isolator is $0.8\times 0.9^2=65~\%$ corresponding to 1.9 dB insertion loss.
Since Faraday rotation decreases and absorption increases with temperature, a simple way to improve the performances consists in lowering the wafer temperature [@boord74]. The isolator temperature was varied using Peltier coolers. Table \[tab\_temperature\_effect\] give the maximum Faraday rotation and wafer transmission at 14, 24 and 34 $^{\circ}$C for the best wafer (51A). Wafer transmissions over 80% are achieved. The temperature dependance of the Faraday rotation angle is 1.5 deg K$^{-1}$. This also shows that it is necessary to stabilize the isolator temperature to better than 1 K to ensure long-term stability of the isolation ratio in the 30 dB range.
$T_0$ ($^{\circ}$C) $\theta_{max}$ $T$ (%)
--------------------- ---------------- ---------
14 50 80.4
24 48.5 78.5
34 47 76.8
: Maximum polarization rotation and 51A wafer transmission versus the temperature $T_0$.[]{data-label="tab_temperature_effect"}
We checked that this optical isolator (operated at 16$^{\circ}$C to avoid water condensation) could be used for intracavity two-photon spectroscopy. The QCL beam was injected in the high finesse Fabry-Perot cavity (see Introduction), and locked on resonance. By carefully adjusting the polarizers, we obtained stable operation but only over a few minutes, indicating that the isolation ratio is only barely sufficient for this application.
As discussed in the Introduction, this result implies a significant increase of the transition probabilities in H$_2^+$ two-photon spectroscopy. For precise comparison with the formerly used polarizer/quarter-wave plate system, insertion losses have to be taken into account. When the Faraday isolator is used, an additional half-wave plate of transmission 98 % is required to adjust the polarization, so that the overall transmission is $T = 0.8$ (wafer) $\times 0.9^2$ (polarizers) $\times 0.98 = 0.635$. The transmission of the former system is $0.9$ (polarizer) $\times 0.98$ (quarter-wave plate) $= 0.88$. Since the intensity of the considered two-photon lines is 8.5 larger in linear polarization [@karr08a], and the transition rate being proportional to the square of the laser intensity, the net gain is a factor $8.5 \times (0.635/0.88)^2 = 4.4$.
Discussion
==========
Table \[tab\_Faraday\_comp\] summarizes published characteristics of Faraday isolators in the 9-10 $\mu$m range and at 5.4 $\mu$m together with the present results. Note that the measurements reported in [@dennis68] were performed without antireflection coating on the wafer, leading to inaccurate absorption coefficient and figures of merit. The cryogenic temperature isolator of Ref. [@tomasetta79] clearly exhibit the best figures of merit, but a rather low isolation ratio, with the drawback of a complicated setup. Due to the high $B$-field and good wafer quality, our isolator shows improved performance as compared to previously published ones at room temperature.
--------------- --------------- ----------- ------- ------ ----------- ------ ------------ ---------------- ------- ----------------
Material $N$ $\lambda$ $T_0$ isolation Wafer ins. $F_m$ $F_d$
(cm$^{-3}$) ($\mu$m) (K) (dB) loss (dB) (deg T$^{-1}$) (deg) ref.
InSb 2.0 10$^{17}$ 10.6 300 0.53 30 2.1 0.5 809 429 [@dennis68]
InSb 1.9 10$^{17}$ 10.6 77 0.46 4.7 1.3 325 149 [@boord74]
CdCr$_2$S$_4$ 10.6 77 0.25 32 1.75 2.9 270 67 [@jacobs74]
InSb 2.0 10$^{16}$ 10.6 78 0.49 20 0.7 1.2 328 160 [@tomasetta79]
InSb 5.0 10$^{13}$ 10.6 35 1.7 23 0.04 0.4 827 1406 [@tomasetta79]
InAs 6.0 10$^{17}$ 5.4 300 0.58 25 2.66 1.5 224 130 [@carlisle89]
InSb 2.4 10$^{17}$ 9.166 300 1.16 27 3.86 1.0 258 299 This work
InSb 2.4 10$^{17}$ 9.166 300 2.1 $>$50 3.86 0.6 double stage
--------------- --------------- ----------- ------- ------ ----------- ------ ------------ ---------------- ------- ----------------
: Comparison of published mid-infrared Faraday isolator performances.[]{data-label="tab_Faraday_comp"}
The present results could be improved further in several ways. The simplest one is to use commercially available high-quality wire grid polarizers with 98% transmission and 1:500 extinction ratio. With such polarizers, a 27 dB isolation ratio is expected, and the insertion losses could be reduced to 1.1 dB.
The Faraday isolator figure of merit $F_d$ can also be increased using higher $B$-fields and thinner wafers. Similar simple permanent magnet configurations giving 1.7 T and 2.1 T fields have been patented [@vigue] or reported [@trenec; @mukhin]. With 2.1 T, the wafer thickness can be reduced to 215 $\mu$m, resulting in a 94.7% wafer transmission (92% including the residual reflection losses after coating) for a single stage isolator, i.e. a 0.6 dB insertion loss assuming high quality (98% transmission) polarizers.
Very high isolation ratios are usually achieved using a double stage Faraday rotator, with two wafers and three polarizers. In that case, it is crucial to lower polarizer and wafer losses, since with presently reported values the overall transmission of such a device would be only $0.9^3 \times 0.8^2 = 0.467$ (for example, in H$_2^+$ two-photon spectroscopy the gain in transition probability is reduced to a factor of 2.4). Using a 2.1 T field and high quality polarizers, one can expect a 79% isolator transmission (1 dB insertion loss) with an isolation ratio exceeding 50 dB for a double stage isolator.
Conclusion
==========
We have reported the analysis of Faraday rotation in n-doped InSb wafers and the operation of an optical Faraday isolator with a 30 dB isolation ratio and 1.9 dB insertion loss at 9.166 $\mu$m. We have also discussed possible improvements and shown the feasibility of a room temperature double stage isolator which would ensure $>$50 dB isolation ratio with 1 dB insertion loss. Such a device significantly extends the range of QCL applications , especially in high-resolution spectroscopy.
The present results can be extended to the transparency range of InSb. The short wavelength limit is $\lambda \approx\ $7.5 $\mu$m due to the $0.17$ eV gap energy. The long wavelength limit is $\approx$ 30 $\mu$m due to the plasma frequency cut-off $\omega_p/n$. For shorter wavelengths in the 4-8 $\mu$m range, n-doped InAs could be used, but with higher absorption and reduced performances [@boord74].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank the training students A. Besse, A. Orgogozo and Ph. Genevaux for their participation in the experiments, as well as P. Grech for wafer polishing. This work was supported by the CNRS PEPS “métrologie du futur” action.
[99]{}
J. Faist, F. Capasso, D. L. Sivco, C. Sirtori, A. L. Hutchinson, and A. Y. Cho,“Quantum cascade laser”, Science [**264**]{}, 553-556 (1994). F. Capasso,“High-performance midinfrared quantum cascade lasers”, Optical Ingineering [**49**]{}, 111102, 1-9 (2010). A. Hugi, R. Maulini, and J. Faist, “External cavity quantum cascade laser”, Semiconductor Science and Technology [**25**]{}, 083001, 1-14 (2010). D. K. Mansfield, A. Semet, and L. C. Johnson, “A lossless, passive isolator for optically pumped far-infrared lasers”, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**37**]{}, 688-690 (1980). J. H. Dennis,“A 10.6-micron four-port circulator using free carrier rotation in InSb”, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. [**3**]{}, 416 (1967). W. T. Boord, Y.-H. Pao, F. W. Phelps, and P. C. Claspy, “Far-infrared radiation isolator”, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. [**10**]{}, 273-279 (1974). S. D. Jacobs, K. J. Teegarden, and R. K. Ahrenkiel,“Faraday rotation optical isolator for 10.6-$\mu$m radiation”, Appl. Opt. [**13**]{}, 2313-2316 (1974). L. R. Tomasetta, W. E. Bicknell, and D. H. Bates, “100 W average power 10.6 $\mu$m isolator based on the interband Faraday effect in InSb”, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. [**15**]{}, 266-269 (1979). R. L. Aggarwal, R. F. Lucey, and D. P. Ryan-Howard, “Faraday rotation in the 10 $\mu$m range in InSb at liquid-helium temperature”, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**53**]{}, 2656-2658 (1988). C. B. Carlisle and D. E. Cooper, “An optical isolator for mid-infrared diode lasers”, Opt. Commun. [**74**]{}, 207-210 (1989). C. A. Klein and T. A. Dorschner,“Power handling capability of Faraday rotation isolators for CO$_2$ laser radar”, Appl. Opt. [**28**]{}, 904-914 (1989). B. Roth, J. Koelemeij, S. Schiller, L. Hilico, J.-Ph. Karr, V. Korobov, and D. Bakalov, “Precision spectroscopy of molecular hydrogen ions: towards frequency metrology of particle masses”, in [*Precision Physics of Simple Atoms and Molecules*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics [**745**]{}, ed. S. Karshenboim (Springer, 2008), pp. 205-232. V. I. Korobov, L. Hilico, and J.-Ph. Karr, “Relativistic corrections of m$\alpha^6$(m/M) order to the hyperfine structure of the H$_2^+$ molecular ion”, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 012501, 1-10 (2009). F. Bielsa, A. Douillet, T. Valenzuela, J.-Ph. Karr, and L. Hilico, “Narrow-line phase-locked quantum cascade laser in the 9.2 $\mu$m range”, Opt. Lett. [**32**]{}, 1641-1643 (2007). F. Bielsa, K. Djerroud, A. Goncharov, A. Douillet, T. Valenzuela, C. Daussy, L. Hilico, and A. Amy-Klein, “HCOOH high-resolution spectroscopy in the 9.18 $\mu$m region”, J. Molec. Spectrosc. [**247**]{}, 41-46 (2008). J.-Ph. Karr, F. Bielsa, A. Douillet, J. Pedregosa Gutierrez, V. I. Korobov, and L. Hilico, “Vibrational spectroscopy of H$_2^+$: Hyperfine structure of two-photon transitions”, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 063410, 1-10 (2008). J.-Ph. Karr, V. I. Korobov, and L. Hilico, “Vibrational spectroscopy of H$_2^+$: precise evaluation of the Zeeman effect”, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 062507, 1-9 (2008). K. W. Böer, [*A survey of semiconductor physics, 2nd edition*]{}, (John Wiley & Sons, 2002). http://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/InSb/index.html W. Zawadski, “Electron transport phenomena in small-gap semiconductors”, Advances in Phys. [**23**]{}, 435-522 (1974). J. Vigué, G. Trénec, O. Cugat, and W. Volondat, Patent n$^{\circ}$ WO 2008/031935 A1 30/03/2008. G. Trénec, W. Volondat, J. Vigué, O. Cugnat, ”Permanent magnets for Faraday rotators inspired by the design of the magic sphere”, in preparation. I. Mukhin, A. Voitovich, O. Palashov, and A. Khazanov, “2.1 Tesla permanent-magnet Faraday isolator for subkilowatt average power lasers”, Opt. Commun. [**282**]{}, 1969-1972 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'A. Popping'
- 'R. Braun'
title: Diffuse neutral hydrogen in the Parkes All Sky Survey
---
[Observations of neutral hydrogen can provide a wealth of information about the distribution and kinematics of galaxies. To learn more about large scale structures and accretion processes, the extended environment of galaxies must also be observed. Numerical simulations predict a cosmic web of extended structures and gaseous filaments.]{} [To detect beyond the ionisation edge of galaxy disks, column density sensitivities have to be achieved that probe the regime of Lyman limit systems. Typically observations are limited to a brightness sensitivity of $N_{HI} \sim 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$ but this has to be improved by at least an order of magnitude.]{} [In this paper, reprocessed data is presented that was originally observed for the Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS). HIPASS provides complete coverage of the region that has been observed for the Westerbork Virgo Filament Survey (WVFS), presented in accompanying papers, and thus is an excellent product for data comparison. The region of interest extends from 8 to 17 hours in right ascension and from $-$1 to 10 degrees in declination. Although the original HIPASS product already has good flux sensitivity, the sensitivity and noise characteristics can be significantly improved with a different processing method.]{} [The newly processed data has an $1\sigma$ RMS flux sensitivity of $\sim 10$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 26 km s$^{-1}$, corresponding to a column density sensitivity of $\sim 3
\cdot 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$. While the RMS sensitivity is improved by only a modest 20%, the more substantial benefit is in the reduction of spectral artefacts near bright sources by more than an order of magnitude. In the reprocessed region we confirm all previously catalogued HIPASS sources and have identified 29 additional sources of which 14 are completely new detections. We derived spectra and moment maps for all detections together with total fluxes determined both by integrating the spectrum and by integrating the flux in the moment maps within the source radius. Extended emission or companions were sought in the nearby environment of each discrete detection. Ten extra-galactic filaments are marginally detected within the moment maps. ]{} [With the improved sensitivity after reprocessing and its large sky coverage, the HIPASS data is a valuable resource for detection of faint emission. This faint emission can correspond to extended halos, dwarf galaxies, tidal remnant and potentially diffuse filaments that represent the trace neutral fraction of the Cosmic Web.]{}
Introduction
============
Current cosmological models ascribe about 4% of the density to baryons [@2007ApJS..170..377S]. At low redshift most of these baryons do not reside in galaxies, but are expected to be hidden in extended gaseous web-like filaments. (e.g. [@1999ApJ...511..521D], [@2001ApJ...552..473D], [@1999ApJ...514....1C]). Calculations suggets that in the current epoch baryons are almost equally distributed amongst three components: (1) galactic concentrations, (2) a warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) and (3) a diffuse intergalactic medium (seen as the Ly$\alpha$ forest). These simulations predict that the three components are each coupled to a decreasing range of baryonic overdensity $\log(\rho / \bar{\rho}_H) > 3.5$, 1 - 3.5, and $< 3.5$.
Direct detection of the inter-galactic gas, or the WHIM, is very difficult in the EUV and X-ray bands [@1999ApJ...514....1C]. In this and accompanying papers we make an effort to detect traces of the inter and circum-galactic medium in neutral hydrogen. Due to the moderately high temperatures in the intergalactic medium (above $10^4$ Kelvin), most of the gas in the Cosmic Web is highly ionised. To detect the trace neutral fraction in the Lyman Limit Systems using the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen, a column density sensitivity of $N_{HI} \sim
10^{17-18}$ is required. A more detailed background and introduction to this topic is given in [@2010PhDT..APOPPING] and .
A first example of detection in emission of the likely counterpart of a Lyman Limit absorption System is shown in , where a very diffuse structure is seen with a peak column density of only $N_{HI} \sim 10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$, connecting M31 and M33. To be able to detect a large number of diffuse features, extended blind surveys are required with an excellent brightness sensitivity. One of the first such efforts is presented in , where the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) is used to undertake a deep fully-sampled survey of the galaxy filament joining the Local Group to the Virgo Cluster (Westerbork Virgo Filament Survey) extending from 8 to 17 hours in RA and from $-$1 to +10 degrees in Declination. Data products were created from both the cross-, as well as the auto-correlation data, to achieve a very high brightness sensitivity at a variety of spatial resolutions. The total-power product of the WVFS is presented in , while the interferometric data is presented in . In these papers new detections of neutral hydrogen are reported. Although these detections are very interesting, they are difficult to interpret or to confirm, as no comparison data is currently available at a comparable sensitivity.
In this paper we use reprocessed data of the Parkes All Sky Survey to complement the WVFS observation. The Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS) [@2001MNRAS.322..486B] includes the complete Southern sky and the Northern sky up to +25.5 degrees in Declination. The Northern part of the survey is described in [@2006MNRAS.371.1855W]. This survey currently has the best available brightness sensitivity yet published. As the Northern part of the survey completely covers the region that has been observed for the Westerbork Virgo Filament Survey, HIPASS is an excellent product for data comparison.
Although neither the flux sensitivity, nor the brightness sensitivity of HIPASS is equivalent to that of the WVFS total power data, we can still learn more about faint detections in the WVFS, by taking into account the limitations of both surveys. The low column densities of some new detections in the WVFS might be confirmed, indicating that the gas is indeed very diffuse. Conversely, if column densities measured in the HIPASS data are significantly higher than in the WVFS, this would imply that the gas is more condensed than it appeared, with the emission diluted by the large beam of the WVFS.
Although the HIPASS data is completely reduced and the processed cubes are publicly available, for our purpose we have begun anew with the raw, unprocessed observational data. Increased computing capacity, and different calibration algorithms allow significant improvements to be achieved over the original HIPASS products.
In the observations and data reduction sections we will explain in detail the processing employed and the improvements achieved. A new list of objects detected in the region of interest is given in the results section. Although the improved data reduction method can be applied to the complete HIPASS survey area, we emphasise that we have only applied it to the region of overlap with the WVFS both spatially and spectrally.
In section 2 of this paper we will briefly summarise the observations that have been used, followed by the data reduction strategy in section 3. In section 4 the results will be presented; the general properties of each detected object are given, but new detections in the HIPASS data are discussed in more detail. We close with a short discussion and conclusion in sections 5 and 6. Detailed analysis and comparison of the data, together with a discussion of the nature of the emission will be presented in a future paper. In that paper we will compare the results of the HIPASS data together with the auto- and cross-correlation products of the WVFS.
Observations
============
In our search for diffuse emission, we have employed data that was originally acquired for the Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS). The data is described in detail in [@2001MNRAS.322..486B] and we will only summarise the relevant properties. All data has been obtained using the Parkes 21-cm Multibeam system, containing a cooled 13 beam receiver and digital correlator. The Multibeam correlator has an instantaneous bandwidth of 64 MHz divided into 1024 channels. For the HIPASS observations the receivers were tuned to a central frequency of 1394.5 MHz, offering a velocity range of $-$1280 to 12700 km s$^{-1}$ with a mean channel separation of 13.4 km s$^{-1}$. The central beam FWHM is 14.0 arcmin, and the 13 beams are separated from one another by about 30 arcmin. Data acquisition was started in 1997 February and completed in 2000 March. Observations were obtained by scanning the Telescope in Declination strips of 8 degrees length. The multibeam receiver is rotated relative to the scan direction, to get approximately uniformly spaced sampling of the sky over a strip of $\sim 1.7$ degrees width. Each Declination scan maps approximately $8\times 1.7$ degrees. To obtain full coverage of the sky at full sensitivity, subsequent scans are displaced by 7 arcmin in RA, which means that each of the 13 beams maps the sky with Nyquist sampling. The scan rate of each strip is 1 degree min$^{-1}$. Using all 13 beams, the total integration time of the HIPASS survey results in $7\times10^3$ s deg$^{-2}$, or 450 s beam$^{-1}$. The typical sensitivity of the original HIPASS product is 13.3 mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 18 km s$^{-1}$.
For the original HIPASS product, cubes were created of $8\times8$ degrees in size, centered at Declinations between $-$90 and +24 degrees. For our purpose we have selected all original HIPASS scans centered at a Declination of $-$2, 6 and 14 degrees, and between 8 and 17 hours in Right Ascension. With these data we achieve the best possible coverage and sensitivity in the region between $-$1 and 10 degrees in Declination. This region was selected to exactly overlap with the region observed in the Westerbork Virgo Filament Survey (WVFS). The WVFS is an unbiased survey of $\sim1500$ squared degrees, undertaken with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT), directed at the galaxy filament connecting the Local Group with the Virgo Cluster. The WVFS total power data has an effective beam size of $\sim49$ arcmin with a sensitivity of 16 mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 16 km s$^{-1}$. The HIPASS data has a slightly superior flux sensitivity, but because of the smaller beam size the column density sensitivity is about an order of magnitude worse. Nevertheless the HIPASS data is an excellent product to use for comparison with the WVFS data.
Data Reduction
==============
Bandpass removal in the original HIPASS product
-----------------------------------------------
Although the original unprocessed HIPASS data have been used, the reduction method is slightly different, to obtain an improved end product. The most challenging aspect of calibrating an observed total power spectrum is the accurate estimation of the system bandpass shape. Bandpass calibration of a single dish telescope is traditionally accomplished by observing in [*signal/reference*]{} mode. The telescope alternately tracks the target position and a suitable nearby reference region for the same amount of time. The reference position is used to estimate the bandpass shape and is divided out of the signal spectrum. For HIPASS the telescope was scanning the sky continuously, so the straight-forward [ *signal/reference*]{} method could not be employed. The method that has been used, was to estimate the bandpass shape of each spectrum, by using a combination of earlier and later spectra, observed by the same feed of the multibeam receiver. The bandpass was estimated by taking a channel-by-channel [*median*]{} of the earlier and later spectra. The [*median*]{} reference spectrum was preferred above the [*mean*]{} reference spectrum, as the median statistic is more robust to outlying data points, and is independent of the magnitude of deviation of outlying points.
The strategy that has been used in reducing the raw HIPASS data works well in the absence of line emission, but breaks down in the vicinity of bright detections. Some sources are sufficiently bright that bandpass estimates just prior and after the target spectrum are elevated by the source itself. This results in negative artefacts, or [*bandpass sidelobes*]{} that appear as depressions in the spectra north and south of strong sources.
Bandpass removal in reprocessed HIPASS data
-------------------------------------------
All unprocessed HIPASS spectra are archived and can be reprocessed using different methods. Techniques can be developed to improve the bandpass-sidelobes and preserve spatially extended emission. An example of such an approach is given by [@2003ApJ...586..170P] where a different processing algorithm has been employed to image HVCs and the Magellanic Stream. We have tested many different algorithms, including the original HIPASS processing pipeline and the method used by [@2003ApJ...586..170P], and achieved the lowest residual RMS fluctuation level with the approach outlined below.
The data were bandpass-corrected, calibrated and Doppler-tracked using the [*aips++*]{} program [*LiveData*]{} [@2001MNRAS.322..486B] in the following manner.
- [The spectra were hanning smoothed over three channels to a velocity resolution of $\sim 26$ km s$^{-1}$.]{}
- [In estimating the shape of the bandpass, a complete 8$^\circ$ scan is used instead of just a few time steps before and after the target spectrum. By using a complete scan instead of a subset the statistics are improved, making the bandpass estimate more robust.]{}
- [A third order polynomial has been fit to the data in the time domain. Data points outside 2 times the standard deviation were excluded from the polynomial fit. This process is iterated three times, to get the best possible outlier rejection.]{}
- [After fitting and correcting the data in the time domain, a second order polynomial was fit in the frequency domain. Higher order polynomials in frequency were tested but did not improve the result.]{}
All the processed scans were gridded with [*Gridzilla*]{} [@2001MNRAS.322..486B] using a pixel size of 4’. Cubes were created with a size of 24 degrees in Declination, ranging from $-$6 to 18 degrees and typical width of 1 hour in Right Ascension with an overlap of one degree between the adjacent cubes.
All overlapping scans were averaged using the system temperature weighted median of relevant data points. The value of the median is strongly dependent on the form of the weighting function [*w(r)*]{} and the radius $r_{max}$ out to which spectra are included. The weighting procedure for HIPASS is described in detail in [@2001MNRAS.322..486B]. A Gaussian beam-shape is assumed, so the weighting function has the functional form:
$$w(r) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\exp \Big[ - \big( \frac{r}{\sigma} \big) ^2 /2 \Big] & \quad \mbox{for $r \leq r_{max}$}\\
0 & \quad \mbox{for $r > r_{max}$}\\
\end{array} \right.$$
For gridding the HIPASS data, a value of $r_{max} = 6$ arcmin. has been adopted. The estimated flux at a given pixel is determined by the weighted median of all spectra contributing to that pixel and has the form:
$$F_e = \frac{\textrm{median}(F)}{\textrm{median}(w)}$$
For a random distribution of data points or observations, the median of the weights \[median($w$)\] is determined by the weighting function where the radius divides the smoothing area in two equivalent parts, i.e. $w(r_{max}/\sqrt{2})$. For the adopted $r_{max}$ of 6 arcmin, median($w$)=1.28, which has been taken into account when gridding the data. Tests during the gridding of HIPASS data have shown that the input spectra are very nearly randomly distributed on the sky [@2001MNRAS.322..486B].
A top-hat kernel of 12’ has been used to smooth data spatially. The final beam size of the gridded data cubes is approximately 15.5’ FWHM, although as discussed at some length in [@2001MNRAS.322..486B], the effective beam-size is dependent on the signal-to-noise ratio of a detection.
After the processed cubes were formed, sub-cubes were created using the inner 14 degrees in Declination with the highest uniform sensitivity overlapping with the WVFS data. A velocity range was selected from 200 to 1700 km s$^{-1}$, again to match with the velocity coverage of the WVFS data.
In the reprocessed data, we typically achieve an RMS flux sensitivity of $\sim10$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 26 km s$^{-1}$. This is an improvement on the original HIPASS processing, although we have degraded the velocity resolution to 26 km s$^{-1}$ compared to 18 km s$^{-1}$, due to the Hanning smoothing that has been used instead of the Tukey smoothing. When scaling both noise values to the same velocity resolution, the achieved sensitivity is a significant improvement on the sensitivity of the first HIPASS product. The typical sensitivity of the first HIPASS product is $\sim 13$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 18 km s$^{-1}$. For the northern Declinations we are concentrating on, the sensitivity is slightly worse at $\sim 14$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 18 km s$^{-1}$ [@2006MNRAS.371.1855W] corresponding to $\sim 12$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 26 km s$^{-1}$. The previous reprocessing of the HIPASS data [@2003ApJ...586..170P] resulted in a similar rms value as we are achieving, however was not able to correct for the negative artefacts. Rather than an improved rms value, the more important benefit of reprocessing the data is that the negative artefacts in the vicinity of bright sources are suppressed by more than an order of magnitude.
An example of the reduced data and its artefacts is given in Fig. \[lobes\]. The left panel shows a region of the sky processed with the original HIPASS pipeline. There are strong negative artefacts north and south of strong sources. The right panel of Fig. \[lobes\] shows the same region processed with the improved reduction pipeline. Although the spectral artefacts are still visible, there is a dramatic improvement. The reprocessed data will be much more sensitive to diffuse emission, especially in the direct vicinity of bright objects. Using this follow-up HIPASS product, better flux estimates can be determined for discrete sources. Moreover, it also allows investigation of the nearby environment of discrete bright objects, which has previously been impossible.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
Results
=======
A significant sky area of more than 1500 deg$^2$ has been reprocessed from the original HIPASS data. We achieve an RMS sensitivity that is improved by $\sim20$% compared to the published HIPASS product. More important than this improvement in noise, is the very effective suppression of the negative artefacts surrounding all bright detections. We expect slightly different flux values, especially for the bright objects, as the newly processed data is more sensitive to extended emission. Furthermore, we expect to have more detections of diffuse or companion galaxies due to the improved sensitivity and artefact suppression.
For the detection of sources we have used two methods. Firstly an automated source finder was employed to identify sources. Developing a fully automated and reliably source finder is extremely difficult, especially when looking for faint objects, therefore all the cubes were also inspected visually to identify features that might be missed by the automated source finder.
Automatic source detection
--------------------------
We use the [*Duchamp*]{} [@2008glv..book..343W] three dimensional source finding algorithm to identify candidate detections. Features are sought with a peak flux exceeding 5 times the noise value. Detections are [*grown down*]{} from the peak to a cutoff value of three times the noise, to be more sensitive to extended or diffuse emission. The requirement for candidate sources to be accepted is to have a size of at least 10 pixels (after growing) in one channel and to contain pixels from at least 2 adjacent channels. As a result the minimum velocity width of a detection is 26 km s$^{-1}$ which is sufficient to detect most galaxies, but low mass dwarf galaxies or companions might be missed. The search criteria were chosen to eliminate isolated noise peaks and make the detections more reliable.
The original reduced data has a velocity resolution of 26 km s$^{-1}$. Hanning smoothed versions of the data cubes have been created at a velocity resolution of 52 and 104 km s$^{-1}$. These smoothed cubes are more sensitive to structures that are extended in the velocity domain. [*Duchamp*]{} was applied in a similar way as to the original data cubes, however this did not result in additional detections.
Spectra and moment maps of all the candidate detections have been inspected visually for reliability. Strong artefacts due to e.g. solar interference can be easily identified in the integrated maps and these features were eliminated from the source list. The spectra can be used to identify false detections that are caused by ripples in the bandpass seen toward continuum sources.
Visual source detection
-----------------------
Although automatic source finders are an excellent tool to search for candidate detections they have their limitations. Detecting point sources is relatively easy, as they are clearly defined in both the spatial and velocity domain. We are especially interested in diffuse features that have a peak brightness of only a few times the noise. These sources can only be found when source finders are “tuned” to the actual properties, the spatial and spectral extent, of these features. Since we do not know the appearance or existence of the sources beforehand, it is difficult to employ dedicated source finders. Another complication is that the noise is not completely uniform. The noise can be elevated, for example, in the vicinity of continuum sources or in the case of solar interference. Several efforts have been made to look for diffuse but very extended features, both spatially and in velocity. Unfortunately these efforts have not been very successful and resulted in previously known or unreliable detections.
Visual inspection of the data was necessary, to have a better understanding of the quality and features in the data, but also to look for features that have been missed by the automated source finder. All cubes were inspected in the spatial domain as well as in the two velocity domains (RA versus velocity and Dec versus velocity) to search for objects that had been missed.
Detected sources
----------------
For each candidate detection an optical counterpart was sought in the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) [^1] within a search radius of 14 arcmin. This radius is approximately the diameter of the HIPASS beam and only objects within this radius can contribute to the measured flux. Another requirement for potential optical counterparts is to have a known radial velocity that is comparable to the radial velocity of the detection. Candidate detections with a clearly identified optical counterpart are accepted. For each candidate detection the noise is determined based on the line-width at 20% of the peak ($W_{20}$). For line-widths smaller than 250 km s$^{-1}$ the noise is given as:
$$n=\sqrt{\frac{1.5 W_{20}}{v_{res}}}\cdot \textrm{RMS} \cdot v_{res}$$
where $n$ is in units of \[Jy km s$^{-1}$\], RMS is the sensitivity of the cubes and $v_{res}$ is the velocity resolution. For broader profiles the term $(1.5 W_{20})$ is replaced by ($W_{20} + 50$ km s$^{-1}$) to account for the line wings.
Using this noise measurement, a signal-to-noise ratio can be determined for each candidate detection. Candidate detections with an integrated signal-to-noise larger than 5 are accepted as detections.
Finally, a list of 203 detections was obtained of which 31 were detected by visual inspection; all detections and their observed properties are listed in table. \[sources\]. The first column gives the catalogue name, composed of the three characters “[*HIR*]{}”, an abbreviation of “[*HI*]{}PASS [*R*]{}eprocessed”, followed by two sets of four digits indicating the Right Ascension and Declination of the detection. The second column gives the optical identification of the detection if any is known and the third column gives the original HIPASS ID if available. Completely new detections are indicated in the third column by [*"new”*]{}. In the case a detections is not mentioned in the HIPASS catalogue however is detected by ALFALFA, this is indicated with [*“$\alpha\alpha$”*]{}. The fourth, fifth and sixth column give the spatial position and heliocentric velocity of the source. This is followed by velocity width of the object, at 20% of the peak flux. The seventh and eighth columns give the integrated flux (3-D) and the integrated line-strength (1-D) respectively. We will discuss the differences between the two different flux measurements in the following section. The last column indicates whether the object is detected by the automatic source finder (A) or by visual inspection (V). In some cases the objects are completely at the edge of the processed bandwidth. Although a detection here can be a solid detection, the estimated flux and line-width values are underestimated as a part of the spectrum is missing. For objects at the edge of the bandwidth, this is indicated in the table with a letter $''(u)''$
[lllrrccccc]{}
\
Name & Optical ID. & HIPASS ID & RA \[hh:mm:ss\] & Dec \[dd:mm:ss\] & $V_{Hel}$$^{(a)}$ & $W_{20}$$^{(b)}$ & $S_{int}$$^{(c)}$ & $S_{line}$$^{(d)}$ & det.\
Name & Optical ID. & HIPASS ID & RA \[hh:mm:ss\] & Dec \[dd:mm:ss\] & $V_{Hel}$$^{(a)}$ & $W_{20}$$^{(b)}$ & $S_{int}$$^{(c)}$ & $S_{line}$$^{(d)}$ & det.\
\
HIR0821-0025 & UGC 04358 & HIPASS J0821-00 & 8:21:41 & -0:25:00 & 1775$^u$ & 50$^u$ & 4.1$^u$ & 3.5$^u$ & A\
HIR0859+1109 & UGC 04712 & new & 8:59:28 & 11:09:23 & 1643 & 80 & 1.9 & 3.0 & A\
HIR0906+0618 & UGC 04781 & HIPASS J0906+06 & 9:06:36 & 6:18:27 & 1433 & 168 & 19.7 & 16.0 & A\
HIR0908+0555 & UGC 04797 & HIPASS J0908+05a & 9:08:12 & 5:55:54 & 1326 & 102 & 5.6 & 5.3 & A\
HIR0908+0517 & SDSS J090836.54+051726.8 & HIPASS J0908+05b & 9:08:43 & 5:17:49 & 600 & 57 & 1.3 & 2.2 & A\
HIR0910+0711 & NGC 2777 & HIPASSJ0910+07 & 9:10:34 & 7:11:43 & 1500 & 139 & 11.6 & 9.9 & A\
HIR0911+0024 & No object found. & new & 9:11:21 & 0:24:59 & 1286 & 83 & 2.8 & 2.7 & A\
HIR0921+0725 & No object found. & new & 9:21:07 & 7:25:32 & 1369 & 110 & 3.7 & 4.5 & A\
HIR0944-0038 & UGC 05205 & HIPASS J0944-00a & 9:44:06 & -0:38:42 & 1485 & 178 & 15.0 & 13.1 & A\
HIR0944+0937 & IC 0559 & HIPASS J0944+09 & 9:44:31 & 9:37:06 & 522 & 132 & 5.6 & 4.8 & A\
HIR0944-0040 & SDSS J094446.23-004118.2 & HIPASS J0944-00b & 9:44:43 & -0:40:37 & 1222 & 161 & 7.0 & 8.5 & A\
HIR0946+0141 & SDSS J094602.54+014019.4 & new & 9:46:00 & 1:41:07 & 1763$^u$ & 53$^u$ & 1.0$^u$ & 2.3$^u$ & A\
HIR0946+0031 & UGC 05238 & HIPASS J0946+00 & 9:46:55 & 0:31:09 & 1697$^u$ & 120$^u$ & 7.0$^u$ & 7.7$^u$ & A\
HIR0947+0241 & UGC 05249 & HIPASS J0947+02 & 9:47:44 & 2:41:15 & 1776 & 25 & 1.3 & 1.6 & A\
HIR0951+0750 & UGC 05288 & HIPASS J0951+07 & 9:51:16 & 7:50:12 & 555 & 112 & 33.0 & 27.8 & A\
HIR0953+0135 & NGC 3044 & HIPASS J0953+01 & 9:53:42 & 1:35:06 & 1292 & 341 & 47.3 & 49.4 & A\
HIR0954+0915 & NGC 3049 & HIPASS J0954+09 & 9:54:41 & 9:15:53 & 1471 & 223 & 6.1 & 9.1 & A\
HIR1005+0139 & 2dFGRS N421Z115 & new & 10:05:20 & 1:39:48 & 1260 & 95 & 2.0 & 2.4 & V\
HIR1007+1022 & UGC 05456 & HIPASS J1007+10 & 10:07:18 & 10:22:18 & 547 & 90 & 4.8 & 7.2 & A\
HIR1013+0702 & UGC 05522 & HIPASS J1013+07 & 10:13:57 & 7:02:36 & 1219 & 232 & 44.7 & 42.8 & A\
HIR1014+0329 & NGC 3169 & HIPASS J1014+03 & 10:14:17 & 3:29:28 & 1246 & 457 & 141.4 & 98.7 & A\
HIR1015+0242 & UGC 05539 & HIPASS J1015+02 & 10:15:52 & 2:42:11 & 1275 & 157 & 11.4 & 13.7 & A\
HIR1017+0421 & UGC 05551 & HIPASS J1017+04 & 10:17:12 & 4:21:37 & 1340 & 90 & 9.4 & 6.0 & A\
HIR1028+0335 & UGC 05677 & HIPASS J1028+03 & 10:28:33 & 3:35:28 & 1146 & 139 & 3.2 & 5.4 & A\
HIR1031+0428 & UGC 05708 & HIPASS J1031+04 & 10:31:15 & 4:28:27 & 1169 & 198 & 33.9 & 33.9 & A\
HIR1038+1024 & CGCG 065-074 & HIPASS J1038+10 & 10:38:14 & 10:24:26 & 1167 & 192 & 8.1 & 6.9 & A\
HIR1039+0145 & UGC 05797 & HIPASS J1039+01 & 10:39:28 & 1:45:15 & 706 & 71 & 3.9 & 3.0 & A\
HIR1044+1134 & MESSIER 095 & HIPASS J1044+11 & 10:44:02 & 11:34:18 & 798 & 280 & 12.2 & 32.8 & A\
HIR1046+0149 & NGC 3365 & HIPASS J1046+01 & 10:46:11 & 1:49:32 & 985 & 248 & 36.1 & 43.1 & A\
HIR1051+0550 & NGC 3423 & HIPASS J1051+05 & 10:51:17 & 5:50:24 & 1010 & 186 & 42.4 & 45.8 & A\
HIR1051+0327 & HIPASS J1051+03 & HIPASS J1051+03 & 10:51:31 & 3:27:20 & 1062 & 85 & 13.0 & 13.3 & A\
HIR1051+0435 & UGC 05974 & HIPASS J1051+04 & 10:51:34 & 4:35:53 & 1050 & 175 & 11.1 & 15.3 & A\
HIR1052+0002 & MGC 0013223 & new & 10:52:49 & 0:02:35 & 1776$^u$ & 30$^u$ & 1.3$^u$ & 1.2$^u$ & A\
HIR1053+0232 & LSBC L1-137 & HIPASS J1053+02 & 10:53:08 & 2:32:41 & 1035 & 89 & 6.4 & 6.4 & A\
HIR1055+0511 & No object found. & new & 10:55:27 & 5:11:57 & 982 & 142 & 6.4 & 3.8 & V\
HIR1101+0338 & NGC 3495 & HIPASS J1101+03 & 11:01:15 & 3:38:01 & 1119 & 324 & 27.4 & 30.5 & A\
HIR1105-0002 & NGC 3521 & HIPASS J1105-00 & 11:05:48 & -0:02:05 & 793 & 444 & 298.8 & 199.0 & A\
HIR1107+0710 & NGC 3526 & HIPASS J1106+07 & 11:07:00 & 7:10:54 & 1422 & 194 & 10.6 & 6.6 & A\
HIR1110+0107 & CGCG 011-018 & HIPASS J1110+01 & 11:10:56 & 1:07:45 & 983 & 96 & 3.4 & 5.1 & A\
HIR1112+1014 & UGC 06248 & HIPASS J1112+10 & 11:12:45 & 10:14:03 & 1286 & 75 & 1.8 & 2.7 & A\
HIR1117+0434 & NGC 3604 & HIPASS J1117+04 & 11:17:30 & 4:34:25 & 1511 & 209 & 7.9 & 10.8 & A\
HIR1119+0939 & SDSS J111928.10+093544.2 & HIPASS J1119+09 & 11:19:46 & 9:39:12 & 1075 & 298 & 4.6 & 3.6 & V\
HIR1120+0232 & UGC 06345 & HIPASS J1120+02 & 11:20:11 & 2:32:48 & 1604 & 141 & 19.7 & 22.0 & A\
HIR1124+0318 & NGC 3664 & HIPASS J1124+03 & 11:24:25 & 3:18:44 & 1379 & 140 & 20.5 & 22.7 & A\
HIR1124+1121 & NGC 3666 & HIPASS J1124+11 & 11:24:25 & 11:21:16 & 1056 & 278 & 41.0 & 45.9 & A\
HIR1125+0958 & IC 0692 & HIPASS J1126+10 & 11:25:53 & 9:58:09 & 1154 & 102 & 3.1 & 3.5 & A\
HIR1127+0846 & IC 2828 & HIPASS J1127+08 & 11:27:03 & 8:46:06 & 1048 & 79 & 1.0 & 1.6 & V\
HIR1127-0058 & UGC 06457 & HIPASS J1127-00 & 11:27:10 & -0:58:30 & 956 & 106 & 7.2 & 7.9 & A\
HIR1128+0923 & NGC 3692 & HIPASS J1128+09a & 11:28:19 & 9:23:35 & 1617 & 236 & 11.7 & 9.4 & A\
HIR1130+0917 & NGC 3705 & HIPASS J1130+09 & 11:30:02 & 9:17:38 & 1018 & 353 & 29.6 & 34.4 & A\
HIR1136+0049 & UGC 06578 & HIPASS J1136+00b & 11:36:32 & 0:49:04 & 1099 & 95 & 5.5 & 5.7 & A\
HIR1140+1128 & NGC 3810 & HIPASS J1140+11 & 11:40:59 & 11:28:07 & 995 & 268 & 33.6 & 38.5 & A\
HIR1144+0210 & SDSS J114454.28+020946.8 & HIPASS J1145+02 & 11:44:52 & 2:10:15 & 1009 & 52 & 4.1 & 3.5 & A\
HIR1158-0127 & UGC 06970 & HIPASS J1158-01 & 11:58:41 & -1:27:28 & 1471 & 166 & 46.4 & 4.4 & A\
HIR1200-0105 & NGC 4030 & HIPASS J1200-01 & 12:00:26 & -1:05:52 & 1465 & 346 & 64.0 & 50.8 & A\
HIR1204-0131 & UGC 07053 & HIPASS J1204-01 & 12:04:17 & -1:31:37 & 1469 & 123 & 6.5 & 8.2 & A\
HIR1207+0249 & HIPASS J1208+02 & HIPASS J1208+02 & 12:07:57 & 2:49:05 & 1318 & 220 & 84.7 & 55.7 & A\
HIR1211+0201 & UGC 07178 & HIPASS J1211+02a & 12:11:04 & 2:01:37 & 1334 & 95 & 6.2 & 8.0 & A\
HIR1211+0256 & UGC 07185 & HIPASS J1211+02b & 12:11:26 & 2:56:53 & 1300 & 110 & 5.8 & 7.6 & A\
HIR1212+0248 & LEDA 135791 & new & 12:12:27 & 2:48:29 & 877 & 117 & 3.1 & 3.9 & A\
HIR1212+1054 & NGC 4178 & HIPASS J1212+10 & 12:12:51 & 10:54:29 & 476$^u$ & 56$^u$ & 10.0$^u$ & 8.7$^u$ & A\
HIR1214+0747 & UGC 07239 & HIPASS J1214+07 & 12:14:12 & 7:47:05 & 1220 & 148 & 5.3 & 5.3 & A\
HIR1214+0911 & VCC 0117 & HIPASS J1214+09 & 12:14:48 & 9:11:33 & 1776$^u$ & 64$^u$ & 1.4$^u$ & 1.8$^u$ & A\
HIR1215+0935 & NGC 4207 & HIPASS J1215+09a & 12:15:26 & 9:35:37 & 587 & 247 & 3.7 & 4.2 & V\
HIR1217+1001 & UGC 07307 & HIPASS J1216+10 & 12:17:05 & 10:01:41 & 1178 & 73 & 6.0 & 5.6 & A\
HIR1217+0027 & UGC 07332 & HIPASS J1217+00 & 12:17:57 & 0:27:01 & 932 & 81 & 15.4 & 18.7 & A\
HIR1218+0640 & NGC 4241 & HIPASS J1218+06 & 12:18:00 & 6:40:59 & 720 & 126 & 5.4 & 7.3 & A\
HIR1219+0639 & VCC 0381 & HIPASS J1219+06b & 12:19:50 & 6:39:46 & 481$^u$ & 76$^u$ & 2.0$^u$ & 2.6$^u$ & A\
HIR1220+0019 & CGCG 014-010 & HIPASS J1220+00 & 12:20:10 & 0:19:35 & 884 & 83 & 2.3 & 2.5 & A\
HIR1220+0126 & UGC 07394 & HIPASS J1220+01 & 12:20:34 & 1:26:39 & 1617 & 226 & 5.5 & 4.7 & V\
HIR1221+0429 & MESSIER 061 & HIPASS J1221+04 & 12:21:51 & 4:29:23 & 1562 & 180 & 85.1 & 87.2 & A\
HIR1222+0434 & NGC 4301 & & 12:22:28 & 4:34:36 & 1267 & 135 & 14.9 & 17.1 & A\
HIR1222+0814 & VCC 0566 & $\alpha \alpha$ & 12:22:40 & 8:14:39 & 1392 & 106 & 4.1 & 2.9 & V\
HIR1222+1118 & NGC 4330 & $\alpha \alpha$ & 12:22:56 & 11:18:37 & 1590 & 273 & 5.6 & 7.6 & A\
HIR1223+0922 & NGC 4316 & HIPASS J1222+09 & 12:23:01 & 9:22:46 & 1233 & 321 & 7.3 & 3.8 & V\
HIR1223+0517 & NGC 4324 & HIPASS J1223+05 & 12:23:15 & 5:17:18 & 1540 & 131 & 2.9 & 4.1 & A\
HIR1224+0636 & IC 3268 & & 12:24:08 & 6:36:20 & 720 & 129 & 5.9 & 5.3 & A\
HIR1224+0359 & VCC 0737 & HIPASS J1224+03a & 12:24:37 & 3:59:05 & 1720$^u$ & 137$^u$ & 4.2$^u$ & 3.4$^u$ & A\
HIR1224+0319 & VCC 0739 & HIPASS J1224+03b & 12:24:41 & 3:19:30 & 921 & 68 & 13.8 & 11.4 & A\
HIR1225+0545 & NGC 4376 & HIPASS J1225+05 & 12:25:19 & 5:45:19 & 1141 & 123 & 3.0 & 3.8 & A\
HIR1225+0714 & IC 3322A & HIPASS J1225+07 & 12:25:36 & 7:14:11 & 996 & 298 & 24.6 & 21.0 & V\
HIR1225+0210 & UGC 07512 & HIPASS J1225+02 & 12:25:42 & 2:10:01 & 1498 & 78 & 4.5 & 6.2 & A\
HIR1225+0548 & VCC 0848 & HIPASS J1226+05 & 12:25:50 & 5:48:50 & 1531 & 207 & 5.2 & 6.7 & A\
HIR1226+1026 & NGC 4390 & HIPASS J1225+10 & 12:26:05 & 10:26:35 & 1101 & 152 & 4.3 & 2.4 & V\
HIR1226+0853 & NGC 4411 & $\alpha\alpha$ & 12:26:40 & 8:53:28 & 1269 & 108 & 24.2 & 21.2 & A\
HIR1226+1131 & IC 3356 & HIPASS J1226+11 & 12:26:52 & 11:31:08 & 1097 & 95 & 11.3 & 17.3 & A\
HIR1226+0230 & NGC 4409 & HIPASS J1226+02 & 12:26:54 & 2:30:21 & 1680$^u$ & 193$^u$ & 9.7$^u$ & 10.6$^u$ & A\
HIR1226+0800 & NGC 4416 & $\alpha\alpha$ & 12:26:56 & 8:00:26 & 1392 & 125 & 2.5 & 2.6 & A\
HIR1227+0553 & NGC 4423 & HIPASS J1227+05 & 12:27:10 & 5:53:45 & 1128 & 193 & 10.8 & 10.8 & A\
HIR1227+1052 & IC 3371 & HIPASS J1227+10 & 12:27:12 & 10:52:42 & 930 & 188 & 7.7 & 9.2 & A\
HIR1227+0713 & UGC 07557 & HIPASS J1227+07 & 12:27:13 & 7:13:56 & 930 & 172 & 23.2 & 21.2 & V\
HIR1227+0615 & NGC 4430 & HIPASS J1227+06 & 12:27:20 & 6:15:58 & 1415 & 143 & 3.6 & 5.0 & A\
HIR1227+0132 & HI 1225+01 & HIPASS J1227+01 & 12:27:27 & 1:32:48 & 1286 & 85 & 35.1 & 25.1 & A\
HIR1228+0843 & UGC 07590 & HIPASS J1228+08 & 12:28:21 & 8:43:54 & 1115 & 179 & 8.0 & 8.6 & A\
HIR1228+0334 & NGC 4457 & HIPASS J1228+03 & 12:28:44 & 3:34:38 & 890 & 138 & 3.6 & 3.1 & A\
HIR1229+0243 & UGC 07612 & & 12:29:11 & 2:43:53 & 1630 & 62 & 4.1 & 4.0 & A\
HIR1229+0644 & IC 3414 & HIPASS J1229+06 & 12:29:26 & 6:44:45 & 550$^u$ & 185$^u$ & 7.0$^u$ & 4.6$^u$ & A\
HIR1230+0013 & No object found. & new & 12:30:29 & 0:13:01 & 1524 & 138 & 2.1 & 3.4 & V\
HIR1230+0929 & HIPASS J1230+09 & HIPASS J1230+09 & 12:30:41 & 9:29:04 & 495$^u$ & 71$^u$ & 2.8$^u$ & 2.4$^u$ & A\
HIR1231+0145 & CGCG 014-054 & new & 12:31:02 & 1:45:09 & 1101 & 52 & 1.6 & 1.2 & V\
HIR1231+0357 & NGC 4496A & HIPASS J1231+03 & 12:31:36 & 3:57:15 & 1736$^u$ & 145$^u$ & 34.2$^u$ & 43.7$^u$ & A\
HIR1232+0024 & NGC 4517A & HIPASS J1232+00a & 12:32:31 & 0:24:28 & 1520 & 182 & 36.9 & 35.7 & A\
HIR1232+0007 & NGC 4517 & HIPASS J1232+00b & 12:32:43 & 0:07:30 & 1133 & 325 & 108.9 & 113.5 & A\
HIR1233+0436 & VCC 1468 & & 12:33:01 & 4:36:54 & 1220 & 62 & 0.8 & 1.4 & V\
HIR1233-0032 & HIPASS J1233-00 & HIPASS J1233-00 & 12:33:11 & -0:32:50 & 719 & 97 & 1.8 & 2.6 & A\
HIR1233+0840 & NGC 4519 & HIPASS J1233+08 & 12:33:26 & 8:40:24 & 1207 & 219 & 48.9 & 49.6 & A\
HIR1234+0236 & NGC 4527 & HIPASS J1234+02a & 12:34:02 & 2:36:40 & 1723$^u$ & 241$^u$ & 55.1$^u$ & 56.2$^u$ & V\
HIR1234+0332 & UGC 07715 & & 12:34:03 & 3:32:42 & 1101 & 114 & 0.7 & 1.8 & V\
HIR1234+0212 & NGC 4536 & HIPASS J1234+02b & 12:34:34 & 2:12:32 & 1776$^u$ & 153$^u$ & 29.6$^u$ & 34.6$^u$ & V\
HIR1236+0638 & IC 3576 & HIPASS J1236+06 & 12:36:35 & 6:38:14 & 1070 & 71 & 13.0 & 13.4 & A\
HIR1236+0306 & UGC 07780 & HIPASS J1236+03 & 12:36:40 & 3:06:19 & 1445 & 141 & 2.9 & 4.1 & A\
HIR1237+0655 & IC 3591 & HIPASS J1237+06 & 12:37:00 & 6:55:52 & 1626 & 132 & 7.1 & 7.9 & A\
HIR1239-0031 & NGC 4592 & HIPASS J1239-00 & 12:39:17 & -0:31:19 & 1070 & 172 & 162.7 & 98.1 & A\
HIR1241+0124 & UGC 07841 & HIPASS J1241+01 & 12:41:15 & 1:24:40 & 1670$^u$ & 158$^u$ & 9.4$^u$ & 7.0$^u$ & A\
HIR1242+0547 & VCC 1918 & HIPASS J1242+05 & 12:42:18 & 5:47:07 & 983 & 112 & 1.4 & 1.8 & A\
HIR1242-0120 & NGC 4629 & HIPASS J1242-01 & 12:42:28 & -1:20:26 & 1109 & 172 & 22.7 & 22.8 & A\
HIR1242+0358 & NGC 4630 & HIPASS J1242+03 & 12:42:32 & 3:58:17 & 719 & 151 & 4.0 & 5.6 & A\
HIR1242-0004 & NGC 4632 & HIPASS J1242-00 & 12:42:33 & -0:04:57 & 1696$^u$ & 185$^u$ & 36.6$^u$ & 34.1$^u$ & A\
HIR1243+0739 & VCC 1952 & HIPASS J1243+07 & 12:43:11 & 7:39:24 & 1311 & 86 & 1.9 & 2.4 & A\
HIR1243+1132 & NGC 4647 & $\alpha\alpha$ & 12:43:28 & 11:32:37 & 1394 & 201 & 2.4 & 4.3 & A\
HIR1244+0028 & UGC 07911 & HIPASS J1244+00 & 12:44:23 & 0:28:19 & 1178 & 124 & 12.1 & 10.4 & A\
HIR1245-0027 & NGC 4666 & HIPASS J1245-00 & 12:45:11 & -0:27:43 & 1524 & 402 & 75.3 & 78.0 & A\
HIR1246+0557 & UGC 07943 & HIPASS J1246+05 & 12:46:45 & 5:57:37 & 830 & 141 & 6.2 & 7.6 & A\
HIR1247+0420 & NGC 4688 & HIPASS J1247+04 & 12:47:46 & 4:20:33 & 982 & 73 & 31.1 & 31.8 & A\
HIR1247+1058 & VCC 2062 & $\alpha\alpha$ & 12:47:56 & 10:58:09 & 1140 & 131 & 6.7 & 9.1 & A\
HIR1248+0826 & NGC 4698 & HIPASS J1248+08 & 12:48:28 & 8:26:22 & 995 & 430 & 19.9 & 17.9 & A\
HIR1249+0325 & NGC 4701 & HIPASS J1249+03 & 12:49:11 & 3:25:10 & 722 & 178 & 58.2 & 55.7 & A\
HIR1249+0519 & NGC 4713 & HIPASS J1250+05 & 12:49:57 & 5:19:33 & 649 & 189 & 47.5 & 46.9 & A\
HIR1253+0428 & NGC 4765 & HIPASS J1253+04 & 12:53:11 & 4:28:09 & 719 & 118 & 13.4 & 19.2 & A\
HIR1253+0115 & NGC 4771 & HIPASS J1253+01 & 12:53:24 & 1:15:08 & 1128 & 304 & 9.3 & 9.9 & A\
HIR1253+0212 & NGC 4772 & HIPASS J1253+02 & 12:53:29 & 2:12:49 & 1035 & 43 & 6.9 & 6.8 & A\
HIR1254+0240 & NGC 4809 & & 12:54:51 & 2:40:16 & 918 & 158 & 10.9 & 11.7 & A\
HIR1255+0008 & UGC 08041 & HIPASS J1255+00 & 12:55:12 & 0:08:12 & 1311 & 205 & 17.0 & 17.9 & A\
HIR1255+0414 & NGC 4808 & HIPASS J1255+04b & 12:55:50 & 4:14:24 & 741 & 270 & 81.4 & 60.5 & A\
HIR1257+0242 & UGC 08074 & HIPASS J1257+02 & 12:57:49 & 2:42:26 & 918 & 113 & 3.0 & 3.9 & A\
HIR1300+0230 & NGC 4900 & HIPASS J1300+02b & 13:00:37 & 2:30:28 & 943 & 133 & 16.8 & 17.2 & A\
HIR1300-0000 & NGC 4904 & HIPASS J1300-00 & 13:00:53 & -0:00:55 & 1167 & 198 & 8.0 & 9.0 & A\
HIR1306+1027 & CGCG 071-109 & HIPASS J1306+10 & 13:06:26 & 10:27:07 & 928 & 65 & 3.1 & 4.4 & A\
HIR1311+0530 & UGC 08276 & HIPASS J1312+05 & 13:11:56 & 5:30:11 & 908 & 113 & 2.6 & 3.5 & A\
HIR1312+0711 & UGC 08285 & HIPASS J1312+07 & 13:12:32 & 7:11:02 & 890 & 134 & 3.8 & 4.9 & A\
HIR1313+1012 & UGC 08298 & HIPASS J1313+10 & 13:13:19 & 10:12:16 & 1152 & 96 & 12.9 & 12.3 & A\
HIR1317-0100 & UM 559 & HIPASS J1317-00 & 13:17:43 & -1:00:31 & 1207 & 111 & 3.9 & 3.4 & A\
HIR1320+0524 & UGC 08382 & HIPASS J1320+05 & 13:20:36 & 5:24:36 & 956 & 119 & 4.6 & 4.3 & A\
HIR1320+0947 & UGC 08385 & HIPASS J1320+09 & 13:20:38 & 9:47:51 & 1115 & 162 & 11.2 & 14.1 & A\
HIR1326+0206 & NGC 5147 & HIPASS J1326+02 & 13:26:19 & 2:06:48 & 1087 & 171 & 13.1 & 17.3 & A\
HIR1326+0229 & SDSS J132615.73+022729.5 & HIPASS J1326+02B & 13:26:29 & 2:29:57 & 1035 & 110 & 0.8 & 1.0 & V\
HIR1327+1003 & UGC 08450 & HIPASS J1327+10 & 13:27:08 & 10:03:44 & 1049 & 103 & 4.4 & 3.2 & A\
HIR1328+0219 & HIPASS J1328+02 & HIPASS J1328+02 & 13:28:05 & 2:19:03 & 1022 & 73 & 7.4 & 3.1 & A\
HIR1337+0853 & NGC 5248 & HIPASS J1337+08 & 13:37:17 & 8:53:53 & 1158 & 288 & 100.1 & 78.0 & A\
HIR1337+0739 & UGC 08614 & HIPASS J1337+07 & 13:37:27 & 7:39:15 & 1040 & 175 & 16.0 & 22.9 & A\
HIR1338+0826 & UGC 08629 & HIPASS J1338+08 & 13:38:40 & 8:26:50 & 1022 & 143 & 0.9 & 3.2 & V\
HIR1348+0356 & NGC 5300 & HIPASS J1348+03 & 13:48:10 & 3:56:31 & 1170 & 221 & 11.0 & 15.2 & A\
HIR1352-0105 & NGC 5334 & HIPASS J1352-01 & 13:52:53 & -1:05:30 & 1387 & 228 & 24.8 & 26.7 & A\
HIR1355+0504 & NGC 5364 & HIPASS J1356+05 & 13:55:41 & 5:04:48 & 1260 & 291 & 49.4 & 48.8 & A\
HIR1401+0247 & No object found. & new & 14:01:04 & 2:47:58 & 1040 & 111 & 3.4 & 2.8 & V\
HIR1404+0848 & UGC 08995 & HIPASS J1404+08b & 14:04:49 & 8:48:43 & 1234 & 182 & 9.2 & 7.5 & A\
HIR1411-0109 & NGC 5496 & HIPASS J1411-01 & 14:11:38 & -1:09:18 & 1541 & 267 & 67.7 & 66.2 & A\
HIR1416+0350 & HIPASS J1416+03 & HIPASS J1416+03 & 14:16:59 & 3:50:21 & 1470 & 116 & 7.0 & 8.8 & A\
HIR1417-0130 & 2dFGRS N275Z229 & HIPASS J1417-01 & 14:17:14 & -1:30:07 & 1551 & 88 & 2.2 & 2.4 & A\
HIR1417+0651 & No object found & new & 14:17:45 & 6:51:08 & 1167 & 92 & 2.3 & 2.4 & V\
HIR1419+0922 & UGC 09169 & HIPASS J1419+09 & 14:19:44 & 9:22:36 & 1280 & 165 & 20.3 & 23.1 & A\
HIR1420+0358 & NGC 5569 & & 14:20:29 & 3:58:41 & 1750$^u$ & 135$^u$ & 7.8$^u$ & 9.0$^u$ & A\
HIR1420+0834 & SDSS J142044.53+083735.8 & HIPASS J1420+08 & 14:20:48 & 8:34:55 & 1286 & 130 & 2.5 & 3.2 & V\
HIR1421+0326 & NGC 5577 & HIPASS J1421+03 & 14:21:28 & 3:26:51 & 1485 & 275 & 9.0 & 8.4 & A\
HIR1422-0022 & NGC 5584 & HIPASS J1422-00 & 14:22:25 & -0:22:57 & 1657 & 223 & 30.8 & 31.0 & A\
HIR1423+0143 & UGC 09215 & HIPASS J1423+01 & 14:23:29 & 1:43:21 & 1383 & 239 & 20.7 & 22.1 & A\
HIR1424+0820 & UGC 09225 & HIPASS J1424+08 & 14:24:22 & 8:20:17 & 1247 & 130 & 4.9 & 5.6 & A\
HIR1427+0842 & UGC 09249 & HIPASS J1427+08 & 14:27:02 & 8:42:16 & 1365 & 148 & 9.8 & 9.7 & A\
HIR1429-0000 & UGC 09299 & HIPASS J1429-00 & 14:29:34 & -0:00:24 & 1535 & 213 & 50.8 & 46.3 & A\
HIR1430+0717 & NGC 5645 & HIPASS J1430+07 & 14:30:39 & 7:17:03 & 1365 & 195 & 19.3 & 17.3 & A\
HIR1431+0257 & IC 1024 & HIPASS J1431+03 & 14:31:21 & 2:57:38 & 1445 & 215 & 8.6 & 10.9 & V\
HIR1432+0954 & NGC 5669 & HIPASS J1432+09 & 14:32:41 & 9:54:10 & 1365 & 211 & 31.8 & 41.7 & A\
HIR1432+0257 & CGCG 047-085 & & 14:32:42 & 2:57:51 & 1537 & 146 & 4.1 & 5.4 & V\
HIR1432+0016 & UGC 09348 & & 14:32:55 & 0:16:36 & 1657 & 198 & 5.5 & 5.2 & V\
HIR1433+0426 & NGC 5668 & HIPASS J1433+04 & 14:33:29 & 4:26:57 & 1577 & 124 & 50.7 & 50.1 & A\
HIR1435+0517 & UGC 09385 & HIPASS J1435+05 & 14:35:22 & 5:17:30 & 1635 & 106 & 7.4 & 7.8 & A\
HIR1437+0217 & NGC 5690 & HIPASS J1437+02 & 14:37:40 & 2:17:30 & 1710$^u$ & 193$^u$ & 10.2$^u$ & 13.0$^u$ & A\
HIR1439+0259 & UGC 09432 & HIPASS J1439+02 & 14:39:06 & 2:59:08 & 1564 & 110 & 7.4 & 6.4 & A\
HIR1439+0521 & NGC 5701 & HIPASS J1439+05 & 14:39:10 & 5:21:44 & 1499 & 139 & 77.2 & 57.4 & A\
HIR1439-0040 & NGC 5705 & HIPASS J1439-00 & 14:39:45 & -0:40:20 & 1736$^u$ & 136$^u$ & 18.2$^u$ & 19.2$^u$ & A\
HIR1440-0026 & NGC 5719 & HIPASS J1440-00 & 14:40:43 & -0:26:53 & 1643 & 247 & 36.9 & 31.2 & A\
HIR1440+0210 & NGC 5725 & HIPASS J1440+02 & 14:40:46 & 2:10:53 & 1617 & 179 & 1.8 & 3.4 & V\
HIR1443+0451 & IC 1048 & HIPASS J1443+04 & 14:43:02 & 4:51:25 & 1670$^u$ & 307$^u$ & 19.0$^u$ & 18.2$^u$ & V\
HIR1444+0142 & NGC 5740 & HIPASS J1444+01 & 14:44:25 & 1:42:53 & 1556 & 334 & 30.4 & 23.8 & A\
HIR1445+0751 & UGC 09500 & HIPASS J1445+07 & 14:45:18 & 7:51:59 & 1682 & 56 & 9.7 & 9.4 & A\
HIR1446+1011 & No object found & new & 14:46:27 & 10:11:55 & 969 & 154 & 3.5 & 3.9 & V\
HIR1453+0333 & NGC 5774 & HIPASS J1453+03 & 14:53:45 & 3:33:13 & 1723$^u$ & 308$^u$ & 89.4$^u$ & 84.9$^u$ & A\
HIR1458-0104 & NGC 5792 & HIPASS J1458-01 & 14:58:30 & -1:04:54 & 1740$^u$ & 92$^u$ & 16.4$^u$ & 16.9$^u$ & A\
HIR1458+0646 & KUG 1456+069 & HIPASS J1458+06 & 14:58:35 & 6:46:30 & 1681 & 138 & 6.2 & 4.6 & A\
HIR1500+0155 & NGC 5806 & HIPASS J1500+01 & 15:00:00 & 1:55:55 & 1352 & 322 & 9.1 & 7.4 & V\
HIR1504-0052 & UGC 09682 & HIPASS J1504-00 & 15:04:20 & -0:52:29 & 1776$^u$ & 101$^u$ & 3.9$^u$ & 3.5$^u$ & A\
HIR1515+0603 & No object found & new & 15:15:02 & 6:03:22 & 1696 & 103 & 2.2 & 3.1 & V\
HIR1521+0505 & NGC 5921 & HIPASS J1521+05 & 15:21:56 & 5:05:01 & 1472 & 189 & 35.2 & 31.9 & A\
HIR1537+0558 & NGC 5964 & HIPASS J1537+05 & 15:37:35 & 5:58:48 & 1446 & 212 & 36.5 & 38.6 & A\
HIR1546+0654 & UGC 10023 & HIPASS J1546+06 & 15:46:05 & 6:54:55 & 1407 & 170 & 5.5 & 5.2 & A\
HIR1605+0832 & CGCG 079-046 & HIPASS J1606+08 & 16:05:40 & 8:32:03 & 1379 & 153 & 4.3 & 4.7 & V\
HIR1608+0733 & IC 1197 & HIPASS J1608+07 & 16:08:15 & 7:33:15 & 1360 & 221 & 13.5 & 11.4 & A\
HIR1609-0006 & UGC 10229 & HIPASS J1609-00 & 16:09:42 & -0:06:08 & 1491 & 129 & 9.1 & 8.1 & A\
HIR1618+0725 & NGC 6106 & HIPASS J1618+07 & 16:18:45 & 7:25:10 & 1445 & 253 & 19.7 & 20.7 & A\
HIR1619+0142 & CGCG 024-001 & HIPASS J1619+01a & 16:19:19 & 1:42:02 & 1497 & 165 & 6.8 & 9.5 & A\
HIR1656+0800 & HIPASS J1656+08 & HIPASS J1656+08 & 16:56:39 & 8:00:53 & 1471 & 113 & 3.0 & 4.3 & A\
HIR1728+0725 & UGC 10862 & HIPASS J1728+07 & 17:28:07 & 7:25:35 & 1685 & 150 & 13.1 & 15.7 & A\
HIR1732+0705 & NGC 6384 & HIPASS J1732+07 & 17:32:26 & 7:05:45 & 1683$^u$ & 313$^u$ & 42.6$^u$ & 50.5$^u$ & A\
New detections
--------------
All sources in the HIPASS catalogue have been re-detected in the reprocessed HIPASS product. Apart from these previously known detections, 29 detections have been made that were not listed in the HIPASS catalogue, of which 14 are completely new detections. Thirteen of the detections that were not listed in the original HIPASS catalogue were recovered through visual inspection. Amongst the detections that are not listed in the HIPASS catalogue, 6 objects have since been detected in the ALFALFA survey and are listed in the third data catalog [@2008AJ....136..713K] covering right ascensions from 11:36 to 13:52 hours and declinations form +8 to +12 degrees. In fact, all the newly detected HIPASS objects within this area can be confirmed with the ALFALFA catalogue.
Spectra of completely new detections are shown in Fig. \[newspectra\]. The spectra of the new detections do not show some particular feature and they are both found by visual (8 detections) and automated (6 detections) inspection. Only the velocity interval that overlaps with the velocity coverage of the WVFS survey, from $\sim400$ to $\sim1800$ km s$^{-1}$, has been reprocessed. As the bandwidth of the reprocessed data is relatively small compared to the full HIPASS frequency coverage, detections at the edge of the reprocessed data appear at the very edge in Fig. \[newspectra\] .
[*HIR 0859+1109*]{}: This is a new detection for which no optical galaxy is known at the relevant radial velocity. At a radial velocity of 1988 $\pm$40 km s$^{-1}$ and with an offset of 1.6 arcmin is UGC 4712, which is more than 300 km s$^{-1}$ higher than the radial velocity of HIR0859+1109. It is possible that HIR 0859+1109 is the counterpart of UGC 4712.
[*HIR 0911+0024*]{}: When looking at the spectrum of this detection, there is one narrow peak that looks significant. There is no optical galaxy known at this redshift.
[*HIR 0921+0725*]{}: The nature of this detection is not clear. The DSS image shows a diffuse feature at a location of RA=09:21:26.3 and DEC=07:21:57, but many SDSS objects are listed at this location, all without any distance information. Based on the appearance of the optical feature, we expect that all these are at a higher redshift and not related to HIR 0921+0725.
[*HIR 0946+0141*]{}: This feature is very likely the counterpart of SDSS J094602.54+014019.4, a spiral galaxy at a radial velocity of 1753 km s$^{-1}$. Both the radial velocity and the DSS image are well-matched to the detection.
[*HIR 1005+0139*]{}: At a spatial separation of only 1.5 arcmin is 2dFGRS N421Z115 with a radial velocity within 30 km s$^{-1}$ of HIR 1005+0139. This detection is a completely new detection and is the counterpart of 2dFGRS N421Z115 with high certainty.
[*HIR 1052+0002*]{}: When inspecting the DSS image, a small galaxy can be identified at the peak of the contours. This is the irregular galaxy MGC 0013223 at a radial velocity of 1772 km s$^{-1}$, which is very similar to the observed radial velocity. Although has not been observed before in this galaxy, HIR 1052+0002 is very likely the neutral counterpart of MGC 0013223.
[*HIR 1055+0511*]{}: Although the peak of this detection is not very bright, the line is broad enough to make it significant. The DSS image shows a diffuse object at RA=10:55:16.3 and DEC=05:12:19.5 that might be relevant for this candidate detection. However, this is an SDSS object at a cataloged radial velocity of almost 6000 km s$^{-1}$. If correct, any relation with HIR 1055+0511 is highly unlikely.
[*HIR 1212+0248*]{}: Less than half an arcmin separated and at exactly the same radial velocity is LEDA 135791. HIR 1212+0248 is the first detection of this dwarf irregular galaxy.
[*HIR 1230+0013*]{}: This feature is about 30 arcmin separated from NGC 4517A. Although there is no sign of any optical counterpart in the DSS images, HIR 1230+0013 is possibly associated with NGC 4517A, as the radial velocity is very similar.
[*HIR 1231+0145*]{}: At an angular offset of less than 5 arcmin and a similar radial velocity is the irregular galaxy CGCG 014-054. Although this galaxy has no reported , HIR 1231+0145 is most likely the component of CGCG 014-054 because of the good correspondence in position and velocity.
[*HIR 1401+0247*]{}: There is no known galaxy at the relevant redshift, however when looking at the DSS image, there is the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1835 at redshift 0.253 centered at RA=14:01:02.0 and DEC=02:51:32, coincident with the peak of the apparent contours. An association with an signal at the cluster redshift is clearly out of the question, while applying the cluster redshift to the detected spectral feature would imply a rest frequency of 1773.6 MHz, where no known transition occurs. For comparison, some known radio frequency transitions are OH 1720.53 MHz, H$_2$CO 4829.66 MHz, and CH$_3$OH 6668.52 MHz. The cluster is known to act as a gravitational lens [@2005ApJ...627...32S], although current attempts to determine the redshift of lensed features have not been successful. While unlikely, the detected feature might correspond to H$_2$CO at z = 2.4, or CH$_3$OH at z = 3.7.
[*HIR 1417+0651*]{}: When looking at the DSS image at the location of this object, two small galaxies can be recognised at the peak of the contours. One is CGCG 046-087 which is irrelevant because of the radial velocity of 7559 km s$^{-1}$. The other object is a GALEX source at RA=14:17:50.7 and DEC=06:50:22 without any redshift information.
[*HIR 1446+1011*]{}: The DSS image shows a galaxy at the peak of the contours. However, this is CGCG 076-029 at almost 16,000 km s$^{-1}$. Beyond this, there is no sign of an optical source that can be easily linked to HIR 1446+0011.
[*HIR 1515+0603*]{}: There is a very small and diffuse SDSS object at RA=15:14:57.23 and DEC=06:06:03.10. Although there is no redshift information about this object, based on the visual appearance a connection with HIR 1515+0603 is possible, but not very likely.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
[**Fig \[newspectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
[**Fig \[newspectra\].**]{} (continued)
Flux densities
--------------
The total flux densities have been determined for all detections using two independent methods. The line-widths and the integrated line-strengths have first been determined by integrating the brightness over the full velocity width of an object along the single spectrum that contains the overall peak brightness. We assume that all sources are unresolved and fully contained within the 15.5 arcmin beam. In a second approach the total flux has been determined from the integrated moment maps. Moment maps are created by collapsing the cube in the direction of the velocity axis over the full line width. The visualisation package KARMA [@1996ASPC..101...80G] has been used to integrate the flux. The radial profile of an object can be plotted, including a fit to the data points within a user defined circle. This circle was chosen to completely enclose the object, including any possible extended emission. The integrated flux densities have to be corrected for the beam integral to convert from Jy Beam$^{-1}$ km s$^{-1}$ to Jy km s$^{-1}$. An integrated flux density is determined by simply adding the pixels values, and a fitted flux density is determined by fitting a Gaussian to the radial profile. Since we aim to be sensitive to extended features that do not necessarily have a Gaussian profile, we use the pixel integral for our flux density determinations rather than a Gaussian fit.
When integrating the line strength of a single spectrum, not all the flux is measured if the source is resolved by the beam, or if there are extended emission features like filaments. The flux densities are plotted and compared in Fig. \[flux\_comp\] where in the left panel the total flux obtained from the integrated pixel values is plotted as function of the single pixel integrated line strength. The dotted line goes through the origin and indicates where the fluxes are equal. Only those sources are plotted that are completely covered by our data cubes in both the spectral and spatial directions. The measured fluxes match the dotted line very well, meaning that there is typically no large discrepancy between the two different methods. The ratio of the fluxes is plotted on a logarithmic scale in the right panel of Fig. \[flux\_comp\], the dotted line indicating again where the fluxes are equal. The mean of the ratios is 0.99, with a standard deviation of 0.28. The dashed line in the right panel of Fig. \[flux\_comp\] represents the median of the flux ratios, which is 0.96. As both the mean and median values are close to one, there is generally very good agreement between the fluxes. For large flux values above $\sim 50$ Jy km s$^{-1}$ the fluxes derived by integrating the individual pixel values are typically larger by 20 to 50%. This is due to the fact that these are typically large and extended sources that are resolved by the beam. At low flux levels, there are a number of sources for which the integrated line-strength exceeds the integrated flux of the moment map by more than a factor of two. Since the line-strength of the peak spectrum provides a [ *lower limit*]{} to the true integral, there must be a residual artefact in either the spectrum or the moment map. The spectra and moment maps of these sources were inspected and either the spectral bandpass appears slightly elevated, or there are negative residuals in the moment maps which influence the flux estimates.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
Another important comparison to make is of our measured fluxes with those obtained in the first HIPASS product. In Fig. \[hipass\_comp\] fluxes derived from the reprocessed HIPASS data are compared with fluxes in the HIPASS catalogue [@2004MNRAS.350.1195M; @2006MNRAS.371.1855W]. Again, only those sources are plotted that are completely covered by the data cubes. The left panel shows the reprocessed fluxes as function of original fluxes, while the right panel shows the ratio. The dashed line indicates the median of the flux ratios which is 1.10. The mean of the ratios is 1.31 with a standard deviation of 1.41. In this case the median estimate gives a better representation of the general trend instead of the mean, as the effect of strong outliers is suppressed.
The $\sim 10$% excess in flux in the published HIPASS product over that in our reprocessed result may reflect the variation in effective beam size with signal-to-noise ratio that is a consequence of median gridding, as discussed at some length in [@2001MNRAS.322..486B]. Exactly the same data has been used in both processing methods, so another effect that may contribute to the difference in flux is how the bandpass is determined. The gridding of the data has been done in a similar fashion as for the original HIPASS product, so any differences are caused in the pre-gridding. For several sources the individual spectra in both the original and the re-reduced HIPASS product have been compared. Despite the difference in flux, the spectra look very similar. A difference in the fit to the bandpass can enhance the whole spectrum slightly, without significantly affecting the shape.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
Companions
----------
Moment maps have been generated for all detected objects by integrating over their velocity widths. Initially, maps of 2 by 2 degrees in size are generated, to completely cover the detection itself, including the nearby environment. All moment maps were inspected by eye for diffuse emission features. For objects that showed tentative signs of filaments or companions, another moment map was generated of 5 by 5 degrees in size. These moment maps were inspected in detail, by searching for local peaks in the spatial domain as well as possible line features in the spectrum at the relevant velocity.
Several faint features have been marginally detected, that have not emerged from our earlier source finding procedure. These detections appear very interesting but would need further confirmation to make them robust. They are usually very faint, but some of them have very broad line-widths. None of the features have an optical counterpart, therefore the origin of the features is not straightforward. All of these tentative detections were found by visually inspecting the moment maps around bright sources. As none of them passed the criteria of previous source finding algorithms, it is very likely that a significant number of comparable features are still present in the data. We will discuss the detailed properties of all features below. The relevant spectra are shown in Fig. \[filaments\]. A third order polynomial was fit to the spectrum, excluding the line itself and galactic emission, to correct for bandpass instabilities at these very low flux values. We will leave statements about the possible origin of these features to the discussion.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} [**Fig \[filaments\].**]{} (continued)
[**HIRF 0912+0723**]{}: The position of this feature, at RA=09:12:55 and DEC=07:23:34, is close to UGC 4781 and NGC 2777 and it has a comparable radial velocity to these galaxies of 1458 km s$^{-1}$. The spectrum has two peaks, that are separated by 140 km s$^{-1}$. The two peaks are reminiscent of a double horned profile, although they may simply be due to two unrelated structures within the telescope beam. A direct relation to either of the two cataloged galaxies is not obvious, as the line is quite broad and has a very different character. The total line integral at the indicated position is 3.9 Jy km s$^{-1}$, after correction of the spectral baseline. With an integrated signal-to-noise of $\sim 7$, this detection has moderately high significance.
[**HIRF 0947-0053**]{} : This feature with RA=09:47:11 and DEC=-00:53:05 is near the optical source SDSS J094446.23-004118.2, in the same field as the previous detection. In contrast to HIRF 0948+0043, this detection is relatively narrow, with a $W_{20}$ value of 77 km s$^{-1}$ and it has one peak with a maximum brightness of $\sim 33$ mJy beam$^{-1}$. The integrated line-strength is only 1.3 Jy km s$^{-1}$, yielding a marginally significant signal-to-noise of 5.
[**HIRF 0948+0043**]{}: This feature is located at RA= 09:48:32 and DEC=00:43:23, offset by several degrees from NGC 3044 which has a consistent radial velocity of 1289 km s$^{-1}$. This is a very broad profile with a $W_{20}$ value of $\sim 320$ km s$^{-1}$. Although the brightness in each channel is only about 10 mJy Beam$^{-1}$, this brightness is present over 25 channels, which yields a high significance. The line-integral without any further smoothing is 7.6 Jy km s$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a signal to noise of 13. Intriguingly, there appear to be additional filamentary features in the field of this object. Similar broad line profiles can be recognised at several positions along the filament, albeit with low signal-to-noise. A DSS image of the region around HIRF 0948+0043 is shown in Fig. \[HIRF0948+0043\], which is indicated by the letter C in this image. The main galaxy in the top left of the plot is NGC 3044 which has extended emission. Letters B, C and D are assigned to regions in the environment showing emission. The line profiles are shown in Fig. \[10\_43\_spect\], although the fluxes in all the companions are very low, they all have a line-width that is very comparable to NGC 3044. It appears as if these denser regions form a more extended filament. In [@1997ApJ...490..247L] a high resolution image of NGC3044 obtained with the VLA is presented. Although the brightness sensitivity of these observations is much lower than the Parkes data, at column density levels of a few times $N_{HI} \sim 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ small companions can be seen in the same direction as the companions we detect.
![Second generation DSS image with contours at 2, 3, 4 and 5 Jy beam$^{-1}$ km s$^{-1}$. The large galaxy is NGC 3044, three companions are identified with very similar line-widths. The line profile of each object is shown in Fig. \[10\_43\_spect\].[]{data-label="HIRF0948+0043"}](10_43_dss_contours.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
[**HIRF 1216+847**]{}: At RA=12:16:45 and DEC=08:47:22 this detection has a radial velocity of 1299 km s$^{-1}$ and $W_{20}$=199 km s$^{-1}$. Although the peak brightness is not very substantial; $\sim
20$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over the full line width, the integrated flux of 4.3 Jy km s$^{-1}$ corresponds to a signal-to-noise of 9.
[**HIRF 1224+0846**]{}: With an RA of 12:24:52 and DEC of 08:46:25, this detection is within half a degree of NGC 4316. The radial velocity of 1312 km s$^{-1}$ matches that of NGC 4316 fairly well. Of particular note is the very broad line-width of approximately 400 km s$^{-1}$. While the peak brightness is modest; only 24 mJy beam$^{-1}$ it extends quite uniformly across the entire line-width. This yields an integrated flux of 5.3 Jy km s$^{-1}$ corresponding to a signal-to-noise of 9.
[**HRIF 1225+0826**]{}: Located at RA=12:25:40 and DEC=08:26:16, this intriguing feature’s properties are very sensitive to the method of baseline definition. The overlaid baseline fit results in a central radial velocity of 1484 km s$^{-1}$, an integrated flux of 8.4 Jy km s$^{-1}$, an extremely broad line-width of about 700 km s$^{-1}$ at 20% of the peak flux and a signal-to-noise of 10. However, other spectral baselines would severely diminish the apparent line-width, flux and overall significance of this feature. A slightly enhanced baseline fit would also cut the source in half, therefore potentially this detection could also consist of two different sources with a different spectral position within the telescope beam. Confirming observations will be necessary to establish it’s reliability.
[**HRIF 1230+0949**]{}: This is a very similar detection to several of those discussed previously, with a low peak brightness, but a very broad line-width. This objects is located at RA=12:30:24 and DEC=09:49:45 with a radial velocity of 1180 km s$^{-1}$. The integrated flux of 3.7 Jy km s$^{-1}$ over a line-width $W2_{20}$ of 280 km s$^{-1}$, yield a signal-to-noise of 7.
[**HIRF 1257+0407**]{}: This detection at RA=12:57:20 and DEC=04:07:59 is in the direct environment of NGC 4804 with a radial velocity of 824 km s$^{-1}$ that is comparable to this galaxy. The peak flux of 35 mJy beam s$^{-1}$ is relatively strong, compared to the other detections listed here. The line-width at 20% of the peak is 102 km s$^{-1}$ and the integrated flux of 2.4 Jy km s$^{-1}$ has a signal-to-noise of 7.
[**HIRF 1323+0206**]{}: This detection is at RA= 13:23:17 and DEC=02:06:06, with a radial velocity of 980 km s$^{-1}$. This is another example of a very faint source with a very broad line width of more than 500 km s$^{-1}$. The brightness in each individual channel barely exceeds the $1\sigma$ level. The line-width at 20% of the peak is 505 km s$^{-1}$ and the integrated line strength is 5.2 Jy km s$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a signal-to-noise of 7.
[**HIRF 1334+0810**]{}: This detection at RA=13:34:21 and DEC=08:10:14 is only marginal. The peak brightness is $\sim 25$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ and the integrated flux is 2.2 Jy km s$^{-1}$ and has a signal to noise of only 6.5 when taking into account the $W_{20}$ of 110 km s$^{-1}$. Interesting however is that this feature is about half a degree south of an extended chain of galaxies that is connected to NGC 5248 in the data. Although these galaxies individually could not be resolved in the HIPASS data, optical images from DSS can reveal UGC 8575 and CGCG 073-036. Both these galaxies and HIRF 1324+0810 have a similar radial velocity of $\sim$1200 km s$^{-1}$ and a narrow line profile that is completely embedded in the profile of NGC 5248. This diffuse detection seems to be connected to the filament of galaxies, although the connecting bridge is very faint.
Completeness and Robustness
---------------------------
Our source catalogue has been constructed from all sources which have a peak brightness exceeding our 5$\sigma$ limit of $\sim$50 mJy beam$^{-1}$ at “full” velocity resolution of 26 km s$^{-1}$ and correspondingly fainter brightnesses after velocity smoothing to 52 and 104 km s$^{-1}$. Simulations involving the injection of artificial sources into similar total power data-cubes by [@2002ApJ...567..247R] have shown that an asymptotic completeness of about 90% is reached at a signal-to-noise ratio of 8, while the completeness at a signal-to-noise ratio of 5 is only likely to be about 30%.
We have used the [*Duchamp*]{} [@2008glv..book..343W] source finding tool to find candidate sources in the data cubes at the different velocity resolutions. The source finder was found to be robust down to this 5$\sigma$ limit on peak brightness. All candidate sources were subsequently inspected visually. Artefacts from solar interference or due to bright continuum sources could easily be rejected. A lower threshold for the source finder resulted in a much larger proportion of candidates that were deemed unreliable after visual inspection. Moment maps of all candidate detections have been further inspected and analysed interactively resulting in some additional detections of interesting features. As these features were sought preferentially in the direct vicinity of other galaxies, they have not been cataloged to the same level of completeness throughout the data volume. Although many of these features appear highly significant, their derived properties are often quite sensitive to the form of the spectral baseline that is subtracted.
We have found two classes of objects. The first ones are relatively narrow lines, with a total line width of $\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$ or a FWHM of $\sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$ and a peak brightness per 26 km s$^{-1}$ velocity channel that only exceeds the local noise by a factor three or four. The second class of objects has very broad line widths of up to $\sim 500$ km s$^{-1}$, however the measured brightness per line channel only exceeds the local noise by a factor two, or not at all. Because of the broad line widths, the integrated detections have a high significance, but such features are particularly difficult to detect with an automatic source finder. Although the detections seem significant, they need further confirmation as the nature and broad line-width of these objects is unexpected. Nevertheless it seems unlikely that these detections are an artefact of the reduction pipeline or the method of bandpass estimation. Only a second order polynomial has been fit to the bandpass in each spectrum. For most of the broad lines, a range of channels is systematically elevated above the rest of the spectrum and the transition is quite sharp. Higher order polynomials would be needed to artificially create such features.
Discussion
==========
In this paper we describe how a significant part of the raw HIPASS observations have been reprocessed. The reprocessed region covers the right ascension range from 8 to 17 hours and Declinations from -1 to 10 degrees. A source catalogue and features without optical counterparts have been presented. Although the original HIPASS product is an excellent one in its own right, by improving the reduction and processing pipeline the quality and number of detections can be significantly improved. The main purpose of reprocessing this particular region is because of the overlap with the WVFS survey as described in and and the HIPASS data complements the two data products of the WVFS survey. The first WVFS product has a worse flux sensitivity than the HIPASS data, but a better column density sensitivity due to the very low resolution of this dataset. On the opposite the second WVFS product has a better flux sensitivity than the HIPASS data, but a worse column density sensitivity as the resolution of this data is higher than the resolution of the Parkes telescope.
We will leave detailed analysis and discussion to a later paper, when the three independent datasets will be compared. A few comments will be made that are relevant to this dataset and these detections.
Red-shifted OH
--------------
There are several detections, both in the source list, as well as identified as possible filaments, that do not have an optical counterpart. Because there is no optical counterpart, the origin of these features is not straightforward. All detections were considered to be detections that could reside in the vicinity of other objects as tidal remnants or Cosmic Web features. Another scenario that has not been explored is red-shifted OH emission from sources at a redshift of $z\sim0.15$. The 1665.401/1667.358 MHz doublet of an OH megamaser emitted at this redshift would have an observed frequency of $\sim 1415$ MHz. Although confirmed detections of these red-shifted OH megamasers have not yet been reported, they are predicted to be found in blind surveys . ALFALFA [@2005AJ....130.2598G] expects to find several dozen OHMs in the redshift interval 0.16-0.25. Although the area covered by ALFALFA is significantly larger, based on these numbers we can expect to detect a few OHMs in our survey volume. To detect the OH doublet, two similar peaks should be identified with a separation of $\sim 350$ km s$^{-1}$. When looking at the profiles of known OHMs in e.g. [@2002AJ....124..100D], the doublet is not always clearly apparent and so this requirement might be somewhat relaxed. All the documented OHMs do have a broad line-width, typically larger than 300 km s$^{-1}$. This consideration rules out most of our detections without optical counterparts as candidate OHMs, as the line-widths are much narrower. There are however a few cases, where this may be a possible scenario, namely: HRF 0948+0043, HRF 1224+0846, HRF 1225+0826 and HRF 1323+0206. The other prediction of this scenario is that a suitable ULIRG at $z\sim0.15$ should be coincident with the $\sim$1415 MHz line detection. We have sought for objects at the appropriate redshift that coincide with the spatial positions of these detections, but did not find any sources that could cause redshifted OH emission.
Gas accretion modes
-------------------
An interesting question regarding structure formation is how the intergalactic medium fuels the galaxies; ie. how gas is accreted. The two most discussed scenarios are hot mode and cold mode accretion [@2005MNRAS.363....2K]. The line-width of a detection can be used to estimate the upper limit of the kinetic temperature of the gas and is given by:
$$T_{kin} \leq \frac{m_H\Delta V^2}{8k\ln 2}$$
where $m_H$ is the mass of an hydrogen atom, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $\Delta V$ is the line-width at FWHM. This equation gives an upper limit to kinetic temperature, as internal turbulence or rotation can also increase the line-width of an object.
In the case of cold mode accretion with temperatures of the order of $T < 10^5$ K, the line-widths of the gas are relatively narrow, up to $\sim100$ km s$^{-1}$. The conditions to observe such gas are relatively easily satisfied, the neutral fraction in cold gas is still significant so that the column density is still high. Although it is difficult to distinguish tidal remnants from pristine gas that is fuelling the galaxies, gas accretion is a very plausible scenario. The details of our detections will be discussed later when other data products are included. There are however a handful of detections in the direct vicinity of other galaxies that are not bright, but have line-widths up to $>500$ km s$^{-1}$. One possible scenario is that this is red-shifted OH emission as is discussed in the previous subsection, but this is very unlikely. These line-widths are however also the line-widths that are expected in the case of hot-mode-accretion. This is gas that is gradually shock heated during structure formation to virial temperatures and than rapidly cools down to accrete onto the galaxies, for a more extended explanation see [@2005MNRAS.363....2K]. Because this gas is highly ionised, the neutral fraction is very low, so the component of such gas is extremely small and very unlikely.
Conclusion
==========
Original data of the Parkes All Sky Survey has been reprocessed, that overlaps in sky coverage with the Westerbork Virgo Filament Survey. This region was selected to complement the WVFS and use HIPASS to confirm candidate detections. Furthermore, HIPASS is an excellent dataset, to search for diffuse features that can be related to the neutral component of the Cosmic Web.
By using an improved reduction strategy, we achieved a reduced RMS value and lower artefact level, compared to the original HIPASS product. In the reprocessed data, we achieve a noise value of $\sim 10$ mJy beam$^{-1}$ over 26 km s$^{-1}$, which is a $\sim 20$% improvement over the original HIPASS product. The data has a [**$1\sigma$**]{} brightness sensitivity of $\sim 3.5 \cdot 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$, which allows direct detection in emission of some of the higher column density Lyman Limit Systems seen in QSO absorption line studies.
The major difference with respect to the original HIPASS cubes is that negative artefacts in the bandpass in the vicinity of bright sources are almost completely eliminated. This allows us to search for diffuse and extended emission, which has not been possible before.
In total we have detected 203 objects in the reprocessed region, of which 29 had not been catalogued in the original HIPASS source catalogue. Fourteen of these detections are completely new detections, of which many do not have an optical counterpart. Although these detections are briefly mentioned, detailed discussion and possible confirmation from other data sets will be presented in a subsequent paper in this series.
In this work only a relatively small part of the HIPASS data has been reprocessed, as that survey covers the complete Southern sky and the Northern sky up to +24 degrees in Declination. Apart from this work, steps have been undertaken to further improve the reduction pipeline and reprocess the complete survey area. Improved data cubes, together with improved object-searching algorithms will permit detection of significantly more sources. This will provide improved statistics on the distribution of in the local universe. The reprocessed cubes will also permit an unbiased search for diffuse neutral hydrogen and Cosmic Web filaments, although currently there is no other all-sky survey with an appropriate brightness sensitivity and distinct angular resolution to complement this data.
We would like to thank several members of the HIPASS team and especially Mark Calabretta for help and useful discussions, that helped in improving the quality of the reduced HIPASS data. The Parkes telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO.
[21]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, D. G., [Staveley-Smith]{}, L., [de Blok]{}, W. J. G., [et al.]{} 2001, , 322, 486
, R. & [Thilker]{}, D. A. 2004, , 417, 421
, R. & [Ostriker]{}, J. P. 1999, , 514, 1
, J. & [Giovanelli]{}, R. 2002, , 124, 100
, R., [Cen]{}, R., [Ostriker]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2001, , 552, 473
, R., [Hernquist]{}, L., [Katz]{}, N., & [Weinberg]{}, D. H. 1999, , 511, 521
, R., [Haynes]{}, M. P., [Kent]{}, B. R., [et al.]{} 2005, , 130, 2598
, R. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. [Jacoby]{} & J. [Barnes]{}, 80–+
, B. R., [Giovanelli]{}, R., [Haynes]{}, M. P., [et al.]{} 2008, , 136, 713
, D., [Katz]{}, N., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., & [Dav[é]{}]{}, R. 2005, , 363, 2
, S.-W. & [Irwin]{}, J. A. 1997, , 490, 247
, M. J., [Zwaan]{}, M. A., [Webster]{}, R. L., [et al.]{} 2004, , 350, 1195
, A. 2010, [PhD thesis]{} (University of Groningen)
, A. & [Braun]{}, R. 2011, , 527, A90+
, A. & [Braun]{}, R. 2011, , 528, A28+
, M. E., [Staveley-Smith]{}, L., [Freeman]{}, K. C., [Gibson]{}, B. K., & [Barnes]{}, D. G. 2003, , 586, 170
, J. L. & [Schneider]{}, S. E. 2002, , 567, 247
, D. J., [Treu]{}, T., [Ellis]{}, R. S., & [Smith]{}, G. P. 2005, , 627, 32
, D. N., [Bean]{}, R., [Dor[é]{}]{}, O., [et al.]{} 2007, , 170, 377
, M. T. 2008, [Astronomers! Do You Know Where Your Galaxies are?]{}, ed. [Jerjen, H. & Koribalski, B. S.]{}, 343–+
, O. I., [Ryan-Weber]{}, E. V., [Garcia-Appadoo]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 2006, , 371, 1855
Spectra detections in the reprocessed Parkes All Sky Survey data.
=================================================================
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
[**Fig \[all\_spectra\].**]{} (continued)
[^1]: The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Geometrical optics (GO) is widely used in studies of electromagnetic materials because of its ease of use compared to full-wave numerical simulations. Exact solutions for waves can, however, differ significantly from the GO approximation. In particular, effects that are “perfect" for waves cannot usually be derived using GO. Here we give a method for designing materials in which GO is exact for some waves. This enables us to find interesting analytical solutions for exact wave propagation in inhomogeneous media. Two examples of the technique are given: a material in which two point sources do not interfere, and a perfect isotropic cloak for waves from a point source. We also give the form of material response required for GO to be exact for all waves.'
author:
- 'T. G. Philbin'
title: Making geometrical optics exact
---
Introduction
============
The development of numerical solvers has enabled physicists and engineers to predict with great accuracy the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the most complex media, provided the effective medium picture holds. These numerical tools enable the optimisation of device designs in advance of their experimental implementation. It is doubtful, however, if numerics alone has ever revealed interesting effects in electromagnetic materials. The space of all possible inhomogeneous, anisotropic materials is simply too vast to explore numerically. When progress is made, the initial insight invariably comes from other theoretical sources, usually intuition supported by approximate analytical calculation. The need for guidance by analytical techniques is illustrated by the development of metamaterials [@sarychev; @cui; @cai], in which the search for applications and novel effects has been heavily influenced by transformation optics [@leo]. One of the remarkable features of transformation optics is its ability to generate exact analytical results for wave propagation in inhomogeneous, anisotropic media. The tools of transformation optics deal with a very limited set of materials, however, and analytical results on the optics of inhomogeneous media have mostly been based on geometrical optics (GO). A great deal of information can be deduced using GO but the regime in which the GO approximation breaks down is also interesting. For example, the distinction between GO and exact wave optics has been central in understanding the limitations and possibilities of electromagnetic cloaking devices [@leo06; @pen06; @leo08; @per11].
GO is not just ray tracing; it is [*approximate*]{} wave optics. The ray trajectories of GO are orthogonal to the wave fronts as they appear in the GO approximation, and the spacing between the GO wavefronts is obtained from the eikonal equation [@born]. The exact wave fronts (in general) differ from those of GO and their derivation is usually vastly more difficult than ray tracing and solving the eikonal equation. Working within the GO approximation allows design ideas to be developed far more easily, and if methods can be found to make GO solutions [*exact*]{} then designing interesting solutions for exact wave propagation becomes more feasible. The question of whether GO is exact is dependent on the optical medium and on the spatial form of the amplitude of the wave (see section \[sec:GO\]). Familiar examples of waves in homogeneous media for which GO is exact are plane waves and scalar spherical waves, but GO is not exact for simple wave forms such as vector spherical waves and (scalar or vector) cylindrical waves. In this paper we describe a method for finding medium/wave combinations for which GO is exact. To simplify the discussion we restrict the analysis to scalar waves obeying the Helmholtz equation; a similar theory can be developed for vector waves. In section \[sec:GO\] we recall the GO approximation and section \[sec:method\] describes the method for deriving wave solutions for which GO is exact. Two examples of the method are presented in section \[sec:ex\]. Our method generates refractive-index profiles in which GO is exact for a particular wave; the type of material response required for GO to be exact for all waves is discussed in section \[sec:res\].
Geometrical optics for scalar waves {#sec:GO}
===================================
We consider monochromatic scalar waves in an isotropic, inhomogeneous medium, satisfying the Helmholtz equation $$\label{helm}
\left[\bm{\nabla}^2+\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}n^2(\bm{r},\omega)\right]\psi(\bm{r},\omega)=0.$$ A similar analysis to what follows can be performed for vector waves using the derivation of the GO approximation from Maxwell’s equations [@born]. If the frequency-domain, complex wave $\psi(\bm{r},\omega)$ is written in terms of its amplitude and phase, $$\label{psiRS}
\psi(\bm{r},\omega)=R(\bm{r}){\rm e}^{{\rm i}S(\bm{r})},$$ where $R(\bm{r})$ and $S(\bm{r})$ are real, then (\[helm\]) gives the two real equations $$\begin{gathered}
(\bm{\nabla}S)^2-\frac{\bm{\nabla}^2R}{R}-\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}n^2(\bm{r},\omega)=0, \label{SR1} \\
\bm{\nabla\cdot}(R^2\bm{\nabla}S)=0. \label{SR2} \end{gathered}$$ The GO approximation corresponds to neglecting the second term in (\[SR1\]), which then reduces to the eikonal equation of GO [@born]: $$\label{GO}
(\bm{\nabla}S)^2-\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}n^2(\bm{r},\omega)=0.$$ Comparing (\[SR1\]) with (\[GO\]), we see that GO gives an approximate solution for the phase $S(\bm{r})$ of the wave. The ray trajectories of GO lie on the gradients $\bm{\nabla}S$ of this approximate phase and are therefore not (in general) orthogonal to the exact phase fronts of the wave. Even in those cases where the GO ray trajectories are orthogonal to the exact phase fronts, the GO approximate phase $S(\bm{r})$ may not give the exact phase accumulation along the ray (cylindrical waves provide a simple example of this). The exact phase $S(\bm{r})$ is coupled to the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ via the non-linear equations (\[SR1\]) and (\[SR2\]), which are very difficult to solve analytically except in a few simple cases. It is the decoupling of the phase from the amplitude in (\[GO\]) compared to (\[SR1\]) that makes GO more tractable mathematically; once the GO phase is found from (\[GO\]) the amplitude is separately determined by (\[SR2\]).
It is curious that the optics community has not given a name to the term $\bm{\nabla}^2R/R$ in (\[SR1\]), despite the fact that this term is responsible for the difference between exact wave optics and GO. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, there is a name for this term—it is called the [*quantum potential*]{} [@bohm; @holland; @durr]. The Helmholtz equation (\[helm\]) is the time-independent Schrödinger equation and the quantum potential $\bm{\nabla}^2R/R$ in (\[SR1\]) is the main reason why the predictions of quantum mechanics differ from those of classical mechanics (the other reason is the requirement for $\psi$ to be single valued) [@bohm; @holland; @durr]. The term $\bm{\nabla}^2R/R$ is just as significant in optics as it is in mechanics; given the lack of an optical designation for this term we will refer to it here as the quantum potential.
Method {#sec:method}
======
If the quantum potential vanishes, i.e. if the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ of the wave satisfies $$\label{qpzero}
\frac{\bm{\nabla}^2R}{R}=0,$$ then GO is exact and the solution of (\[GO\]) gives the exact phase $S(\bm{r})$ and therefore the exact wave fronts. The amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ can then be found by solving (\[SR2\]). Equation (\[qpzero\]) holds for plane waves and spherical waves, for example, and GO is therefore exact for these waves. The relation (\[qpzero\]) is not restricted to $r\neq0$ for a spherical wave $e^{ikr}/r$: the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ for this wave goes as $r^{-1}$ and so $\bm{\nabla}^2R/R\propto r\bm{\nabla}^2r^{-1}\propto r\delta(r)=0$, for all $r$. But the spherical wave has a point source at $r=0$ so that the Helmholtz equation (\[helm\]) is not valid at $r=0$ (a delta-function source term is required on the right-hand side). Equation (\[qpzero\]) does not hold for cylindrical waves so GO is not exact in this case. A cylindrical wave is proportional to a Hankel function whereas the GO solution is proportional to $e^{{\rm i}kr}/\sqrt{r}$, the asymptotic limit of the Hankel function. As noted above, the cylindrical wave provides an example where the GO rays are orthogonal to the exact phase fronts but the GO phase differs from the exact phase.
Note that if $$\label{StoR}
S(\bm{r})\propto \frac{1}{R(\bm{r})}$$ then the exact wave equation (\[SR2\]) becomes $$\label{lap}
\bm{\nabla}^2R=0,$$ which gives (\[qpzero\]) (barring any zeros in amplitude), and this in turn implies (\[GO\]). We can therefore generate a wave solution in a refractive index profile for which GO is exact as follows. Choose a solution of the Laplace equation (\[lap\]) for the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ and choose the phase $S(\bm{r})$ to be inversely proportional to $R(\bm{r})$. Then one part of the exact wave equation, namely (\[SR2\]), is automatically satisfied and the second part, equation (\[SR1\]), reduces to the eikonal equation (\[GO\]) which can be solved for $n(\bm{r},\omega)$ since $S(\bm{r})$ is known. The derived wave is by design exactly described by GO; for other waves in the derived index profile, GO will not be exact.
Examples {#sec:ex}
========
Waves without interference
--------------------------
Consider two point sources in vacuum, located at positions $(0,Y,0)$ and $(0,-Y,0)$. These sources separately produce spherical waves with amplitudes $$\begin{aligned}
R_1(\bm{r})&=-\frac{1}{4\pi\sqrt{x^2+(y-Y)^2+z^2}}, \label{R1} \\
R_2(\bm{r})&=-\frac{1}{4\pi\sqrt{x^2+(y+Y)^2+z^2}}, \label{R2}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The two spherical waves interfere as shown in Fig. \[fig:pointsvac\]. Applying the technique described in the previous section we choose the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ and phase $S(\bm{r})$ of a new wave to be $$\label{nowave}
R(\bm{r})=\frac{1}{2}\left(R_1(\bm{r})+R_2(\bm{r})\right), \quad S(\bm{r})=-\frac{\omega}{4\pi c R(\bm{r})}.$$
![Waves from two point sources in vacuum. The plot shows the amplitude of the wave in a two-dimensional slice through the point sources.[]{data-label="fig:pointsvac"}](waveswithinterference.pdf){width="9cm"}
The amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ satisfies Laplace’s equation because $R_1(\bm{r})$ and $R_2(\bm{r})$ are solutions of this equation; the wave (\[nowave\]) therefore meets the conditions, described in the previous section, for GO to be exact. The refractive index in which this wave propagates is given by substituting the phase $S(\bm{r})$ into the eikonal equation (\[GO\]). As the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ in (\[nowave\]) is chosen to be the average of the two point-source amplitudes, there is no interference in the resulting wave $R(\bm{r})e^{iS(\bm{r})}$. The wave propagation and refractive index profile in a 2D slice through the sources are shown in Fig. \[fig:wwi\]. The lack of any interference or scattering off the index profile is here an exact result, independent of the gradient of the refractive index compared to the wave-vector. It is relatively easy to design index profiles in which the GO ray trajectories for two point sources will be qualitatively the same as in the index profile in Fig. \[fig:wwi\], but such profiles will give scattering of the wave off the inhomogeneous material when the GO approximation is invalid. In contrast, the wave solution in Fig. \[fig:wwi\] is exact in the index profile shown. The refractive index ranges from $2$ at the sources to zero at one point midway between them; the index approaches $1$ at large distances from the sources. As the zero in the index occurs at an isolated point, it can be removed by the transmutation procedure of transformation optics [@tyc08; @leo] at the cost of introducing some anisotropy in the transmuted region.
![Wave from two point sources (top) in an inhomogeneous refractive index profile (bottom), both shown for a 2D slice through the position of the sources. The wave shows no interference or scattering, regardless of whether the index changes significantly over a wavelength. The refractive index ranges from $2$ at the source positions to $0$ at one point midway between the sources.[]{data-label="fig:wwi"}](waveswithoutinterference.pdf){width="9cm"}
![Wave from two point sources (top) in an inhomogeneous refractive index profile (bottom), both shown for a 2D slice through the position of the sources. The wave shows no interference or scattering, regardless of whether the index changes significantly over a wavelength. The refractive index ranges from $2$ at the source positions to $0$ at one point midway between the sources.[]{data-label="fig:wwi"}](waveswithoutinterferenceindex.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Cloaking of waves with an isotropic material
--------------------------------------------
Consider a point charge located at $(0,0,z_0)$, outside a zero-permittivity ball of radius $b$ centred on the origin. The electric-field lines from the charge are guided around the ball in much the same way as rays are guided around a cloaked region. Guiding of magnetic-field lines around zero-permeability (superconducting) objects is more familiar, but here we wish to have a point source for the field so we consider an electrostatic example of such field exclusion. Using the standard boundary-value methods of electrostatics [@jac], it is straightforward to show that the electric potential outside the ball is (for unit charge and with $\varepsilon_0=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\bm{r})=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+(z-z0)^2}} \right. \nonumber \\
& \quad\ \ \left. + \sum_{l=0}^\infty\frac{lb^{2l+1}}{(l+1)(z_0r)^{l+1}}P_l\left(\frac{z}{r}\right) \right], \quad r>b,\end{aligned}$$ where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$. We choose the amplitude $R(\bm{r})$ and phase $S(\bm{r})$ of our wave to be $$\label{cloakwave}
R(\bm{r})=-\phi(\bm{r}), \quad S(\bm{r})=-\frac{\omega}{4\pi c R(\bm{r})}.$$ Since the potential $\phi(\bm{r})$ satisfies Laplace’s equation, the wave (\[cloakwave\]) meets the conditions of section \[sec:method\] for GO to be exact. The wave propagation and the refractive-index profile, in a 2D slice through the source and the centre of the cloaked region, are shown in Fig. \[fig:cloak\]. The wave is guided around the spherical region $r<b$ which is cloaked. Far from the cloaked region the wave approaches that of a point source in vacuum. The maximum refractive-index value is $1.5$, at two isolated points on the boundary of the cloaked region lying on a line orthogonal to the direction to the source. The minimum index value is $0$, at two isolated points on the boundary of the cloaked region lying on a line through the centre of the cloaked region and the source. The two zeros of the refractive index can be removed by transmutation [@tyc08; @leo]. Note that this index profile only cloaks the region $r<b$ when a point source is placed at $(0,0,z_0)$; waves from other sources in this index profile will not be cloaked. This is in line with a general theorem that shows the impossibility of cloaking waves from all directions using an isotropic material [@nac88].
![Wave from a point source (top) in an inhomogeneous index profile (bottom). The plots show the wave and index profile in the $xz-$ or $yz$-plane. The wave is guided around a cloaked spherical region and at large distances is indistinguishable from the wave produced by a point source in vacuum.[]{data-label="fig:cloak"}](cloakingisotropic.pdf){width="8cm"}
![Wave from a point source (top) in an inhomogeneous index profile (bottom). The plots show the wave and index profile in the $xz-$ or $yz$-plane. The wave is guided around a cloaked spherical region and at large distances is indistinguishable from the wave produced by a point source in vacuum.[]{data-label="fig:cloak"}](cloakingisotropicindex.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
As in the previous example, it is not difficult to design index profiles in which the GO rays have the same qualitative behaviour as in the index profile of Fig. \[fig:cloak\]. Guiding of GO rays around some region is in fact the only feasible method for broadband omnidirectional electromagnetic cloaks, since perfect omnidirectional cloaking of waves is not strictly possible [@leo06; @pen06; @leo08; @per11]. The example derived here is different because GO is exact: there is no scattering of the wave off the inhomogeneous index profile, even if the wavelength is such that the gradient of the refractive index is comparable to the wave-vector. There is however a matching issue at the boundary of the cloaked region. In the omnidirectional perfect wave cloak [@pen06], the cloaked region is electromagnetically cut off from the exterior by a surface of zero refractive index (this surface of zero index cannot be transmuted away [@tyc08; @leo], rendering the perfect omnidirectional cloak impossible in practice). In the example derived here there is no such cut off, which means the wave can evanescently probe the cloaked region. This may degrade the cloaking effect compared to the ideal perfect cloaking in Fig. \[fig:cloak\].
Material response for exact geometrical optics {#sec:res}
==============================================
The method of section \[sec:method\] constructs a particular wave solution in a refractive-index profile such that GO is exact for the wave. An obvious question is whether there exists a material in which GO is exact for [*all*]{} waves. In terms of a refractive-index profile the answer to this question is negative, but if we allow for a material response not describable solely by a refractive index, then there exists a wave equation for which GO is exact for all waves. Consider the following modification of the Helmholtz equation: $$\label{helmmod}
\left[\bm{\nabla}^2+\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}n^2(\bm{r},\omega)\right]\psi-\frac{\bm{\nabla}^2|\psi|}{|\psi|}\,\psi=0.$$ If we again write the complex wave $\psi(\bm{r},\omega)$ in terms of its amplitude and phase, as in (\[psiRS\]), then (\[helmmod\]) is equivalent to the two real equations $$(\bm{\nabla}S)^2-\frac{\omega^2}{c^2}n^2(\bm{r},\omega)=0, \qquad
\bm{\nabla\cdot}(R^2\bm{\nabla}S)=0,$$ which are exactly the equations of GO. The material response described by the last term in (\[helmmod\]) is very unusual: it is not a nonlinear response because it scales linearly with the amplitude of the wave. The factor $\bm{\nabla}^2|\psi|/|\psi|$ describes an effective refractive index that depends on the factional spatial variation of the wave amplitude. It would be of great interest if a physical system could be found in which (\[helmmod\]) describes wave propagation—since GO would be exact for such waves, they would exhibit no interference effects. For example, a two-slit interference experiment would show an intensity pattern with no fringes; the classic demonstration of the wave nature of light would in this case fail to show any wave behaviour.
As noted in section \[sec:GO\], the Helmholtz equation is the time-independent Schrödinger equation and we have seen that modifying the latter to read (\[helmmod\]) corresponds to zero quantum potential for all waves. Vanishing quantum potential is the requirement for the predictions of quantum mechanics to be exactly classical [@bohm; @holland; @durr]. It was noted long ago that addition of a term $-\psi\bm{\nabla}^2|\psi|/|\psi|$ to the Schrödinger equation removes all quantum effects [@sch62; @holland]. As with the significance of the quantum potential generally, these insights are not often translated into optical language where they illuminate the relation between exact wave optics and GO.
Conclusions
===========
In situations where GO is exact the problem of wave propagation simplifies enormously and exact analytical solutions are greatly facilitated. We have developed a method for generating wave solutions in inhomogeneous refractive-index profiles for which GO is exact. The method allows the exploration of exact wave propagation in inhomogeneous media without resorting to full-wave numerical simulations. Two examples of the technique were given (i) an index profile in which two point sources at specified positions do not interfere, and (ii) an index profile that cloaks the wave from a point source at one position. We have also pointed out the kind of material response required for GO to be exact for all waves.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
EPSRC provided financial support under Program Grant EP/I034548/1.
[99]{}
Sarychev, A.K.; Shalaev, V.M. [*Electrodynamics of Metamaterials*]{}; World Scientific: Singapore, 2007.
Cui, T.J.; Smith, D.R.; Liu, R., Eds; [*Metamaterials*]{}; Springer: Berlin, 2009.
Cai, W.; Shalaev, V.M. [*Optical Metamaterials*]{}; Springer: Berlin, 2009.
Leonhardt, U.; Philbin, T.G. [*Geometry and Light*]{}; Dover: New York, 2010.
Leonhardt, U. [*Science*]{} [**2006**]{}, [*312*]{}, 1777–1780.
Pendry, J.B.; Schurig, D.; Smith, D. [*Science*]{} [**2006**]{}, [*312*]{}, 1780–1782.
Leonhardt, U.; Tyc T. [*Science*]{} [**2008**]{}, [*323*]{}, 110–112.
Perczel J.; Tyc T.; Leonhardt, U. [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**2011**]{}, [*13*]{}, 1083007.
Born, M.; Wolf, E. [*Principles of Optics*]{}; 7th ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.
Bohm, D.; Hiley, B.J. [*The Undivided Universe*]{}; Routledge: London, 1995.
Holland, P.R. [*The Quantum Theory of Motion*]{}; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995.
Dürr, D.; Teufel, S. [*Bohmian Mechanics*]{}; Springer: Berlin, 2009.
Tyc, T.; Leonhardt, U. [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**2008**]{}, [*10*]{}, 115038.
Jackson, J.D. [*Classical Electrodynamics*]{}; 3rd ed.; Wiley: New York, 1999.
Nachman, A.I. [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**1988**]{}, [*128*]{}, 531–576.
Schiller, R. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**1962**]{}, [*125*]{}, 1100–1108.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Uncertainties in knowledge of neutrino interactions directly impact the ability to measure the parameters of neutrino oscillation. Experiments which make use of differing technologies and neutrino beams are sensitive to different uncertainties.'
author:
- 'Christopher W. Walter'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Why understanding neutrino interactions is important for oscillation physics
---
[address=[Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 USA]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Strong evidence for neutrino oscillation and the existence of neutrino mass exists from atmospheric neutrinos [@Ashie:2005ik], solar neutrinos [@Fukuda:2002pe; @Ahmad:2002jz], reactor experiments [@Araki:2004mb], and long baseline oscillation experiments [@Ahn:2006zz]. The recent results from the MiniBooNE experiment [@AguilarArevalo:2007it] have confirmed our standard model of neutrino oscillations. The picture of neutrino physics we have extracted is that there are three active neutrinos with two mass splittings. Of the three mixing angles needed to mix the three mass states together, two are large or near maximal and one is small and possibly zero.
Theoretical attempts to explain why the neutrino masses are so small and their mixings are large often rely on physics at the GUT scale (for a recent discussion see [@unknown:2005br]). One of the most popular ideas, known as the See-Saw mechanism [@seesaw], coupled with CP violation in neutrinos produces leptogenesis [@Fukugita:1986hr], where a lepton matter/antimatter asymmetry caused by the decay of heavy neutrinos is converted into a baryon asymmetry and explains why today we live in a matter dominated universe. To explore these ideas there are a set of questions which need to be experimentally addressed. These are:
- What is the relative pattern of masses of the known neutrino mass differences?
- What is the size of the one neutrino mixing angle that has not been measured? Is it large enough to allow us to eventually measure the violation of CP if it exists?
- Do neutrino violate CP symmetry?
- Unlike quarks the neutrino mixing angles that have been measured are large, some possibly even maximal. Are the largest angles really maximal and what would that imply?
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where we can cleanly interact neutrinos off of single quarks. Quarks come bundled inside of nucleons which themselves are found in the nucleus. For this reason, in order to extract the information about neutrino oscillations and masses we wish from our experiments, we must also understand the physics of neutrino interactions inside of nuclear material.
Cross Sections
==============
Since the first NuInt01 meeting [@Morfin:2002fk] we have made a lot of progress in this field. However, there are many outstanding questions, some of them quite basic. One example, which has been noted experimentally by both the K2K and MiniBooNE experiments, is the unexpected suppression at low $Q^2$ of charged-current quasi-elastic interactions. At this meeting we saw new work from the MiniBooNE collaboration to address this issue \[See these proceedings\].
There are also subtler effects that take place in the nucleus, some dependent on the type of nucleus the interaction takes place in. The neutrino interaction cross-sections are shown (along with some data) in figure \[fig:cross-section\] which is taken from [@Lipari:1994pz].
![The neutrino nucleon cross section as a function of neutrino energy. Below 1 GeV the cross section is dominated by quasi-elastic interactions. For these interactions the neutrino energy can be reconstructed using only the outgoing lepton.[]{data-label="fig:cross-section"}](fig1-1){width="4.5in"}
Different experiments sample different parts of this figure. For example, the T2K experiment [@Itow:2001ee] has a beam which is peaked below 1 GeV and is therefore dominated by quasi-elastic interactions. The NoVa [@Ambats:2004js] experiment on the other hand uses neutrinos in the few-GeV and above range.
An important way to mitigate the problems due to uncertainties in these cross-sections is to use both a near and far detector to measure the interactions before and after interactions. However, what is measured in each detector is the flux$\times$cross-section and any differences in detector efficiency, flux, or cross-section between the two detectors will be convolved with the errors due to the nuclear effects and will not completely cancel.
The are several types of interaction uncertainties to consider, and which ones are important depend both on the detector technology being used, and the physics analysis being performed. Future experiments which wish to probe CP violation will also make use of anti-neutrino beams, and so we must understand the cross-sections of those anti-neutrinos on nuclear material as well. The first results from high statistics anti-neutrino running were shown by the MiniBooNE collaboration in this meeting \[See these proceedings\].
Reconstructing Neutrino Events in Detectors {#sec:detectors}
===========================================
Neutrino oscillation analyses can be broadly separated into two classes: searches for neutrino disappearance and appearance. In disappearance experiments, a neutrino flavor oscillates into another neutrino flavor for which there is not enough energy for a charged-current interaction to take place and produce a lepton. The measured effect is a distortion in the observed energy spectrum at the far detector. In an appearance experiment, one searches for the appearance of a flavor at the far detector which was not present in the initial beam. Different experiments use different techniques depending both on the detector technology used and the energy of the incoming neutrinos. Here, I touch on three illustrative examples which show uncertainties in neutrino interactions can affect oscillation results.
1. Reconstruction of the neutrino energy spectrum in large Water Cherenkov detectors.
2. Reconstruction of the neutrino energy spectrum in large calorimetric detectors.
3. Identification and reconstruction of tau neutrino events in large hybrid tracking/emulsion detectors.
### Water Cherenkov detectors: the effect of non-QE interactions {#sec:water}
\[sec:nonqe-effect\]
Water Cherenkov detectors like Super-Kamiokande [@Fukuda:2002uc] achieve a large mass by using water both as a target and active detector element. However, because of the nature of the Cherenkov process not all particles produced in neutrino interactions are visible in a water Cherenkov detector. Fortunately, if the reaction is quasi-elastic(QE) the kinematics of the event and the incoming neutrino energy can be reconstructed using only the energy and angle with respect to the beam of the produced lepton. Equation \[eq:recon-energy\] shows the relationship between the incoming neutrino energy and the reconstructed momentum of the produced lepton.
$$E_\nu = { m_N E_\mu - m_u^{2}/2
\over m_N - E_\mu + p_\mu \cos(\theta_\mu) } ,
\label{eq:recon-energy}$$
Unfortunately, those events which are not due to quasi-elastic interactions will have their energies systematically underestimated. Figure \[fig:oscillation\] shows the effect on mis-reconstruction on an oscillation experiment.
![The top panel shows the Monte Carlo K2K spectrum at Super-K with oscillations applied. The oscillation dip at 700 MeV maximally suppresses the flux of [$\nu_{\mu}$]{}neutrinos. The non-QE interactions(hatched region) are un-effected by oscillations because their energy is too high. The bottom panel shows the same thing using reconstructed energy. The non-QE interactions “fill in” the oscillation dip.[]{data-label="fig:oscillation"}](nonQE-oscillation){width="\figurewidth"}
For this reason, it is quite important to accurately model the fraction and shape of this non-QE “background”. The parameter [$\sin^2 2 \theta$]{}determines the overall normalization of the oscillation suppression, with [$\sin^2 2 \theta$]{}=1 resulting in a complete suppression of the flux. If the amount of non-QE interactions is not-properly modeled, then the overall suppression in the oscillation region will not be modeled properly either, and the less than maximal suppression will be incorrectly interpreted as a [$\sin^2 2 \theta$]{}less than unity.
### Calorimetric detectors: the effect of pion absorption
Large calorimetric detectors like MINOS [@Michael:2006rx] use a different reconstruction technique and are most sensitive to a different set of interaction uncertainties. One advantage of a colorimetric detectors relative to water Cherenkov detectors is that all of the particles are in principle visible. However, in order to range out the particles in high energy interactions heavy materials such as steel are often used. In the MINOS experiment a large fraction of the events come from deep inelastic scattering and in order to reconstruct the neutrino energy the energy of the outgoing lepton plus all pions and secondary particles in the shower must be added up. Equation \[eq:recon-energy-calor\] shows the relationship between the incoming neutrino energy and the reconstructed momentum of the produced lepton and energy of any associated shower,
$$E_\nu = E_\mu + E_{shower}.
\label{eq:recon-energy-calor}$$
This use of this technique means that any unaccounted for loss in energy of the shower will directly translate into an error on the reconstructed energy scale. The can happen as pion are absorbed in the steel planes and within the iron nuclei themselves. This energy scale uncertainty caused by hadronic interactions is currently on the order of 10% in the MINOS experiment and is the second largest systematic error on the measured [$\Delta m^2$]{}. The effect on internuclear interactions in the MINOS experiment was nicely demonstrated my M. Kordoski at the NuInt05 meeting [@Cavanna:2006ry].
### Tracking detectors: The effect of charm production
Hybrid emulsion tracking detectors like the OPERA experiment [@Marteau:2007uf] face a very different set of problems and challenges. OPERA is an appearance experiment and is looking for the tell-tale kink of a tau decay in their emulsion. Tracking chambers are used to guide an automatic emulsion scanning system back to the vertex of the event. At this point a kinematic reconstruction and topological analysis is done to attempt to identify the small number of tau events expected in the sample.
The main backgrounds for this sort analysis include hadronic re-interactions which can cause kinks in tracks that look like decays and charm decays which can be misidentified as having tau-decay topology. Future decreases in the uncertainties in charm production cross-sections would decrease the uncertainty on this background.
Modeling Interactions in the Nucleus
====================================
All of the effects motioned above must be modeled in our neutrino interaction Monte Carlos. The previous examples were only a few of the effects that must be considered. Intense theoretical and modeling work is addressing a whole suite of issues in neutrino interaction physics. Many of these issues are addressed more fully in this volume. Due to lack of space, I only list many of the more relevant issues here:
- The modeling of the quasi-elastic cross-section and axial mass.
- New work on non-dipole nuclear form factors.
- Models of resonant and coherent pion production.
- Deep inelastic scattering and the transition to the resonance region.
- Proper modeling of final states due to the Pauli exclusion principle.
- The use of spectral functions to model binding energy and lepton momentum.
- The re-scattering of final state particles in the nucleus.
- The modification of parton distribution functions in the presence of other nucleons.
One item in this list above deserves special mention since it was the subject of intense discussion in this workshop. The K2K experiment has measured a striking deficit in the amount of charge-current coherent pion production [@Hasegawa:2005td]. The amount of neutral current production on the other hand seems to agree with the theoretical models. The amount of pion production in neutrino beams is of importance to the next generation of long-baseline experiments since mis-identified neutral pions are an important source of background in the search for electron neutrino appearance.
New theoretical work presented at this workshop can explain at least some of this deficit in the charged current channel by correctly incorporating the mass of the final state lepton in the calculations.
Conclusions
===========
Uncertainties in neutrino interactions are a important source of systematic errors when trying to make precision measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters. Not only must the effects themselves be understood and properly modeled but the uncertainties on these effects need to be properly accounted for in analyses.
The NuInt series has been extremely important both in addressing these issues and in fostering new experimental collaborations. The new data we see in this meeting and we soon expect to see from dedicated interaction experiments will be a crucial piece of the world-wide effort to untangle the unknown physics of neutrino oscillations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Let ${\cal I}_n$ be the symmetric inverse semigroup on $X_n = \{1,
2, \ldots , n\}$ and let ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n$ be its subsemigroups of order-decreasing partial isometries and of order-preserving and order-decreasing partial isometries of $X_n$, respectively. In this paper we investigate the cardinalities of some equivalences on ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n$ which lead naturally to obtaining the order of the semigroups.[^1] [^2]
---
[**COMBINATORIAL RESULTS FOR CERTAIN SEMIGROUPS OF ORDER-DECREASING PARTIAL ISOMETRIES OF A FINITE CHAIN**]{}\
**F. Al-Kharousi, R. Kehinde and A. Umar**\
\[section\] \[theorem\][[**Proposition**]{}]{} \[theorem\][[**Lemma**]{}]{} \[theorem\][[**Corollary**]{}]{} \[theorem\][[**Remark**]{}]{} \[theorem\][[**Conjecture**]{}]{}
*MSC2010*: 20M18, 20M20, 05A10, 05A15.
Introduction and Preliminaries
==============================
Let $X_n=\{1,2, \ldots, n\}$ and ${\cal I}_n$ be the partial one-to-one transformation semigroup on $X_n$ under composition of mappings. Then ${\cal I}_n$ is an [*inverse*]{} semigroup (that is, for all $\alpha \in {\cal I}_n$ there exists a unique $\alpha' \in
{\cal I}_n$ such that $\alpha = \alpha\alpha'\alpha$ and $\alpha' =
\alpha'\alpha\alpha'$). The importance of ${\cal I}_n$ (more commonly known as the [*symmetric inverse semigroup or monoid*]{}) to inverse semigroup theory may be likened to that of the symmetric group ${\cal S}_n$ to group theory. Every finite inverse semigroup $S$ is embeddable in ${\cal I}_n$, the analogue of Cayley’s theorem for finite groups. Thus, just as the study of symmetric, alternating and dihedral groups has made a significant contribution to group theory, so has the study of various subsemigroups of ${\cal I}_n$, see for example [@Bor; @Fer1; @Fer2; @Gar; @Lar; @Uma1; @Uma2].
A transformation $\alpha \in {\cal I}_n$ is said to be [*order-preserving (order-reversing)*]{} if $(\forall x,y \in \
\dom \alpha)\ x \leq y \implies x\alpha \leq y\alpha \ (x\alpha
\geq y\alpha)$ and, an [*isometry (or distance-preserving)*]{} if ($\forall x,y \in \dom \alpha) \mid x-y\mid = \mid x\alpha -y\alpha\mid$. We shall denote by ${\cal DP}_n$ and ${\cal ODP}_n$, the semigroups of partial isometries and of order-preserving partial isometries of an $n-$chain, respectively. Eventhough semigroups of partial isometries on more restrictive but richer mathematical structures have been studied by Wallen [@Wal], and Bracci and Picasso [@Bra] the study of the corresponding semigroups on chains was only initiated recently by Al-Kharousi et al. [@Kha1; @Kha2]. A little while later, Kehinde et al. [@Keh] studied ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n,$ the order-decreasing analogues of ${\cal DP}_n$ and ${\cal ODP}_n$, respectively.
Analogous to Al-Kharousi et al. [@Kha2], this paper investigates the combinatorial properties of ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n$, thereby complementing the results in Kehinde et al. [@Keh] which dealt mainly with the algebraic and rank properties of these semigroups. In this section we introduce basic definitions and terminology as well as quote some elementary results from Section 1 of Al-Kharousi et al. [@Kha1] and Kehinde et al. [@Keh] that will be needed in this paper. In Section 2 we obtain the cardinalities of two equivalences defined on ${\cal ODDP}_n$ and ${\cal DDP}_n$. These equivalences lead to formulae for the orders of ${\cal ODDP}_n$ and ${\cal DDP}_n$ as well as new triangles of numbers that were as a result of this work recently recorded in [@Slo].
For standard concepts in semigroup and symmetric inverse semigroup theory, see for example [@How; @Lip]. In particular $E(S)$ denotes the set of idempotents of $S$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn1.1} {\cal DDP}_n= \{\alpha \in {\cal DP}_n:
(\forall \ x\in\dom \alpha) \ x\alpha \leq x\}.\end{aligned}$$ be the subsemigroup of ${\cal I}_n$ consisting of all order-decreasing partial isometries of $X_n$. Also let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn1.2} {\cal ODDP}_n= \{\alpha \in {\cal DDP}_n:
(\forall \ x,y\in \dom \alpha)\ x\leq y \Longrightarrow x\alpha\leq
y\alpha\}\end{aligned}$$ be the subsemigroup of ${\cal DDP}_n$ consisting of all order-preserving and order-decreasing partial isometries of $X_n$. Then we have the following result.
\[lem1.1\] ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n$ are subsemigroups of ${\cal I}_n$.
\[rem1\] ${\cal DDP}_n={\cal DP}_n \cap{\cal I}_n^-$ and ${\cal ODDP}_n={\cal ODP}_n \cap{\cal I}_n^-$, where ${\cal I}_n^-$ is the semigroup of partial one-to-one order-decreasing transformations of $X_n$ [@Uma1].
Next, let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary element in ${\cal I}_n$. The [*height*]{} or [*rank*]{} of $\alpha$ is $h(\alpha)= \mid \im \alpha\mid$, the [*right \[left\] waist*]{} of $\alpha$ is $w^+(\alpha) = max(\im \alpha)\,
[w^-(\alpha) = min(\im \alpha)]$, the [*right \[left\] shoulder*]{} of $\alpha$ is $\varpi^+(\alpha) = max(\dom \alpha)$ \[$\varpi(\alpha) = min(\dom \alpha)]$, and [*fix*]{} of $\alpha$ is denoted by $f(\alpha)$, and defined by $f(\alpha)=|F(\alpha)|$, where $$F(\alpha) = \{x \in X_n: x\alpha = x\}.$$
Next we quote some parts of [@Kha1 Lemma 1.2] that will be needed as well as state some additional observations that will help us understand more the cycle structure of order-decreasing partial isometries.
\[lem1.2\] Let $\alpha\in {\cal DP}_n$. Then we have the following:
- The map $\alpha$ is either order-preserving or order-reversing. Equivalently, $\alpha$ is either a translation or a reflection.
- If $f(\alpha)=p>1$ then $f(\alpha)=h(\alpha)$. Equivalently, if $f(\alpha)>1$ then $\alpha$ is a partial identity.
- If $\alpha$ is order-preserving and $f(\alpha)\geq 1$ then $\alpha$ is a partial identity.
- If $\alpha$ is order-preserving then it is either strictly order-decreasing\
($x\alpha < x$ for all $x$ in $\dom \alpha$) or strictly order-increasing ($x\alpha > x$ for all $x$ in $\dom \alpha$) or a partial identity.
- If $F(\alpha)=\{i\}$ (for $1\leq i\leq n$) then for all $x\in \dom \alpha$ we have that $x+x\alpha=2i$.
- If $\alpha$ is order-decreasing and $i\in F(\alpha)$ ($1\leq i\leq n)$ then for all $x\in \dom
\alpha$ such that $x < i$ we have $x\alpha =x$.
- If $\alpha$ is order-decreasing and $F(\alpha)=\{i\}$ then $\dom \alpha\subseteq \{i, i+1,\ldots,n\}$.
Combinatorial results
=====================
For a nice survey article concerning combinatorial problems in the symmetric inverse semigroup and some of its subsemigroups we refer the reader to Umar [@Uma2].
As in Umar [@Uma2], for natural numbers $n\geq
p\geq m\geq 0$ and $n\geq i\geq 0$ we define
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn3.1} F(n;p_i)= \mid\{\alpha \in S:
h(\alpha)=\mid \im \alpha\mid = i \}\mid,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn3.2} F(n;m_i)= \mid\{\alpha \in S:
f(\alpha)= i \}\mid\end{aligned}$$
where $S$ is any subsemigroup of ${\cal I}_n$. From [@Kha2 Proposition 2.4] we have
\[thrm2.1\] Let $S = {\cal ODP}_n.$ Then $F(n;p)= \frac{(2n-p+1)}{p+1}{n\choose p}$, where $n\geq p \geq
1$.
We now have
\[prop2.2\] Let $S = {\cal ODDP}_n$. Then $F(n;p)= \pmatrix{n+1\cr p+1}$, where $n\geq p \geq 1$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}By virtue of Lemma \[lem1.2\]\[d\] and Theorem \[thrm2.1\] we see that
$$\begin{aligned}
F(n;p) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{2n-p+1}{p+1}{n\choose p}-{n\choose p}\right]+{n\choose p}\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{2(n-p)}{p+1}{n\choose p}\right]+{n\choose p}\\
& = & \frac{n-p}{p+1}{n\choose p}+{n\choose p}
= {n\choose p+1} + {n\choose p} = {n+1\choose p+1}.\\\end{aligned}$$
[$\Box$]{}
The proof of the next lemma is routine using Proposition \[prop2.2\]
\[lem2.3\] Let $S={\cal ODDP}_n$. Then $F(n;p)=F(n-1;p-1)+F(n-1;p)$, for all $n\geq p\geq 2$.
\[thrm2.4\] $\mid {\cal ODDP}_n\mid = 2^{n+1}-(n+1).$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It is enough to observe that $\mid {\cal ODDP}_n\mid=
\sum_{p=0}^{n}F(n;p)$.
\[lem2.5\] Let $S={\cal ODDP}_n$. Then $F(n;m)={n\choose m}$, for all $n\geq m\geq 1$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It follows directly from Lemma \[lem1.2\]\[b,c\] and the fact that all idempotents are necessarily order-decreasing. [$\Box$]{}
\[prop2.6\] Let $U_n=\{\alpha\in {\cal ODDP}_n: f(\alpha)=0\}$. Then $\mid {U_n}\mid=\\ \mid {\cal ODDP}_{n-1}\mid$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}The proof is similar to that of [@Uma1 Theorem 4.3]. [$\Box$]{}
The triangles of numbers $F(n;p)$ and $F(n;m)$, have as a result of this work appeared in Sloane [@Slo] as \[A184049\] and \[A184050\], respectively.
Now we turn our attention to counting order-reversing partial isometries. First recall from [@Keh Section3.2(c)] that order-decreasing and order-reversing partial isometries exist only for heights less than or equal to $n/2$. We now have
\[lem2.8\] Let $S={\cal DDP}^*_n$ be the set of order-reversing partial isometries of $X_n$. Then $F(n;p_0)= 1$ and $F(n;p_1)=\pmatrix{n+1\cr 2}$, for all $n\geq 1$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}These follow from the simple observation that $$\{\alpha\in
{\cal ODDP}_n: h(\alpha)=0\,\,\mbox{or}\,\, 1\}=\{\alpha\in {\cal
DDP}^*_n: h(\alpha)=0\,\,\mbox{or}\,\, 1\}$$ and Proposition \[prop2.2\].[$\Box$]{}
\[lem2.10\] Let $\alpha\in {\cal
DDP}^*_n$. Then for all $p\geq 1$ we have\
$F(2p+1,p+1)=1$ and $F(2p,p)=3$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}[**(i)**]{} By Lemma \[lem1.2\]\[f,g\] we see that for $i\in \{0,1, \ldots, p\}$, ${p+1+i\choose p+1-i}$ is the unique order-reversing isometry of height $p+1;$ and [**(ii)**]{} for $i\in \{0,1, \ldots, p-1\}$, ${p+i\choose p-i}$, ${p+1+i\choose p-i}$ and ${p+1+i\choose p+1-i}$ are the only order-reversing isometries of height $p$.[$\Box$]{}
The following technical lemma will be useful later.
\[lem2.11\] Let $\alpha\in {\cal DDP}^*_n$. Suppose $\varpi^+(\alpha)-r \in \dom \alpha$ and $\varpi^+(\alpha)-s\notin \dom \alpha$ for all $1\leq s <r$. Then $\varpi(\alpha)>r$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}By order-reversing we see that $(\varpi^+(\alpha))\alpha=w^-(\alpha)$ and $(\varpi(\alpha))\alpha=w^+(\alpha)$. Thus $\varpi^+(\alpha)-r\geq \varpi(\alpha)\implies \varpi^+(\alpha)-\varpi(\alpha)
\geq r.$ So by isometry we have $w^+(\alpha)-w^-(\alpha)=\varpi^+(\alpha)-\varpi(\alpha)\geq r
\implies w^+(\alpha)\geq w^-(\alpha)+r \implies w^+(\alpha) > r \implies
\varpi(\alpha) >r,$ as required. [$\Box$]{}
\[lem2.12\] Let $S={\cal
DDP}^*_n$. Then $F(n;p)=F(n-2;p-1)+F(n-2;p)$, for all $n\geq p\geq 2$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Let $\alpha \in {\cal
DDP}^*_n$ and $h(\alpha)=p$. Define $A=\{\alpha \in {\cal
DDP}^*_{n-2}: h(\alpha)=p\}$ and $B=\{\alpha \in {\cal DDP}^*_{n-2}:
h(\alpha)=p-1\}$. Clearly, $A \cap B=\emptyset$. Define a map $\theta :
\{\alpha \in {\cal DDP}^*_n: h(\alpha)=p\} \rightarrow A \cup B$ by $(\alpha)\theta=\alpha'$ where
[**(i)**]{} $x\alpha' =x\alpha\, (x\in \dom \alpha),$ if $\alpha\in A$. It is clear that $\alpha'$ is an order-decreasing isometry and $h(\alpha)=p$;
[**(ii)**]{} if $\{n-1, n\}\subseteq \dom \alpha\}$ and $\alpha\in B$, let $\dom \alpha'=\{x-1: x\in \dom \alpha\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,x<n\}$ and $(x-1)\alpha'=x\alpha-1 \leq x-1$ and so $\alpha'$ is order-decreasing and $h(\alpha)=p-1$;
[**(iii)**]{} if $\{n-2, n-1\}\subseteq \dom \alpha\}$ and $\alpha\in B$, let $\dom \alpha'=\{x-1: x\in \dom \alpha\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,x<n-1\}$ and $(x-1)\alpha'=x\alpha-1 \leq x-1$ and so $\alpha'$ is order-decreasing and $h(\alpha)=p-1$;
[**(iv)**]{} otherwise, if $\alpha\in B$, let $\dom \alpha'=\{x-r: x\in \dom \alpha\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,x<\varpi^+(\alpha)\}$, where $r$ is such that $\varpi^+(\alpha)-r\in \dom \alpha$ and $\varpi^+(\alpha)-s\notin \dom \alpha$ for all $1\leq s < r$. Define $(x-r)\alpha'=x\alpha-r \leq x-r$ and so $\alpha'$ is order-decreasing and Lemma \[lem2.11\] ensures that $h(\alpha)=p-1$.
Moreover, in (ii) and (iii), we have $\mid(x-1)\alpha'-(y-1)\alpha'\mid
=\mid(x\alpha -1)-(y\alpha -1)\mid = \mid x\alpha -y\alpha\mid = \mid x-y\mid = \mid (x-1)-(y-1)\mid,$ and in (iv), we have $\mid(x-r)\alpha'-(y-r)\alpha'\mid
=\mid(x\alpha -r)-(y\alpha -r)\mid = \mid x\alpha -y\alpha\mid = \mid x-y\mid =\\ \mid (x-r)-(y-r)\mid.$ Hence $\alpha'$ is an isometry.
Also observe that in (ii), we have $\varpi^+(\alpha')=n-2$; in (iii) we have $\varpi^+(\alpha')=n-3$; and in (iv) we have $\varpi^+(\alpha')<n-3$. These observations coupled with the definitions of $\alpha'$ ensures that $\theta$ is a bijection.
To show that $\theta$ is onto it is enough to note that we can in a symmetric manner define $\theta^{-1}$ from $ A \cup B \rightarrow \{\alpha \in {\cal DDP}^*_n: h(\alpha)=p\}$. This establishes the statement of the lemma. [$\Box$]{}
The next lemma which can be proved by induction, is necessary.
\[lem2.13\] Let $S = {\cal DDP}^*_n$. Then we have the following: $$\_[i0]{}[[n-1-2i2]{}]{}= {
[ll]{} ,& $n$;\
,& $n$.
.$$
\[lem2.14\] Let $S = {\cal DDP}^*_n$. Then we have the following: $$F(n;p\_2)= {
[ll]{} ,& $n$;\
,& $n$.
.$$
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}By applying Lemmas \[lem2.8\] and \[lem2.12\] sucessively we get $$\begin{aligned}
F(n;p_2)& = & F(n-2;p_1)+F(n-2;p_2)= F(n-2;p_2)+{n-1\choose 2}\\
& = & F(n-4;p_2)+{n-3\choose 2}+{n-1\choose 2}\\
& = & F(n-6;p_2)+{n-5\choose 2}+{n-3\choose 2}+{n-1\choose 2}.\\\end{aligned}$$ By iteration the result follows from Lemma \[lem2.13\] and the facts that $F(2;p_2)=0$ and $F(3;p_2)=1={2\choose 2}$. [$\Box$]{}
\[prop2.15\] Let $S = {\cal DDP}^*_n$. Then for all $\lfloor (n+1)/2\rfloor\geq p\geq 1$, we have $F(n;p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{(n+1)(n-1)(n-3)\cdots(n-2p+3)(2n-3p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!},\,&\,
\mbox{if}\,\, $n$\,\,\mbox{is odd}; \\
\frac{n(n-2)(n-4)\cdots(n-2p+2)(2n-p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!},\,&\,\mbox{if}\,\,
$n$\,\,\mbox{is even}.
\end{array}
\right.$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}(By Induction).
Basis Step: $F(n;p_1)=\pmatrix{n+1\cr 1+1}=\pmatrix{n+1\cr 2}$ is true by Lemma \[lem2.8\] and the observation made in its proof, while the formula for $F(n;p_2)$ is true by Lemma \[lem2.14\].
Inductive Step: Suppose $F(m;p)$ is true for all $\lfloor (n+1)/2\rfloor > m\geq p\geq 1$.
[**Case 1.**]{} If $m$ is odd, consider (using the induction hypothesis) $$\begin{aligned}
F(m+2;p)& = & F(m;p)+F(m;p-1)\\
& = & \frac{(m+1)(m-1)(m-3)\cdots(m-2p+3)(2m-3p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!}\\
& + & \frac{(m+1)(m-1)(m-3)\cdots(m-2p+5)(2m-3p+6)}{2^{p-1}p!}\\
& = & \frac{(m+3)(m+1)(m-1)\cdots(m-2p+5)(2m-3p+7)}{2^p(p+1)!},\\\end{aligned}$$ which is the formula for $F(m+2;p)$ when $m$ is odd.
[**Case 2.**]{} If $m$ is even, consider (using the induction hypothesis) $$\begin{aligned}
F(m+2;p)& = & F(m;p)+F(m;p-1)\\
& = & \frac{m(m-2)(m-4)\cdots(m-2p+2)(2m-p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!}\\
& + & \frac{m(m-2)(m-4)\cdots(m-2p+4)(2m-p+4)}{2^{p-1}p!}\\
& = & \frac{(m+2)m(m-2)\cdots(m-2p+4)(2m-p+7)}{2^p(p+1)!},\\\end{aligned}$$ which is the formula for $F(m+2;p)$ when $m$ is even. [$\Box$]{}
\[prop2.16\] Let $S = {\cal DDP}^*_n$ and let $b_n = \sum_{p\geq 0}{F(n;p)}$. Then for $n\geq 0$, we have
1. $b_{2n+1}=5\cdot2^{n+1}-4n-8$;
2. $b_{2n}=7\cdot2^n-4n-6$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Apply induction and use the fact that $\mid {\cal DDP}^*_n\mid=
\sum_{p=0}^{n}F(n;p)$.
\[prop2.17\] Let $S = {\cal DDP}_n$. Then
- if $n$ is odd and $(n+1)/2\geq p\geq 2$\
$F(n;p)=\frac{(n+1)(n-1)(n-3)\cdots(n-2p+3)(2n-3p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!}+{n+1\choose p+1}$;
- if $n$ is even and $n/2\geq p\geq 2$\
$F(n;p)=\frac{n(n-2)(n-4)\cdots(n-2p+2)(2n-p+3)}{2^p(p+1)!}+{n+1\choose p+1}$;
- if $\lfloor(n+1)/2\rfloor < p$, $F(n;p)={n+1\choose p+1}$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It follows from Propositions \[prop2.2\] & \[prop2.15\] and Lemmas \[lem1.2\]\[c\] & \[lem2.8\].[$\Box$]{}
Combining Theorem \[thrm2.4\], Lemmas \[lem1.2\]\[a,c\] & \[lem2.10\], Proposition \[prop2.16\] and the observation made in the proof of Lemma \[lem2.8\] we get the order of ${\cal DDP}_n$ which we record as a theorem below.
\[thrm2.18\] Let ${\cal DDP}_n$. Then for all $n\geq 0$ we have
- $\mid {\cal DDP}_{2n+1}\mid = 2^{2n+2}+5\cdot2^{n+1}-(2n^2+9n+12)$;
- $\mid {\cal DDP}_{2n}\mid = 2^{2n+1}+7\cdot2^n-(2n^2+7n+8)$.
\[lem2.19\] Let $S={\cal DDP}_n$. Then $F(n;m)={n\choose m}$, for all $n\geq m\geq 2$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It follows directly from [@Keh Lemma 3.18] and the fact that all idempotents are necessarily order-decreasing. [$\Box$]{}
\[prop2.20\] Let $S={\cal DDP}_n$. Then $F(2n;m_1)= 2^{n+1}-2$ and $F(2n-1;m_1)= 3\cdot2^{n-1}-2$, for all $n\geq 1$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}Let $F(\alpha)=\{i\}$. Then by Lemma \[lem1.2\]\[e\], for any $x\in
\dom \alpha$ we have $x+x\alpha=2i$. Thus, by Lemma \[lem1.2\]\[g\], there $2i-2$ possible elements for $\dom \alpha:
(x,x\alpha)\in \{(i,i),(i+1,i-1), (i+2,i-2), \ldots, (2i-1,1)\}$. However, (excluding $(i,i)$) we see that there are $\sum_{j=0}{i-1\choose j}=2^{i-1}$, possible partial isometries with $F(\alpha)=\{i\}$, where $2i-1\leq n \Longleftrightarrow i\leq
(n+1)/2$. Moreover, by symmetry we see that $F(\alpha)=\{i\}$ and $F(\alpha)=\{n-i+1\}$ give rise to equal number of decreasing partial isometries. Note that if $n$ is odd (even) the equation $i=n-i+1$ has one (no) solution. Hence, if $n=2a-1$ we have $$2\sum_{i=1}^{a-1}2^{i-1}+2^{a-1}=2(2^{a-1}-1)+ 2^{a-1}=3.2^{a-1}-2$$ decreasing partial isometries with exactly one fixed point; if $n=2a$ we have
$$2\sum_{i=1}^{a}2^{i-1}=2(2^a-1)=2^{a+1}-2$$ decreasing partial isometries with exactly one fixed point.[$\Box$]{}
\[thrm2.21\] Let ${\cal DDP}_n$. Then $$a_n =\mid {\cal DDP}_n\mid =
3a_{n-1}-2a_{n-2}-2^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor}+{n+1},$$ with $a_0 = 1$ and $a_{-1} = 0$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}It follows from Propositions \[prop2.6\] & \[prop2.20\], Lemma \[lem2.19\] and the fact that $\mid {\cal DDP}_n\mid= \sum_{m=0}^{n}F(n;m)$.[$\Box$]{}
The triangle of numbers $F(n;m)$ and sequence $\mid{\cal DDP}_n\mid$ have as a result of this work appeared in Sloane [@Slo] as \[A184051\] and \[A184052\], respectively. However, the triangles of numbers $F(n;p)$ for ${\cal DDP}_n$ and ${\cal DDP^*}_n$ and the sequence $\mid{\cal DDP}^*_n\mid$ are as at the time of submitting this paper not in Sloane [@Slo]. For some computed values of $F(n;p)$, see Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\,\,\,\,\,n{\backslash}p&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&\sum F(n;p)=\mid {\cal DDP}^*_n \mid
\\ \hline 0&1&&&&&&&&1
\\ \hline 1&1&1&&&&&&&2
\\ \hline 2&1&3&0&&&&&&4
\\
\hline 3&1&6&1&0&&&&&8
\\
\hline 4&1&10&3&0&0&&&&14
\\
\hline 5&1&15&7&1&0&0&&&24
\\
\hline 6&1&21&13&3&0&0&0&&38
\\
\hline 7&1&28&22&8&1&0&0&0&60
\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Table 3.1
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\,\,\,\,\,n{\backslash}p&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&\sum F(n;p)=\mid {\cal DDP}_n \mid
\\ \hline 0&1&&&&&&&&1
\\ \hline 1&1&1&&&&&&&2
\\ \hline 2&1&3&1&&&&&&5
\\
\hline 3&1&6&5&1&&&&&13
\\
\hline 4&1&10&13&5&1&&&&30
\\
\hline 5&1&15&27&16&6&1&&&66
\\
\hline 6&1&21&48&38&21&7&1&&137
\\
\hline 7&1&28&78&78&57&28&8&1&279
\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Table 3.2
Number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes
==============================
For the definitions of the Green’s relations (${\cal L}, {\cal R}$ and ${\cal D}$) and their starred analogues (${\cal L}^*, {\cal R}^*$ and ${\cal D}^*$), we refer the reader to Howie [@How] and Fountain [@Fou2], (respectively) or Ganyushkin and Mazorchuk [@Gan].
First, notice that from [@Kha1 Lemma 2.1] we deduce that number of ${\cal L}$-classes in $K(n,p)=\{\alpha\in {\cal DP}_n: h(\alpha)=p\}$ (as well as the number of ${\cal R}$-classes there) is ${n\choose p}$. To describe the ${\cal D}$-classes in ${\cal DP}_n$ and ${\cal ODP}_n$, first we recall (from [@Kha1]) that the [*gap*]{} and [*reverse gap of the image set of $\alpha$ (with $h(\alpha)=p$) are ordered $(p-1)$-tuples*]{} defined as follows: $$g(\im \alpha)=(\mid a_2\alpha -a_1\alpha\mid, \mid a_3\alpha -a_2\alpha\mid, \ldots,
\mid a_p\alpha -a_{p-1}\alpha\mid)$$ and $$g^R(\im \alpha)=(\mid a_p\alpha -a_{p-1}\alpha\mid),\ldots, \mid a_3\alpha -a_2\alpha\mid,
\mid a_2\alpha -a_1\alpha\mid),$$
where $\alpha=\pmatrix{a_1&a_2&\cdots&a_p\cr
a_1\alpha&a_2\alpha&\cdots&a_p\alpha}$ with $1\leq a_1<a_2<\cdots <a_p\leq n.$ Further, let $d_i=\mid a_{i+1}\alpha -a_i\alpha\mid$ for $i=1,2, \ldots, p-1$. Then $$g(\im \alpha)=(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_{p-1})\,\, \mbox{and} \,\,g^R(\im \alpha)=(d_{p-1}, d_{p-2},\ldots, d_1).$$ For example, if $$\alpha=\pmatrix{1&2&4&7&8\cr
3&4&6&9&10},\beta=\pmatrix{2&4&7&8\cr
10&8&5&4}\in {\cal DP}_{10}$$
then $g(\im \alpha)=(1,2,3,1),\, g(\im \beta)=(2,3,1),\, g^R(\im \alpha)=(1,3,2,1)$ and $g^R(\im \beta)=(1,3,2).$ Next, let $d(n,p)$ be the number of distinct ordered $p$-tuples: $(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_p)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{p}d_i=n$. This is clearly the number of [*compositions*]{} of $n$ into $p$ parts. Thus, we have
[@Rio p.151] \[lem3.1\] $d(n,p)={n-1\choose p-1}.$
We shall henceforth use the following well-known binomial identity when needed:
$$\sum_{m=p}^{n}{m\choose p} = {n+1\choose p+1}.$$
We take this opportunity to state and prove a result which was omitted in [@Kha2].
\[thrm3.1\] Let $S = {\cal ODP}_n$. Then
- the number of ${\cal D}$-classes in $K(n,p)\,(p\geq 1)$ is ${n-1\choose p-1}$;
- the number of ${\cal D}$-classes in $S$ is $1+2^{n-1}$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}
- It follows from [@Kha1 Theorem 2.5]: $(\alpha, \beta)\in {\cal D}$ if and only if $g(\im \alpha)=g(\im \beta)$; [@Kha1 Lemma 3.3]: $p-1\leq \sum_{i=1}^{p-1} d_i\leq n-1$; Lemma\[lem3.1\]; and so the number of ${\cal D}$-classes is $\sum_{i=p-1}^{n-1} d(i, p-1)= \sum_{i=p-1}^{n-1}{i-1\choose p-2}={n-1\choose p-1}.$
- The number of ${\cal D}$-classes in $S$ is $1+\sum_{p=1}^{n}{n-1\choose p-1}=1+2^{n-1}$.
[$\Box$]{}
The following results from [@Keh] will be needed:
\[lem3.2\] [@Keh Lemma 2.3] Let $\alpha ,\beta \in {\cal DDP}_n$ or ${\cal ODDP}_n.$ Then
- $\alpha \leq _{{\cal R^*}}\beta $ if and only if $\dom \alpha\subseteq \dom \beta$;
- $\alpha \leq _{{\cal L^*}}\beta $ if and only if $\im \alpha
\subseteq \im \beta$;
- $\alpha \leq _{{\cal H^*}}\beta $ if and only if $\dom \alpha\subseteq \dom \beta$ and $\im \alpha \subseteq
\im \beta$.
From [@Keh (3)], for $\alpha, \beta\in {\cal DDP}_n$, we have $(\alpha, \beta)\in {\cal D^*}$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn3.2}
g(\im \alpha)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
g(\im \beta);\,\, \mbox{or} \\
g^R(\im \beta),\,\,\mbox{if}\,\,p\leq a_p-a_1\leq (n-1)/2.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, from [@Keh (4)], for $\alpha, \beta\in {\cal ODDP}_n$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn3.2} (\alpha, \beta)\in {\cal D^*} \,\,\mbox{if and only if}\,\,
g(\im \alpha)=g(\im \beta).\end{aligned}$$
Now a corollary of Theorem\[thrm3.1\] follows:
\[cor3.3\] Let $S = {\cal ODDP}_n$. Then
- the number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes in $K(n,p)\,(p\geq 1)$ is ${n-1\choose p-1}$;
- the number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes in $S$ is $1+2^{n-1}$.
Observe that for all $\alpha \in {\cal DP}_n$ with $h(\alpha)=p$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn3.3} a_p - a_1 = \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}(a_{i+1}-a_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}d_i,\end{aligned}$$
where $g(\dom \alpha)= (d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_{p-1}).$ Moreover, an ordered $p$-tuple: $(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_p)$ is said to be [*symmetric*]{} if $$(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_p)=(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_p)^R=(d_p, d_{p-1}, \ldots,d_1).$$ Now, let $d_s(n,p)$ be the number of distinct symmetric ordered $p$-tuples:\
$(d_1, d_2, \ldots,d_p)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{p}d_i=n$. Then we have
[@Kha2 Lemma 3.5]\[lem3.5\] $d_s(n;p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0,\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\, $n$\,\,\mbox{is odd and}\,\, $p$\,\,\mbox{is even}; \\
{\lfloor {\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor\choose \lfloor {\frac{p-1}{2}}\rfloor},\,&\,\,\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right. $
Now by virtue of $(5)$ and [@Kha1 Theorem 2.5], it is not difficult to see that the number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$ is the same as the number of ${\cal D}$-classes in ${\cal ODP}_n$ less those pairs that are merged into single ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$. Thus, we have
\[lem3.6\] Let $g(m,p)$ be the number of ${\cal D}$-classes in ${\cal ODP}_n$ (consisting of maps of height $p$ and $\sum d_i = m$) that are merged into single ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$. Then $m\leq (n-1)/2$, and\
$g(m,p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}{m-1\choose p-2},\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\, $n$\,\,\mbox{is odd and}\,\, $p$\,\,\mbox{is odd}; \\
\frac{1}{2}[{m-1\choose p-2}-{\lfloor {\frac{m-1}{2}}\rfloor\choose \lfloor {\frac{p-2}{2}}\rfloor}],\,&\,\,\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right. $
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}The result follows from $(5)$, Lemmas \[lem3.1\] & \[lem3.5\] and the observation that\
$$\begin{aligned}
g(n,p) = \frac{d(n-1,p-1) - d_s(n-1,p-1)}{2}.\end{aligned}$$[$\Box$]{}
Now have the main result of this section.
\[thrm3.7\] Let $B(n,p)$ be the number of ${\cal D}$-classes in ${\cal ODP}_n$ (consisting of maps of height $p$) that are merged into single ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$. Then for $n\geq p\geq 1$, we have\
$B(n,p)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}[{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor\choose p-1}-
{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{4}}\rfloor\choose \frac{p-1}{2}}],
\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\, $p$\,\,\mbox{is odd}; \\
\frac{1}{2}[{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor\choose p-1}-
2{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{4}}\rfloor\choose \frac{p}{2}}],
\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\,n\equiv 1,2\, (mod\,4),
\,\&\,$p$\,\,\mbox{is even}; \\
\frac{1}{2}[{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor\choose p-1}-
2{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{4}}\rfloor\choose \frac{p}{2}}-
{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{4}}\rfloor\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}],
\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\,n\equiv -1,0\, (mod\,4),\,\&\,$p$\,\,\mbox{is even}.
\end{array}
\right. $
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}The result follows from $(5)$, $(7)$ and Lemma \[lem3.6\]. To see this, let $n\equiv 0\,(mod\,4)$ and $p$ be even. Then $n=4k$ for some integer $k$, and\
$$\begin{aligned}
B(n,p)& = & \sum_{m=p}^{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor}g(m,p)
= \sum_{m=p}^{2k-1}g(m,p)\\
& = & g(p,p)+g(p+2,p)+\cdots +g(2k-2,p) \\
& + & g(p+1,p)+g(p+3,p)+\cdots +g(2k-1,p)\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\left[{p-1\choose p-2}-{\frac{p-2}{2}\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}
+{p+1\choose p-2}-{\frac{p}{2}\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}
+\cdots +{2k-3\choose p-2} -{k-2\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}\right]\\
& + & \frac{1}{2}\left[{p\choose p-2}-{\frac{p}{2}\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}
+{p+2\choose p-2}-{\frac{p+2}{2}\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}
+\cdots +{2k-2\choose p-2} -{k-1\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}\right]\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\left[{2k-1\choose p-1}-2{k-1\choose \frac{p}{2}}
-{k-1\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}\right]\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\left[{\frac{n-2}{2}\choose p-1}-2{\frac{n-4}{4}\choose \frac{p}{2}}
-{\frac{n-4}{4}\choose \frac{p-2}{2}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ All the other cases are handled similarly.[$\Box$]{}
Now have the main result of this section.
\[cor3.8\] The number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$ (consisting of maps of height $p\geq 1$) is ${n-1\choose p-1}- B(n,p)$.
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}The result follows from Theorem \[thrm3.7\] and the remarks preceding Lemma\[lem3.6\].[$\Box$]{}
The number of ${\cal D}^*$-classes in ${\cal DDP}_n$ denoted by $d_n$ is\
$d_n= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2^{n-1}-2^{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{2}}\rfloor}+\cdot2^{\lfloor{\frac{n+1}{4}}\rfloor},
\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\, n\equiv -1,0\,(mod\,4); \\
2^{n-1}-2^{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{2}}\rfloor}+3\cdot2^{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{4}}\rfloor},
\,&\,\,\mbox{if}\,\, n\equiv 1,2\,(mod\,4).
\end{array}
\right. $
[[*Proof.*]{} ]{}The result follows from Theorem \[thrm3.7\] and Corollary \[cor3.8\]. To see this, let $n\equiv 1,2\,(mod\,4)$. Then $n=4k+1,4k+2$ for some integer $k$, and\
$$\begin{aligned}
d_n& = & 1+\sum_{p=1}^{n}{n-1\choose p-1}-
\sum_{p=1}^{\lfloor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\rfloor}B(n,p)= 1+2^{n-1}-\sum_{p=1}^{2k}B(n,p)\\
& = & 1+2^{n-1}-[B(n,1)+B(n,3)+\cdots +B(n,2k-1)] \\
& - & [B(n,2)+B(n,4)+\cdots +B(n,2k)]\\
& = & 1+2^{n-1}-\frac{1}{2}\left[{2k\choose 0}-{k\choose 0}
+{2k\choose 2}-{k\choose 1}
+\cdots +{2k\choose 2k-2} -{k\choose k-1}\right]\\
& - & \frac{1}{2}\left[{2k\choose 1}-2{k\choose 1}
+{2k\choose 3}-2{k\choose 2}
+\cdots +{2k\choose 2k-1} -2{k\choose k}\right]\\
& = & 1+2^{n-1}-\frac{1}{2}\left[(2^{2k}-1)-(3\cdot2^k+1)+2\right]\\
& = & 2^{n-1}-2^{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{2}}\rfloor}+3\cdot2^{\lfloor{\frac{n-3}{4}}\rfloor}.\end{aligned}$$ The case $n\equiv -1,0\,(mod\,4)$ is handled similarly.[$\Box$]{}
[**Acknowledgements**]{}. The second named author would like to thank Bowen University, Iwo and Sultan Qaboos University for their financial support and hospitality, respectively.
[99]{}
On the semigroup of partial isometries of a finite chain. [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**44(2)**]{} (2016), 639–647.
Combinatorial results for certain semigroups of partial isometries of a finite chain. [*Australas. J. Combin.*]{} [**58(3)**]{} (2014), 365–375.
Enumeration of injective partial transformations. [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**73**]{} (1989), 291–296.
Representations of semigroups of partial isometries. [*Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{} [**39**]{} (2007), 792–802.
The monoid of all injective orientation-preserving partial transformations on a finite chain. [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**28**]{} (2000), 3401–3426.
The cardinal and idempotent number of various monoids of transformations on a finite chain. [*Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc.*]{} [**34**]{} (2011), 79–85.
Adequate semigroups. [*Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc.*]{} [**22**]{} (1979), 113–125.
Abundant semigroups. [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**(3) 44**]{} (1982), 103–129.
, Springer-Verlag, London, 2009.
Nilpotents in semigroups of partial one-to-one order-preserving mappings. [*Semigroup Forum*]{} [**48**]{} (1994), 37–49.
Graph expansions of right cancellative monoids. [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.*]{} [**6**]{} (1996), 713–733.
London Mathematical Society Monographs. New series, [**12**]{}. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
On the semigroup of order- decreasing partial isometries of a finite chain. ([*Submitted*]{}).
, Combinatorial results for the symmetric inverse semigroup. [*Semigroup Forum*]{} [**75**]{} (2007), 221–236.
, World Scientific, Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1998.
, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, [**46**]{}. American mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1996.
, [*Combinatorial Identities*]{}, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968.
(Ed.), [*The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences*]{}, 2011. Available at http://oeis.org/.
On the semigroups of partial one-to-one order-decreasing finite transformations, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, Sect. A*]{}, [**123**]{} (1993), 355–363.
Some combinatorial problems in the theory of symmetric inverse semigroups, [*Algebra Discrete Math.*]{} [**9**]{} (2010), 115–126.
Semigroups of partial isometries. [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**75**]{} (1969), 763–764.
F. Al-Kharousi\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Sultan Qaboos University\
Al-Khod, PC 123 – OMAN\
E-mail:[[email protected]]{}
R. Kehinde\
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Bowen University\
P. M. B. 284, Iwo, Osun State\
Nigeria.\
E-mail:[[email protected]]{}
A. Umar\
Department of Mathematics\
Petroleum Institute, P. O. Box 2533\
Abu Dhabi, U. A. E.\
E-mail:[[email protected]]{}
[^1]: *Key Words*: partial one-one transformation, partial isometries, height, right (left) waist, right (left) shoulder and fix of a transformation, idempotents and nilpotents.
[^2]: Financial support from Sultan Qaboos University Internal Grant: IG/SCI/DOMS/13/06 is gratefully acknowledged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Zenna Tavares
- Xin Zhang
- Edgar Minaysan
- Javier Burroni
- Rajesh Ranganath
- Armando Solar Lezama
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
subtitle: 'For Higher-Order Probabilistic Inference'
title: The Random Conditional Distribution
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The propagator of a gauge boson, like the massless photon or the massive vector bosons $W^\pm$ and $Z$ of the electroweak theory, can be derived in two different ways, namely via Green’s functions (semi-classical approach) or via the vacuum expectation value of the time-ordered product of the field operators (field theoretical approach). Comparing the semi-classical with the field theoretical approach, the central tensorial object can be defined as the gauge boson projector, directly related to the completeness relation for the complete set of polarisation four-vectors. In this paper we explain the relation for this projector to different cases of the $R_\xi$ gauge and explain why the unitary gauge is the default gauge for massive gauge bosons.'
---
[**Gauge dependence of the gauge boson projector**]{}\
[E. M. Priidik Gallagher, Stefan Groote and Maria Naeem]{}\
Institute of Physics, University of Tartu, W. Oswaldi 1, 50411 Tartu, Estonia
Introduction
============
As it is familiar for the scalar and Dirac propagators, the propagator of the vector boson $V$ between two space-time locations $x$ and $y$ can be considered as a two-point correlator, i.e. as the vacuum expectation value of the time ordered product of the vector potential at these two locations, $$\label{vacexp}
D_V^{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\langle 0|{\cal T}\{V^\mu(x)V^\nu(y)\}|0\rangle.$$ However, in order to get to the momentum space representation of this propagator, one needs to use the completeness relation for the polarisation four-vectors. This is not an easy task, as this completeness relation is not given uniquely for a complete set of four polarisation states. As it is well known, a massless vector boson like the photon has two polarisation states. For a massive vector boson ($W^\pm$ or $Z$), in addition there is a longitudinal polarisation state. However, the addition of a time-like polarisation state is not unique and depends on the gauge we use, as we will show in this paper. In order to get to this point, we construct the propagator of the vector boson in a semi-classical way as Green’s function obeying the canonical equation of motion, derived from the Lagrange density containing a gauge fixing term. The solution of this equation leads to a propagator $$\label{greens}
D_V^{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
\frac{-iP^{\mu\nu}(k)e^{-ik(x-y)}}{k^2-m_V^2+i\epsilon},\qquad
P_V^{\mu\nu}(k):=\eta^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi_V)\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2-\xi_Vm_V^2}$$ with a definite second rank tensor structure $P_V^{\mu\nu}$ which we call the gauge boson projector. $\eta=\mbox{diag}(1;-1,-1,-1)$ is the Minkowski metric.
The paper is organised as follows. In Sec. 2 we introduce the gauge boson projector. As a naive extension of the completeness relation for the polarisation vectors fails, we offer a pragmatic solution which will be explained in the following. In Sec. 3 we start with the Lagrange density of the photon and explain why the solution of the corresponding Euler–Lagrange equation needs a gauge fixing term. For a general $R_\xi$ gauge we solve the equation for the Green’s function. A recourse to historical approaches is needed to understand the occurence of primary and secondary constraints. In Sec. 4 the quantisation of the photon field is continued in a covariant manner. In Sec. 5 we explain the appearance of a mass term via the Higgs mechanism and the restriction of the gauge degrees of freedom in this case, leading to the unitary gauge as the default setting for massive vector bosons. In Sec. 6 we explain and give an example for the gauge independence of physical processes. Our conclusions and outlook are found in Section 7. For the basics we refer to Refs. [@Jackson; @LandauLifshitz; @Greiner; @PeskinSchroeder; @BohmDennerJoos].
The gauge boson projector
=========================
The gauge boson projector as central tensorial object $P_V^{\mu\nu}(k)$ in Eq. (\[greens\]) takes the simplest form $P_V^{\mu\nu}(k)=\eta^{\mu\nu}$ for the Feynman gauge ($\xi_V=1$). For Landau gauge $\xi_V=0$ one obtains a purely transverse projector $P_V^{\mu\nu}(k)=\eta^{\mu\nu}-k^\mu k^\nu/k^2$, and for the unitary gauge $\xi_V\to\infty$ one has $P_V^{\mu\nu}(k)=\eta^{\mu\nu}-k^\mu k^\nu/m_V^2$ which is transverse only on the mass shell $k^2=m_V^2$. But why do we talk about a projector at all? A comparison with the construction of the fermion propagator can help to explain the conceptual approach employed in this paper.
Construction of the fermion propagator
--------------------------------------
As for the gauge boson propagator, there are in principle two ways to construct the fermion propagator. As a Green’s function the fermion propagator has to solve the equation $$(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)S(x-y)=i\delta^{(4)}(x-y)$$ equivalent to the Dirac equation $(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu-m)\psi(x)=0$ as the corresponding Euler–Lagrange equation. In momentum space this equation reads $({p\kern-5pt/}-m)\tilde S(p)=i$ (with ${p\kern-5pt/}:=\gamma^\mu p_\mu$) which can be solved by $\tilde S(p)=i/({p\kern-5pt/}-m)$. Note that the inverse of the matrix $({p\kern-5pt/}-m)$ is well defined, since $({p\kern-5pt/}-m)({p\kern-5pt/}+m)=p^2-m^2$. Back to configuration space one has $$S(x-y)=\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{ie^{-ip(x-y)}}{p^2-m^2+i\epsilon}({p\kern-5pt/}+m),$$ where we have added an infinite imaginary shift $+i\epsilon$ to obtain a Feynman propagator. On the other hand, the fermion propagator is defined again as two-point correlator, i.e. as the vacuum expectation value of the time-ordered product of the spinor and the adjoint spinor, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{ab}(x-y)&=&\langle 0|{\cal T}\{\psi_a(x)\bar\psi_b(y)\}|0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^2\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{2E(\vec p\,)}\left[
u_i(\vec p\,)\bar u_i(\vec p\,)e^{-ip(x-y)}
+v_i(\vec p\,)\bar v_i(\vec p\,)e^{ip(x-y)}\right]_{ab}\nonumber\\
&=&\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{2E(\vec p\,)}\left[
(\gamma^\mu p_\mu+m)e^{-ip(x-y)}+(\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m)e^{ip(x-y)}\right]_{ab}
\nonumber\\
&=&(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m)_{ab}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac1{2E(\vec p\,)}\left[e^{-ip(x-y)}-e^{ip(x-y)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m)_{ab}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\frac{dp^0}{2\pi i}\frac{-e^{-ip(x-y)}}{p^2-m^2+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\
&=&(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m)_{ab}\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}
\frac{ie^{-ip(x-y)}}{p^2-m^2+i\epsilon}\nonumber\\
&=&\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}({p\kern-5pt/}+m)_{ab}
\frac{ie^{-ip(x-y)}}{p^2-m^2+i\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where we have started with the field operators $$\psi(x)=\sum_{i=1}^2\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{\sqrt{2E(\vec p\,)}}
\left(b_i(\vec p\,)u_i(\vec p\,)e^{-ipx}+\tilde b_i^\dagger(\vec p\,)
v_i(\vec p\,)e^{ipx}\right)$$ and $\bar\psi(x)=\psi^\dagger(x)\gamma^0$ with the only non-vanishing antimutators $$\{b_i(\vec p\,),b_j^\dagger(\vec p')\}=(2\pi)^3\delta_{ij}\delta^{(3)}
(\vec p-\vec p'),\qquad\{\tilde b_i(\vec p\,),\tilde b_j^\dagger(\vec p')\}
=(2\pi)^3\delta_{ij}\delta^{(3)}(\vec p-\vec p'),$$ where we have used the completeness relations $$\sum_{i=1}^2u_i(\vec p\,)\bar u_i(\vec p\,)=\gamma^\mu p_\mu+m,\qquad
\sum_{i=1}^2v_i(\vec p\,)\bar v_i(\vec p\,)=\gamma^\mu p_\mu-m,$$ and, finally, where we have used Cauchy’s theorem to write the integral in a compact four-dimensional form. The result is quite obviously the same as the one obtained via the Green’s function. Still, one might become aware of the central link, given by the completeness relations. A similar construction should work also for the gauge boson propagator.
Construction of the gauge boson propagator
------------------------------------------
As for the quantisation of the fermion field operator we summed over the spin polarisation states $i=1,2$ (corresponding to up and down spin), it is natural to assume that for quantisation of the gauge boson field operator we have to sum over the polarisations $\lambda$. Still, the (silent) assumption that the summation runs over [*all*]{} possible (four) polarisation states will have to be looked over again, as it will turn out. Up to that point, we use the summation sign indexed by $\lambda$ without specifying the set of polarisations it runs over. Therefore, starting with $$V^\mu(x)=\sum_\lambda\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{\sqrt{2\omega(\vec k\,)}}
\left[{\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda)a(\vec k,\lambda)e^{-ikx}
+{\varepsilon}^{\mu*}(\vec k,\lambda)a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda)e^{ikx}\right]$$ with $[a(\vec k,\lambda),a^\dagger(\vec k',\lambda')]=(2\pi)^3
\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}\delta^{(3)}(\vec k-\vec k')$ and $\omega^2(\vec k\,)=\vec k^2+m_V^2$, the calculation of the two-point correlator leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{D_V^{\mu\nu}(x-y)\ =\ \langle 0|{\cal T}\{V^\mu(x)V^\nu(y)\}
|0\rangle}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_\lambda\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{2\omega(\vec k\,)}\left[
{\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(\vec k,\lambda)e^{-ik(x-y)}
-{\varepsilon}^\nu(\vec k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\mu*}(\vec k,\lambda)e^{ik(x-y)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ However, what kind of completeness relation we can use in this case? We know that there are at least two physical polarisation directions which are orthogonal to each other and at the same time orthogonal to the wave vector $\vec k$, $$\vec k\cdot\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda)=0,\qquad
\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda)\cdot\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda')=\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}$$ ($\lambda,\lambda'=1,2$). $\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,1)$, $\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,2)$ and $\vec k/|\vec k\,|$ span an orthonormal frame. Therefore, in particular the usual three-dimensional basis $\vec e^i$ can be expressed in this frame, $$\vec e^i=\sum_{\lambda=1}^2\left(\vec e^i\cdot\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda)\right)
\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda)+\frac{(\vec e^i\cdot\vec k)\vec k}{\vec k^2}
=\sum_{\lambda=1}^2{\varepsilon}^i(\vec k,\lambda)\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,\lambda)
+\frac{k^i\vec k}{\vec k^2}.$$ As the usual basis is orthonormal, we conclude that $$\delta^{ij}=\vec e^i\cdot\vec e^j=\sum_{\lambda=1}^2{\varepsilon}^i(\vec k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^j(\vec k,\lambda)+\frac{k^ik^j}{\vec k^2},$$ which can be rewritten as a first (three-dimensional) completeness relation, $$\label{sum2}
P_{V2}^{ij}(\vec k\,)=\sum_{\lambda=1}^2{\varepsilon}^i(\vec k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{j*}(\vec k,\lambda)=\delta^{ij}-\frac{k^ik^j}{\vec k^2}.$$ Finally, considering $\vec{\varepsilon}(\vec k,3):=\vec k/|\vec k\,|$ as a third orthonomal polarisation vector, one obtains $$P_{V3}^{ij}(\vec k\,)=\sum_{\lambda=1}^3{\varepsilon}^i(\vec k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{j*}(\vec k,\lambda)=\delta^{ij},$$ where the complex conjugate has no effect on a real-valued basis but allows for the generalisation for instance to a chiral basis.[^1] A generalisation of this completeness relation to four-vectors (with time component set to zero) is straightforward and leads to $$P_{V3}^{\mu\nu}(k)=\sum_{\lambda=1}^3{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda)=\eta^\mu\eta^\nu-\eta^{\mu\nu}$$ with $\eta^\mu=\eta^{\mu0}$. As before, an attempt can be done to switch the non-covariant part of the right hand side to the left hand side by defining a fourth (time-like) polarisation. However, in this simple form this attempt fails. ${\varepsilon}(k,0)=(\eta^\mu)=(1;0,0,0)$ does not give the correct sign, and the more involved trial ${\varepsilon}(k,0)=(i;0,0,0)$ is of no help here as the product with the conjugate will remove the effect of the imaginary unit.
A pragmatic solution
--------------------
At this point we offer a pragmatic solution. As we know the explicit form of the gauge boson propagator from the Green’s function approach employed before, we conclude that $$P_{V4}^{\mu\nu}(k)=\sum_\lambda{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda)
=\eta^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi_V)\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2-\xi_Vm_V^2}=P_V^{\mu\nu}(k).$$ Therefore, the completeness relation depends on the gauge. The pragmatic solution tells us that for Feynman gauge $\xi_V=1$ for instance one obtains $\sum_\lambda{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda)=\eta^{\mu\nu}$, independent of whether we know which polarisations are summed over and how the explicit polarisation vectors look like. However, we can speculate about how these two are related to each other. We can assure ourselves that a gauge boson on the mass shell has only vector components. In this case we obtain the Landau projector ($\xi_V=0$) [@Korner:2014bca; @Berge:2015jra; @Czarnecki:2018vwh] $$\label{sum3}
-\sum_{\lambda=1}^3{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda)
=\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2}=P^{\mu\nu}_{\mathbf{1}}(k)$$ containing only the vector component of the polarisation. Eq. (\[sum3\]) can be explicitly seen in the rest frame of the massive vector boson. For $k=(m_V;\vec 0)$ one obtains $$\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_V^2}
=-\pmatrix{0&0&0&0\cr 0&1&0&0\cr 0&0&1&0\cr 0&0&0&1\cr}
=-\sum_{\lambda=1}^3{\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(\vec k,\lambda)$$ with ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,1)=(0;1,0,0)$, ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,2)=(0;0,1,0)$ and ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,3)=(0;0,0,1)$. If the gauge boson is offshell, it is described by the unitary projector ($\xi_V\to\infty$), containing also a scalar component [@Berge:2015jra], $$\label{sum4}
\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=0}^3\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda')=\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_V^2}
=P^{\mu\nu}_{\mathbf{1}}+\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2}F_S(k^2)
=P^{\mu\nu}_{\mathbf{1\oplus0}}$$ with $F_S(k^2)=1-k^2/m_V^2$ as the offshellness dominating the scalar component. The appearance of the components $\eta_{\lambda\lambda'}$ of the metric tensor $\eta$ in polarisation space seems to suggest that the summation over $\lambda$ can be understood as the contraction of covariant with contravariant components in polarisation spacetime, reserving for the polarisation vectors the role of a tetrad between ordinary spacetime and polarisation spacetime. This will be worked out in more detail in Sec. 4 in case of the photon (cf. Eq. (\[tetrad\])).
Green’s function of the photon
==============================
In order to investigate the relation between completeness relation and propagator in detail, we start with the Lagrange density of the photon, $$\label{calLA}
{\cal L}_A=\frac12(\vec E^2-\vec B^2)=-\frac14F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu},\qquad
F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$$ Containing only the self energy of the photon, the Euler–Lagrange equations can be obtained by variation of the action integral $S_A=\int{\cal L}_Ad^4x$. One obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\delta S_A&=&-\frac14\int\delta F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}d^4x
\ =\ -\frac12\int(\partial_\mu\delta A_\nu-\partial_\nu\delta A_\mu)
(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)d^4x\nonumber\\
&=&-\int\partial_\mu\delta A_\nu(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)d^4x
\ =\ \int\delta A_\nu\partial_\mu(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)d^4x,\end{aligned}$$ where for the last step we have used integration by parts. In order to vanish for an arbitrary variation $\delta A_\nu$ of the gauge field, one has to claim that $$\partial_\mu(\partial^\mu A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu)
=\partial^2A^\nu-\partial^\mu\partial^\nu A_\mu
=(\partial^2\eta^{\mu\nu}-\partial^\mu\partial^\nu)A_\mu=0.$$ However, the corresponding equation (a factor $i$ for later convenience) $$(\partial^2\eta_{\mu\nu}-\partial_\mu\partial_\nu)D_A^{\mu\rho}(x)
=i\eta^\nu_\rho\delta^{(4)}(x)$$ for the Green’s function $D_A^{\mu\rho}(x)$ cannot be solved, as the operator $(\partial^2\eta^{\mu\nu}-\partial^\mu\partial^\nu)$ is not invertible. As found by Faddeev and Popov in 1967, this problem turns out to be deeply related to the gauge degree of freedom [@Faddeev:1967fc]. The solution for this problem is given by amending the Lagrange density by a gauge fixing term, $$\label{calLAp}
{\cal L}_{A+}=-\frac14F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
-\frac1{2\xi_A}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2,$$ the introduction of which can be understood on elementary level also as the addition of a Lagrange multiplier times the square of $\partial_\mu A^\mu$, restricting the solutions to those which satisfy the Lorenz gauge condition $\partial_\mu A^\mu=0$ proposed exactly a century earlier [@Lorenz:1867xq]. This condition does not fix completely the gauge but eliminates the redundant spin-$0$ component in the representation $(1/2,1/2)$ of the Lorentz group, leaving a gauge degree of freedom $A^\mu\to A^\mu+\partial^\mu f$ with $\partial^2f=0$. However, as the gauge field is not constrained [*a priori*]{} but via a Lagrange multiplier, instead of a single gauge condition one obtains a whole class of gauge conditions subsumed under the name of $R_\xi$ gauges. For $\xi_A\to 0$ one obtains the Landau gauge classically equivalent to the Lorenz gauge, for $\xi_A=1$ one obtains the Feynman gauge, and for $\xi_A\to\infty$ one ends up with the unitary gauge, to name a few.
Solution for the Green’s function of the photon
-----------------------------------------------
Varying the amended action functional with respect to the gauge field, in this case one obtains $(\partial^2\eta^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi_A^{-1})\partial^\mu\partial^\nu)A_\mu=0$ and, therefore, $$\left(\partial^2\eta_{\mu\nu}-\left(1-\frac1{\xi_A}\right)\partial_\mu
\partial_\nu\right)D_A^{\mu\rho}(x)=i\eta_\nu^\rho\delta^{(4)}(x)$$ for the Green’s function. This equation can be solved. In momentum space the equation reads $$-\left(k^2\eta_{\mu\nu}-\left(1-\frac1{\xi_A}\right)k_\mu k_\nu\right)
\tilde D_A^{\mu\rho}(k)=i\eta_\nu^\rho,$$ and by using the ansatz $\tilde D_A^{\mu\nu}(k)=\tilde D^g\eta^{\mu\nu}+\tilde D^kk^\mu k^\nu$ one obtains $(\xi_A-1)\tilde D^g-k^2\tilde D^k=0$ and $-k^2\tilde D^g=i$, i.e.$$\label{propA}
D_A^{\mu\nu}(x)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-ikx}(\tilde D^g\eta^{\mu\nu}
+\tilde D^kk^\mu k^\nu)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
\frac{-ie^{-ikx}}{k^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}
-(1-\xi_A)\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2}\right).$$ Depending on how the convention for the poles at $k^2=0$ (i.e. at $k^0=\pm\omega(\vec k)=\pm|\vec k\,|$) is set, one obtains a retarded, advanced, or Feynman propagator (the latter not to be mixed up with the Feynman gauge). In the following we restrict our attention to the Feynman propagator, adding an infinitesimal imaginary shift $+i\epsilon$ to the denominator.
Going back to historical approaches
-----------------------------------
Even though the solution of Faddeev and Popov allows to deal with the calculation in a quite straightforward manner, in order to understand the situation more deeply it is worth to have a look at older approaches. A very valuable reference for this is the handbook of Kleinert [@Kleinert:2016] which will be used for the following argumentation.
Starting again with the free Lagrange density (\[calLA\]), for a canonical field quantisation we have to obtain the Hamilton density by performing a Legendre transformation. However, while the spatial components of the canonical momentum are given by the components of the electric field, the time component vanishes, $$\pi^i(x)=\frac{\partial{\cal L}_A(x)}{\partial\dot A_i(x)}=-F^{0i}(x)
=E^i(x),\qquad \pi^0(x)=\frac{\partial{\cal L}_A(x)}{\partial\dot A_0(x)}=0.$$ According to Dirac’s classification [@Dirac:1947], the property $\pi^0(x)=0$ is a primary constraint on the canonical momentum. Using the Euler–Lagrange equations, we get to the secondary constraint $\nabla\vec E(\vec x,t)=0$ which is Coulomb’s law for free fields.[^2] The secondary constraint leads to an incompatibility for the canonical same-time commutator $$[\pi^i(\vec x,t),A^j(\vec x',t)]=i\delta^{ij}\delta^{(3)}(\vec x-\vec x').$$ This problem can be solved by introducing a transverse modification of the delta distribution [@Kleinert:2016]. For the canonical quantisation, $A^0(\vec x,t)$ and (via Coulomb’s law) also $\nabla\vec A(\vec x,t)$ cannot be considered as operators. Using Coulomb gauge $\nabla\vec A(\vec x,t)=0$, one has $A^0(\vec x,t)=0$ as well, a relation between the Coulomb and axial gauges as two examples for noncovariant gauges [@Leibbrandt:1987qv] established by Coulomb’s law for free fields. One obtains $$A^\mu(x)=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{\sqrt{2\omega(\vec k\,)}}
\sum_{\lambda=1}^2\left({\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda)a(\vec k,\lambda)e^{-ikx}
+{\varepsilon}^{\mu*}(\vec k,\lambda)a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda)e^{ikx}\right),$$ where the polarisation sum runs over the two physical polarisation states ($\lambda=1,2$) only.
However, it is far from being convenient to impose noncovariant constraints to a Lorentz-covariant quantity like the electromagnetic potential $A^\mu(x)$. A much better choice would be the Lorenz gauge $\partial_\mu A^\mu=0$. By using the gauge transformation of the first kind $A^\mu\to A^\mu+\partial^\mu\lambda$, a scalar function $\lambda(x)$ can be found so that after this transformation $\partial_\mu A^\mu=0$ is satisfied. Still, the Lorenz gauge does not fix the gauge degree of freedom completely. Indeed, a gauge transformation of the second kind $A^\mu\to A^\mu+\partial^\mu f$ with $\partial^2f=0$, also called restricted or on-shell gauge transformation, will change the vector potential in a way that it still satisfies the Lorenz gauge constraint. The covariant quantisation method is established by introducing a first type of gauge-fixing term [@Fermi:1932xva], $${\cal L}_{AF}={\cal L}_A+{\cal L}_{GF},\qquad
{\cal L}_{GF}=-G(x)\partial_\mu A^\mu(x)+\frac\xi2G^2(x),\qquad\xi\ge 0.$$ In this case there is no canonical momentum for $G(x)$, and the Euler–Lagrange equation will lead to the (secondary) constraint $\xi G(x)=\partial_\mu A^\mu(x)$. The Euler–Lagrange equations for the vector potential read $\partial^\mu F_{\mu\nu}(x)=\partial^2A_\nu(x)
-\partial^\mu\partial_\nu A_\mu(x)=-\partial_\nu G(x)$, and applying the constraint one obtains $$\partial^2A_\nu(x)-\left(1-\frac1\xi\right)\partial_\nu\partial_\mu A^\mu(x)=0.$$ This is the same equation we obtain in case of the Faddeev–Popov approach. Applying once more $\partial_\nu$, one obtains $\partial^2G(x)=0$, i.e.$G(x)$ is a massless Klein–Gordon field.
The photon propagator
=====================
We continue with the quantisation procedure for the photon field in covariant form. The manifestly covariant expression for the quantised photon field is given by $$A^\mu(x)=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac1{\sqrt{2\omega(\vec k)}}
\sum_{\lambda=0}^3\left({\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda)a(\vec k,\lambda)e^{-ikx}
+{\varepsilon}^{\mu*}(\vec k,\lambda)a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda)e^{ikx}\right).$$ For $\xi=1$ (Feynman gauge) we can choose momentum-independent polarisation vectors ${\varepsilon}^\mu(\lambda)=\eta^{\mu\lambda}$. Accordingly, these vectors obey the orthogonality and completeness relations $$\label{orthcomp}
\eta^{\mu\nu}{\varepsilon}_\mu^*(\lambda){\varepsilon}_\nu(\lambda')=\eta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\qquad\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}\eta_{\lambda\lambda'}{\varepsilon}^\mu(\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(\lambda')=\eta^{\mu\nu}.$$ Employing the apparatus of canonical quantisation, we are left with the canonical same-time commutators $[A^\mu(\vec x,t),A^\nu(\vec x',t)]
=[\dot A^\mu(\vec x,t),\dot A^\nu(\vec x',t)]=0$ and $$[\dot A^\mu(\vec x,t),A^\nu(\vec x',t)]
=i\eta^{\mu\nu}\delta^{(3)}(\vec x-\vec x')$$ which are the same as if the components are independent massless Klein–Gordon fields. However, the sign between the temporal components is opposite to the spatial sector, resulting also in $[a(\vec k,\lambda),a(\vec k',\lambda')]=
[a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda),a^\dagger(\vec k',\lambda')]=0$ and $$[a(\vec k,\lambda),a^\dagger(\vec k',\lambda')]=-\eta_{\lambda\lambda'}
(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vec k-\vec k').$$ As a consequence, states generated by applying $a^\dagger(\vec k,0)$ have a negative norm, $$\langle0|a(\vec k,0)a^\dagger(\vec k',0)|0\rangle=\langle0|[a(\vec k,0),
a^\dagger(\vec k',0)]|0\rangle=-(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vec k-\vec k').$$ The only possibility to escape this problem is to amend the temporal creation operator by one of the spatial ones. For instance, the states $a^\dagger(\vec k,\pm)|0\rangle$ have both zero norm, as $a^\dagger(\vec k,\pm)|0\rangle:=
\left(a^\dagger(\vec k,0)\pm a^\dagger(\vec k,3)\right)/\sqrt2$ commutes with its Hermitian conjugate.
Obviously, it is too strong to demand $D(\vec x,t)=0$ as an operator condition, as this is in contradiction with the canonical commutation rules. In order to guarantee the validity of the Lorenz condition $D(\vec x,t)=0$ at any time, one instead defines a physical state imposing Fermi–Dirac subsidiary conditions [@Fermi:1932xva; @Dirac:1966; @Heisenberg:1930xk] $$D(\vec x,t)|\psi_{\rm phys}\rangle=0,\qquad
\dot D(\vec x,t)|\psi_{\rm phys}\rangle=0.$$ resulting in $a(\vec k,-)|\psi_{\rm phys}\rangle=0$ and $a^\dagger(\vec k,-)|\psi_{\rm phys}\rangle=0$, i.e. both creation and annihilation operator annihilate the physical state. Using $[a(\vec k,\pm),a^\dagger(\vec k',\mp)]=-(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vec k-\vec k')$, for the Hamilton operator one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{k_0}2\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=0}^3
\eta_{\lambda\lambda'}{\cal N}\left\{a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda)
a(\vec k,\lambda')+a(\vec k,\lambda)a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda')\right\}
\nonumber\\
&=&\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}k^0\left(\sum_{\lambda=1}^2
a^\dagger(\vec k,\lambda)a(\vec k,\lambda)
-a(\vec k,+)a^\dagger(\vec k,-)-a^\dagger(\vec k,+)a(\vec k,-)\right),\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal N}\{\cdots\}$ indicates normal ordering with respect to the physical vacuum.[^3] Hence the subsidiary condition makes the last two terms vanish for all physical states. For general $R_\xi$ gauges the orthogonality and completeness relations (\[orthcomp\]) have to be replaced by [@Kleinert:2016] $$\label{tetrad}
P^{\mu\nu}(k){\varepsilon}_\mu^*(k,\lambda){\varepsilon}_\nu(k,\lambda')=\eta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\qquad\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'}\eta_{\lambda\lambda'}{\varepsilon}^\mu(k,\lambda)
{\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(k,\lambda')=P^{\mu\nu}(k).$$
The Gupta–Bleuler quantisation
------------------------------
Even though the application of both subsidiary conditions leads to the correct physical result, the treatment of (infinite) normalisations of the states dealt with in detail in Sec. 7.5.2 of Ref. [@Kleinert:2016] is exhausting. For processes with at least one particle it is sufficient to impose only the first subsidiary condition $$\label{gupta}
a(\vec k,-)|\psi_{\rm``phys''}\rangle=0,$$ leading to a pseudophysical state. This condition is the basis of the Gupta–Bleuler approach to Quantum Electrodynamics [@Bleuler:1950cy; @Gupta:1949rh]. Note, however, that for a vacuum energy (for instance in cavities) the nonphysical degrees of freedom are not completely eliminated. In the Faddeev–Popov approach, this vacuum energy contribution will be removed by the negative vacuum energy contribution of the Faddeev–Popov ghosts.
As the operator in the Gupta–Bleuler subsidiary condition (\[gupta\]) contains only the positive-frequency part, the operator $G(x)$ is necessarily a nonlocal operator. On the other hand side, the vacuum state $|0_{\rm``phys''}\rangle$ has a unit norm which is an important advantage of the Gupta–Bleuler formalism. However, the main virtue of the Gupta–Bleuler quantisation scheme is that the photon propagator is much simpler than the one obtained with the help of a four-dimensional (noncovariant) generalisation of (\[sum2\]), namely (\[propA\]).
The photon projector on the light cone
--------------------------------------
Employing again the Green’s function approach, we can get still to another result. As in Eq. (\[vacexp\]), the free photon propagator is given by the vacuum expectation value of time-ordered product of the field operators at spacetime points $x$ and $y$, $$D_A^{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\langle0|{\cal T}\{A^\mu(x)A^\nu(y)\}|0\rangle.$$ Using the invariance of physical quantities under gauge transformations $$\label{gaugetra}
A^\mu(x)\to A^\mu(x)+\partial^\mu\lambda(x)$$ with some arbitrary scalar function $\lambda(x)$, for the propagator one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{D_A^{\mu\nu}(x-y)\ =\ \langle0|{\cal T}\{A^\mu(x)A^\nu(y)\}0\rangle
\to}\nonumber\\[7pt]
&=&\langle0|{\cal T}\{A^\mu(x)A^\nu(y)\}|0\rangle
+\partial_x^\mu\langle0|{\cal T}\{\lambda(x)A^\nu(y)\}|0\rangle
\strut\nonumber\\&&\strut\qquad
+\partial_y^\nu\langle0|{\cal T}\{A^\mu(x)\lambda(y)\}|0\rangle
+\partial_x^\mu\partial_y^\nu\langle0|\{\lambda(x)\lambda(y)\}|0\rangle
\nonumber\\[7pt]
&=&D_A^{\mu\nu}(x-y)+\partial_x^\mu D_A^\nu(x-y)+\partial_y^\nu D_A^\mu(y-x)
+\partial_x^\mu\partial_y^\nu D_A(x-y),\end{aligned}$$ where $D_A^\mu(x-y)=\langle0|{\cal T}\{\lambda(x)A^\nu(y)\}|0\rangle$ and $D_A(x-y)=\langle0|{\cal T}\{\lambda(x)\lambda(y)\}0\rangle$ are mixed and scalar propagators. Fourier transformed to momentum space, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde D_A^{\mu\nu}(k)&\to&\tilde D_A^{\mu\nu}(k)+k^\mu\tilde D_A^\nu(k)
+\tilde D_A^\mu(k) k^\nu+k^\mu k^\nu\tilde D_A(k)\nonumber\\
&=&\tilde D_A^{\mu\nu}(k)
+k^\mu\Big(\tilde D_A^\nu(k)+\frac12k^\nu\tilde D_A(k)\Big)
+\Big(\tilde D_A^\mu(k)+\frac12\tilde D_A(k)k^\mu\Big)k^\nu.\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way as the gauge field is added in the Lagrange density, replacing the partial derivative by a covariant derivative in order to be able to absorb contributions from local phase transformations of the field operators in transforming according to Eq. (\[gaugetra\]), the propagator has to be extended in order to comply with the same transformations (\[gaugetra\]). The appropriate form of the propagator to comply with this is $$\label{proplight}
D_A^{\mu\nu}(x-y)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{-iP^{\mu\nu}(k)
e^{-ikx}}{k^2+i\epsilon},\qquad
P^{\mu\nu}=\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac1{2|\vec k\,|^2}\left(k^\mu l^\nu(k)
+l^\mu(k)k^\nu\right),$$ where $l^\mu(k)$ is a vector-valued function of the wave vector $k$, the explicit form of which turns out again to depend on the gauge. Taking for instance $l^\mu(k)=k^\mu$, one ends up again with the Landau gauge, and for $k^\mu=0$ one reaches Feynman gauge. A third possibility is given by the light cone mirror of the four-vector $k_+=(k^0;\vec k)=k$, $l(k)=(k^0;-\vec k)=k_-$. For the “light-cone form” of the photon projector $P^{\mu\nu}$ extracted from Eq. (\[proplight\]) in this case, the two nonphysical polarisation directions are eliminated. This can be seen with a simple calculation for ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,1)=(0;1,0,0)$, ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,2)=(0;0,1,0)$ and $k_\pm=|\vec k|(1;0,0,\pm 1)$, $$\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac1{2|\vec k\,|^2}(k_+^\mu k_-^\nu+k_-^\mu k_+^\nu)
=-\pmatrix{0&0&0&0\cr 0&1&0&0\cr 0&0&1&0\cr 0&0&0&0\cr}
=-\sum_{\lambda=1}^2{\varepsilon}^\mu(\vec k,\lambda){\varepsilon}^{\nu*}(\vec k,\lambda).$$ Identifying ${\varepsilon}(\vec k,\pm)=k_\pm/\sqrt2|\vec k|$, one gets back to the Fermi–Dirac (or Gupta–Bleuler) nonphysical modes, concluding that the given combination of momentum vector $k_+$ and light cone mirror $k_-$ will eliminate the nonphysical modes from the photon projector.
The gauge boson propagator
==========================
As for the photon field, the vanishing of the temporal component of the canonical momentum of the massive gauge boson is a primary constraint. However, there is no secondary constraint. Replacing $V^\mu(x)\to V^\mu(x)+\partial^\mu\lambda(x)$ and inserting this in the Euler–Lagrange equation of the Lagrange density ${\cal L}_V=-\frac14F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac12m_V^2V_\mu V^\mu$, $$\label{ELmass}
\partial_\mu F^{\mu\nu}+m_V^2V^\nu=\left((\partial^2+m_V^2)\eta_{\mu\nu}
-\partial_\mu\partial_\nu\right)V^\mu=0,$$ one obtains $m_V^2\partial^\mu\lambda(x)=0$ which admits only the constant solution $\lambda(x)=\lambda_0$. At the same time, the application of $\partial_\nu$ to Eq. (\[ELmass\]) leads to $m_V^2\partial_\nu V^\nu=0$, i.e. the Lorenz gauge by default. These two results are closely related to each other as well as to the nonvanishing mass of the gauge boson. The gauge degree of freedom is reduced by one, leaving three independent components for the polarisation vector. Actually, for the massive gauge boson itself the gauge fixing term is not necessary at all, as the operator in the second expression in Eq. (\[ELmass\]) is invertible. This is the reason why the gauge boson projector for the on-shell gauge boson field is given by default by the projector in unitary gauge.
As it is convenient to consider the photon as the massless limit of a vector boson, one has to add a gauge fixing term to the Lagrange density to allow for a proper limit. Therefore, with the following consideration we are back to the Faddeev–Popov method with a gauge fixing term allowing for a general $R_\xi$ gauge.
Goldstone bosons and mass terms
-------------------------------
Usually, the gauge bosons (except for the photon) obtain a mass via the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the scalar Higgs field $\phi$ in the framework of the electroweak Glashow–Weinberg–Salam (GWS) theory. At the same time one obtains Goldstone bosons as “scalar partners” of the gauge bosons. The masslessness of the photon is established due to the fact that the corresponding scalar partner is the Higgs boson which “sets the stage” and keeps the photon from gaining a mass. A detailed outline of the Higgs mechanism can be found e.g. in Refs. [@PeskinSchroeder; @BohmDennerJoos]. Here we only briefly sketch the appearance of the Goldstone bosons and the occurence of mass terms. Given the spontaneously broken Higgs field by $$\psi=\frac1{\sqrt2}\pmatrix{h_1(x)+ih_2(x)\cr h_0+h_3(x)+ih_4(x)\cr},$$ the scalar part of the Lagrange density can be expanded in the fields $h_i(x)$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_\phi&=&\left(D_\mu\phi(x)\right)^\dagger(D^\mu\phi(x))+\lambda h_0^2
\psi^\dagger(x)\phi(x)-\lambda\left(\phi^\dagger(x)\phi(x)\right)^2
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac12\sum_{i=1}^4\left(D_\mu h_i(x)\right)\left(D^\mu h_i(x)\right)
-\lambda h_0^2h_3(x)^2+O(h_i(x)^3).\end{aligned}$$ The second term in this expansion gives a mass $m_H=h_0\sqrt{2\lambda}$ to the Higgs boson field $h_3(x)$, while the masses of the gauge bosons are obtained from the action of the covariant derivative $$D_\mu=\partial_\mu-\frac{ig_1}2B_\mu-\frac{ig_2}2\vec W_\mu\vec\sigma$$ at the constant part (proportional to $h_0$) of the Higgs field. One obtains $$(D_\mu\phi)^\dagger(D^\mu\phi)=\frac{h_0^2}8\left[(g_1^2+g_2^2)Z_\mu Z^\mu
+g_2^2(W^+_\mu W^{-\mu}+W^-_\mu W^{+\mu})\right].$$ This has to be compared with the kinetic contributions $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{WW}&=&-\frac14F_{\mu\nu}\left(U(1)\right)F^{\mu\nu}\left(U(1)\right)
-\frac14\sum_{i=1}^3F^i_{\mu\nu}\left(SU(2)\right)
F^{i\mu\nu}\left(SU(2)\right)\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac12\partial_\mu B_\nu(\partial^\mu B^\nu-\partial^\nu B^\mu)
-\frac12\sum_{i=1}^3\partial_\mu W^i_\nu(\partial^\mu W^{i\nu}
-\partial^\nu W^{i\mu}).\end{aligned}$$ With $$W_\mu^\pm=\frac1{\sqrt2}(W_\mu^1\mp iW_\mu^2),\qquad
W_\mu^3=\frac{g_1A_\mu+g_2Z_\mu}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}},\qquad
B_\mu=\frac{g_2A_\mu-g_1Z_\mu}{\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}$$ one identifies the masses $m_A=0$, $m_Z=h_0\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}/2$ and $m_W=h_0g_2/2$.
In addition to the masses of the gauge bosons, the term $(D_\mu\phi(x))^\dagger(D^\mu\phi(x))$ gives rise also to a mixing of vector and scalar bosons, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{ih_0g_2}{2\sqrt2}\partial_\mu(h_1+ih_2)W^{-\mu}
-\frac{ih_0g_2}{2\sqrt2}\partial_\mu(h_1-ih_2)W^{+\mu}
+\frac{h_0\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}}2\partial_\mu h_4Z^\mu}\nonumber\\
&=&im_W(\partial_\mu h_W^+)W^{-\mu}-im_W(\partial_\mu h_W^-)W^{+\mu}
+m_Z(\partial_\mu h_Z)Z^\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where it was logical to define $h_W^\pm:=(h_1\pm ih_2)/\sqrt2$ and $h_Z:=h_4$. Using the property that the Lagrange density is determined only up to a total derivative, these nonphysical mixing contributions will finally be cancelled by appropriate additions to the gauge fixings in the gauge fixing terms $$-\frac1{2\xi_A}G_A^2-\frac1{2\xi_Z}G_Z^2-\frac1{2\xi_W}G_W^\pm G_W^\mp,$$ where $$\label{gaugefix}
G_A=\partial_\mu A^\mu,\qquad
G_Z=\partial_\mu Z^\mu-\xi_Zm_Zh_Z,\qquad
G_W^\pm=\partial_\mu W^{\pm\mu}\mp i\xi_Wm_Wh_W^\pm.$$ In addition to the gauge fixing and the cancellation of the boson mixings, we finally obtain mass terms also for the Goldstone bosons. The stage is now set for calculating the propagators both for massive vector gauge bosons and the corresponding scalar Goldstone bosons. As an example we deal with the $Z$ boson and the Goldstone boson field $h_Z$.
Green’s functions of massive gauge bosons
-----------------------------------------
For the $Z$ boson one obtains a contribution $${\cal L}_Z=-\frac12\partial_\mu Z_\nu(\partial^\mu Z^\nu-\partial^\nu Z^\mu)
+\frac12m_Z^2Z_\mu Z^\mu-\frac1{2\xi_Z}(\partial_\mu Z^\mu)^2$$ to the Lagrange density. The corresponding equation for the Green’s function reads $$\left(\partial^2\eta_{\mu\nu}-\left(1-\frac1{\xi_Z}\right)\partial_\mu
\partial_\nu+m_Z^2\eta_{\mu\nu}\right)D_Z^{\mu\rho}(x)
=i\eta_\nu^\rho\delta^{(4)}(x),$$ and this Proca equation is solved by $$D_Z^{\mu\nu}(x)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{-ie^{-ikx}}{k^2-m_Z^2}
\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi_Z)\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}\right).$$ For the Goldstone boson field $h_Z$ one obtains $${\cal L}_{h_Z}=\frac12(\partial_\mu h_Z)(\partial^\mu h_Z)
-\frac1{2\xi_Z}\xi_Z^2m_Z^2h_Z^2,$$ leading to the equation $-(\partial^2+\xi_Zm_Z^2)D^{h_Z}(x)=i\delta^{(4)}(x)$ for the Green’s function solved by $$D^{h_Z}(x)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{ie^{-ikx}}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}.$$ Note the $\xi_Z$ dependence of the latter Green’s function, also found in the longitudinal part of the corresponding vector boson Green’s function. For the Landau gauge $\xi_Z=0$ for instance the mass dependence vanishes in these parts. In this context it is worth noting that the classical equivalence to the Lorenz gauge is directly seen from Eqs. (\[gaugefix\]). On the other hand, while for Feynman gauge ($\xi_Z=1$) both vector and Goldstone bosons carry a mass $m_Z$ and the propagators are quite similar, for the unitary gauge ($\xi_Z\to\infty$) the Goldstone propagator vanishes, and for the vector boson propagator one obtains $$D_Z^{\mu\nu}(x)\Big|_{\xi_Z\to\infty}=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
\frac{-ie^{-ikx}}{k^2-m_Z^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_Z^2}
\right).$$ This means that for unitary gauge the Higgs boson is the only Goldstone boson that is propagated. This fact makes calculations using the unitary gauge particularly attractive, as the Goldstone sector is mainly absent. Finally, we obtain the same results also for the $W^\pm$ boson and collect our results in Eq. (\[greens\]) in the Introduction.
Gauge independence of processes
===============================
Even though the gauge boson propagator depends on the $R_\xi$ gauge via the gauge parameter $\xi$, this has no influence on particle processes. In order to understand this, note that massive vector bosons (like $W^\pm$ and $Z$) have to decay into pairs of fermions. Therefore, in exclusive processes the vector boson line is terminated by a fermion line. To continue with the $Z$ boson, as the simplest example we can calculate a $Z$ boson propagator, terminated “on the left” by a fermion line $f_1$ and “on the right” by a fermion line $f_2$. For our considerations it does not matter whether for the particular process the fermion lines constitute a fermion–antifermion pair generated by (or annihilated to) the $Z$ boson, or whether it is a fermion (or antifermion) which emits (or absorbs) the gauge boson. The gauge independence of the process can be shown in each of these cases.
In momentum space the $Z$ boson propagator reads $$\label{Zprop}
\tilde D_Z^{\mu\nu}(k)=\frac{-i}{k^2-m_Z^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}
-(1-\xi_Z)\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}\right).$$ It can be easily seen that this propagator can be decomposed into two parts [@Korner:2014bca], $$\tilde D_Z^{\mu\nu}(k)=\frac{-i}{k^2-m_Z^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}
-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_Z^2}\right)-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_Z^2}
\frac{i}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}.$$ While the first part is the propagator in unitary gauge, the second part is cancelled by the propagator of the neutral Goldstone boson field $h_Z$. In order to show this, we replace the full (gauge-dependent) propagator by the second term only, for this part of the matrix element obtaining (using the Feynman rules from Appendix A2 of Ref. [@BohmDennerJoos]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contr}
\lefteqn{\bar u(p'_2)ie\gamma^\mu\left(g_{f2}^-\Lambda_-+g_{f2}^+\Lambda_+
\right)u(p_2)\left(-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{m_Z^2}\frac{i}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}\right)
\bar u(p'_1)ie\gamma^\nu\left(g_{f1}^-\Lambda_-+g_{f1}^+\Lambda_+\right)
u(p_1)}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e^2}{m_Z^2}\bar u(p'_2){/\kern-6pt k}\left(g_{f2}^-\Lambda_-
+g_{f2}^+\Lambda_+\right)u(p_2)\frac{i}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2}\bar u(p'_1)
{/\kern-6pt k}\left(g_{f1}^-\Lambda_-+g_{f1}^+\Lambda_+\right)u(p_1)\qquad\quad\end{aligned}$$ with $k=p_1-p'_1=p'_2-p_2$ and $\Lambda_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$. The propagator part is now reduced to the propagator of the neutral Goldstone boson. Inserting the corresponding outer momentum differences for $k$ and using the Dirac equations, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e}{m_Z}\bar u(p'_2){/\kern-6pt k}\left(g_{f2}^-\Lambda_-
+g_{f2}^+\Lambda_+\right)u(p_2)
&=&\frac{em_{f2}}{m_Z}(g_{f2}^--g_{f2}^+)\bar u(p'_2)\gamma_5u(p_2),
\nonumber\\
\frac{e}{m_Z}\bar u(p'_1){/\kern-6pt k}\left(g_{f1}^-\Lambda_-
+g_{f1}^+\Lambda_+\right)u(p_1)
&=&-\frac{em_{f1}}{m_Z}(g_{f1}^--g_{f1}^+)\bar u(p'_1)\gamma_5u(p_1).\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $$g_f^-=\frac{I_f^3-s_W^2Q_f}{s_Wc_W},\quad
g_f^+=\frac{s_WQ_f}{c_W}\quad\Rightarrow\quad
g_f^--g_f^+=\frac{I_f^3}{s_Wc_W}$$ with $s_W=\sin\theta_W$, $c_W=\cos\theta_W$ the sine and cosine of the Weinberg angle, $Q_f$ the electric charge (in units of the elementary charge $e$) and $I_f^3$ the weak isospin of the fermion, the contribution (\[contr\]) is indeed cancelled by the process with the $Z$ boson replaced by the neutral Goldstone boson, leaving us with the gauge boson propagator in unitary gauge.
Note that in the 1960s and 1970s, the independence of physical processes under gauge transformations were discussed as an equivalence theorem for point transformations of the $S$ matrix [@Chisholm:1961tha; @Kamefuchi:1961sb; @Salam:1971sp; @Keck:1971ju; @Kallosh:1972ap]. Also recently there are controversies about whether physical processes including vector bosons are gauge invariant (see e.g. Refs. [@Wu:2017rxt; @Gegelia:2018pjz]).
\
(a1)\
\
(a2)(a3)\
\
(b2)(b3)
Fermion self energy contribution
--------------------------------
As an example for how this cancellation of the gauge dependence works out, we calculate first order electroweak corrections to the self energy of a fermion. As particular case we deal with the first order electroweak self energy to the top quark. The first corrections which we denote as baseline corrections are shown in Fig. \[selft\]. For the correction (a1) by a photon one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
i\Pi^t_{a1}&=&\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}(-ieQ_t\gamma^\nu)\frac{i({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t)}{(q+k)^2-m_t^2}
(-ieQ_t\gamma^\mu)\frac{-i}{k^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi_A)\frac{k^\mu
k^\nu}{k^2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&-e^2Q_t^2\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\left(\frac{\gamma^\mu({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t)
\gamma^\mu}{((q+k)^2-m_t^2)k^2}-(1-\xi_A)
\frac{{/\kern-6pt k}({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t){/\kern-6pt k}}{((q+k)^2-m_t^2)(k^2)^2}\right).\qquad\end{aligned}$$ Considering this correction between onshell Dirac states $\bar u(q)$ and $u(q)$, for the second part one obtains $$\bar u(q){/\kern-6pt k}({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t){/\kern-6pt k}u(q)
=(2qk+k^2)\bar u(q){/\kern-6pt k}u(q).$$ However, using principles of dimensional regularisation, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac{(2qk+k^2){/\kern-6pt k}}{((q+k)^2-m_t^2)(k^2)^2}
&=&\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac{\left((q+k)^2-m_t^2-q^2+m_t^2\right){/\kern-6pt k}}{((q+k)^2-m_t^2)
(k^2)^2}\nonumber\\
&=&(-q^2+m_t^2)\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac{/\kern-6pt k}{((q+k)^2-m_t^2)(k^2)^2}\ =\ 0.\qquad\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for the correction (a1) the gauge dependence drops out, and one obtains $$i\Pi^t_{a1}=-\frac{e^2Q_t^2}{2m_t}
\left((D-2)A(m_t)+4m_t^2B(m_t^2;m_t,m_A)\right),$$ where $A(m)$ and $B(q^2;m_1,m_2)$ are the one- and two-point functions, $$A(m)=\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac1{k^2-m^2},\qquad
B(q^2;m_1,m_2)=\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac1{\left((q+k)^2-m_1^2\right)(k^2-m_2^2)},$$ and the photon mass $m_A$ is used as regularisator.
For the correction (a2) by the $Z$ boson the occurence of a vector boson mass does not allow for the same conclusion. However, a first naive approach can be tried in which the gauge dependence drops out in the sum of the corrections by the $Z$ boson and by the corresponding Goldstone boson $\chi^Z$. In Feynman gauge one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
i\Pi^t_{a2}&=&\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}ie\gamma^\nu\left(g_t^-\frac{1-\gamma_5}2
+g_t^+\frac{1+\gamma_5}2\right)\frac{i({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t)}{(q+k)^2-m_t^2}
\times\strut\nonumber\\&&\strut
ie\gamma^\mu\left(g_t^-\frac{1-\gamma_5}2+g_t^+\frac{1+\gamma_5}2\right)
\frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{k^2-m_Z^2},\nonumber\\
i\Pi^t_{b2}&=&\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac{em_t}{2s_Wm_W}\gamma_5
\frac{i({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t)}{k^2-m_t^2}\frac{em_t}{2s_Wm_W}\gamma_5
\frac{i}{k^2-m_Z^2}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for unitary gauge there is no Goldstone contribution and one stays with the correction by the $Z$ boson, $$\begin{aligned}
i\Pi^{t\prime}_{a2}&=&\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}ie\gamma^\nu
\left(g_t^-\frac{1-\gamma_5}2+g_t^+\frac{1+\gamma_5}2\right)
\frac{i({q\kern-5.5pt/}+{/\kern-6pt k}+m_t)}{(q+k)^2-m_t^2}\times\strut\nonumber\\&&\strut
ie\gamma^\mu\left(g_t^-\frac{1-\gamma_5}2+g_t^+\frac{1+\gamma_5}2\right)
\frac{-i}{k^2-m_Z^2}\left(g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{m_Z^2}
\right).\qquad\end{aligned}$$ Looking at the difference $$\label{anatab2p}
i\Pi^t_{a2}+i\Pi^t_{b2}-i\Pi^{t\prime}_{a2}=\frac{e^2m_t}{8m_W^2s_W^2}A(m_Z)$$ one realises that the difference does not vanish. However, as the difference is proportional to the one-point function $A(m_Z)$, one might think of tadpole contributions to be taken into account. Tadpole corrections by vector and Goldstone bosons are shown in Fig. \[selftt\].
\
(c2)(c3)\
\
(d2)(d3)
For Feynman gauge one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
i\Pi^t_{c2}&=&\frac12{\left(\frac{-iem_t}{2s_Wm_W}\right)}\frac{i}{-m_H^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}{\left(\frac{iem_Wg^{\mu\nu}}{c_W^2s_W}\right)}\frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}}{k^2-m_Z^2}
\ =\ \frac{-De^2m_t}{4c_W^2s_W^2m_H^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac1{k^2-m_Z^2},
\kern-28pt\nonumber\\
i\Pi^t_{d2}&=&\frac12{\left(\frac{-iem_t}{2s_Wm_W}\right)}\frac{i}{-m_H^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}{\left(\frac{-iem_H^2}{2s_Wm_W}\right)}\frac{i}{k^2-m_Z^2}
\ =\ \frac{-e^2m_t}{8s_W^2m_W^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac1{k^2-m_Z^2}.
\kern-8pt\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Note the vanishing momentum square for the tadpole tail (Higgs boson). The factor $1/2$ is a combinatorical factor due to the fact that the $Z$ boson is its own antiparticle. As the Goldstone boson is absent for unitary gauge (i.e. does not propagate), the contribution (d2) is obviously the one which compensates the difference on the side of the Feynman gauge. However, once again the contribution (c2) will be different for unitary gauge where one obtains $$i\Pi^{t\prime}_{c2}=\frac{-e^2m_t}{4c_W^2s_W^2m_H^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}\frac1{k^2-m_Z^2}
\left(D-\frac{k^2}{m_Z^2}\right)=\frac{-(D-1)e^2m_t}{4c_W^2s_W^2m_H^2}A(m_Z).$$
\
(e2)(e3)
Finally, this difference will be compensated by the corresponding ghost contribution shown in Fig. \[selfth\]. For the tadpole with ghost loop $u_Z$ one obtains $$i\Pi^t_{e2}=-{\left(\frac{-iem_t}{2s_Wm_W}\right)}\frac{i}{-m_H^2}\int{\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D}}{\left(\frac{-iem_W\xi_Z}{2c_W^2s_W}\right)}\frac{i}{k^2-\xi_Zm_Z^2},$$ where the minus sign comes from the closed ghost loop. For unitary gauge ($\xi_Z\to\infty$) the contribution remains finite. However, the dependence on the inner momentum $k$ disappears and, therefore, there is no ghost contribution either. On the other hand, for Feynman gauge ($\xi_Z=1$) one obtains $$i\Pi^t_{e2}=\frac{e^2m_t}{4c_W^2s_W^2m_H^2}A(m_Z).$$ Therefore, taking into account baseline vector and Goldstone corrections as well as tadpole vector, Goldstone and ghost corrections we obtain that the result for Feynman gauge is the same as the one for unitary gauge.
The situation is similar in case of the corrections by $W^\pm$, $\chi^\pm$ and $u^\pm$. However, note that in this case $$i\Pi^t_{a3}+i\Pi^t_{b3}-i\Pi^{t\prime}_{a3}=\frac{e^2m_t
|V_{tb}|^2}{4m_W^2s_W^2}A(m_W).$$ As the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix element $V_{tb}$ does not occur in the tadpole contributions, for the comparison of the result for unitary and Feynman gauge it is essential to use the leading order approximation $V_{tb}\approx 1$.
The role of unitarity
---------------------
As the parts related the two massive vector bosons $Z$ and $W^\pm$ to the self energy of the fermion show, for the choice of unitary gauge one needs only two instead of five contributions, namely the two contributions related to the vector boson itself. Unitary gauge means $1/\xi=0$, i.e. the absence of the gauge fixing term. Indeed, the gauge fixing term is not necessary at all if the gauge boson carries a mass. The equation $$\left(-\eta_{\mu\nu}(k^2-m_V^2)+k_\mu k_\nu\right)\tilde D_V^{\mu\rho}(k)
=i\eta_\nu^\rho$$ can be solved again by the ansatz $\tilde D_V^{\mu\nu}(k)=\tilde D^g\eta^{\mu\nu}+\tilde D^kk^\mu k^\nu$, in this case with the solution $\tilde D^g=-i/(k^2-m_V^2)$ and $\tilde D^k=-\tilde D^g/m_V^2$, leading to the propoagator in unitary gauge, $$\tilde D_V^{\mu\nu}(k)=\frac{-i}{k^2-m_V^2}\left(\eta^{\mu\nu}
-\frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{m_V^2}\right).$$
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
The gauge boson projector as the central tensorial object in the propagator of the vector gauge boson is closely related to the completeness relation for the polarisation vectors. A generalisation of the completeness relation to four-dimensional spacetime is proposed in a pragmatic way. Using this approach, we could identify the polarisation vectors as tetrad fields relating ordinary spacetime to polarisation spacetime (see Eq. (\[tetrad\]). While the photon projector could be expressed by mirrors on the light cone (cf.Eq. (\[proplight\])), the projector for massive gauge bosons turned out to be expressed in unitary gauge by default. In particular, using the example of first order fermion self energy corrections we could show that physical processes do not depend on the gauge degree of freedom.
From the different treatment of the massless photon and the massive vector bosons we can draw the conclusion that the photon might not be considered as mass zero limit of the vector boson. Indeed, at least the degree of freedoms in this limit is not continuous. This behaviour is seen also for observables related to the spin of particles, known as spin-flip effect (see e.g.Refs. [@Lee:1964is; @Kleiss:1986ct; @Jadach:1987ws; @Contopanagos:1989ga; @Contopanagos:1992fm; @Smilga:1990uq; @Falk:1993tf; @Korner:1993dy; @Groote:1996nc; @Groote:1997su; @Dittmaier:2002nd; @Groote:2009zk]). Fundamentally different Lie group structures for massive and massless particles were investigated in Ref. [@Saar:2016jbx], and the considerations in Ref. [@Choi:2018mdd] allow for a relation of mass and spin. Interesting enough, in combining Refs. [@Saar:2016jbx; @Choi:2018mdd] a massive particle is constitued by two massless chiral non-unitary states based on the (massless) momentum vector and the light cone mirror of this, relating back to the light cone representation of the photon projector. These roughly sketched relations will be analysed in detail in a forthcoming publication.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank J. G. Körner for useful discussions on the subject of this paper. The research was supported by the European Regional Development Fund under Grant No. TK133, and by the Estonian Research Council under Grant No. PRG356.
[99]{}
J. D. Jackson,\
“Classical Electrodynamics” (3rd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999
L. Landau and E. Lifshitz,\
“The Classical Theory of Fields” (4th ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987
W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt,\
“Quantum Electrodynamics” (4th ed.), Springer, Berlin, 2008
M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, “An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory” (5th ed.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1995
M. Böhm, A. Denner and H. Joos, “Gauge Theories of the Strong and Electroweak Interaction” (3rd ed.), B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 2001
J. G. Körner, “Helicity Amplitudes and Angular Decay Distributions,” Proceedings of the Helmholtz International Summer School on Physics of Heavy Quarks and Hadrons (HQ 2013) : JINR, Dubna, Russia, July 15-28, 2013, pp. 169–184 S. Berge, S. Groote, J. G. Körner and L. Kaldamäe, “Lepton-mass effects in the decays $H \to ZZ^{\ast} \to \ell^{+} \ell^{-} \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ and $H \to WW^{\ast} \to \ell \nu \tau \nu_{\tau}$,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) 033001 A. Czarnecki, S. Groote, J. G. Körner and J. H. Piclum, “NNLO QCD corrections to the polarized top quark decay $t(\uparrow) \to X_b+W^+$,” Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{} (2018) 094008 L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov,\
“Feynman Diagrams for the Yang-Mills Field,” Phys. Lett. [**25B**]{} (1967) 29 Ludvig Lorenz, “On the identity of the vibrations of light with electrical currents,” Phil. Mag. Ser. 4 [**34**]{} (1867) 287 Hagen Kleinert, “Particles and Quantum Fields,” World Scientific, Singapore, 2016
P. A. M. Dirac, “The Principles of Quantum Mechanics,” Oxford University Press, Oxford, Third Edition, 1947
George Leibbrandt, “Introduction to Noncovariant Gauges,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{} (1987) 1067. E. Fermi, “Quantum Theory of Radiation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**4**]{} (1932) 87 P. A. M. Dirac, “Lectures in Quantum Field Theory,” Academic Press, New York, 1966
W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, “Zur Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder. Teil II”, Z. Phys. [**59**]{} (1930) 168 doi:10.1007/BF01341423 K. Bleuler, “Eine neue Methode zur Behandlung der longitudinalen und skalaren Photonen”, Helv. Phys. Acta [**23**]{} (1950) 567 S. N. Gupta, “Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,” Proc. Phys. Soc. A [**63**]{} (1950) 681 J. S. R. Chisholm, “Change of variables in quantum field theories,” Nucl. Phys. [**26**]{} (1961) 469. S. Kamefuchi, L. O’Raifeartaigh and A. Salam, “Change of variables and equivalence theorems in quantum field theories,” Nucl. Phys. [**28**]{} (1961) 529 A. Salam and J. A. Strathdee, “Equivalent formulations of massive vector field theories,” Phys. Rev. D [**2**]{} (1970) 2869 B. W. Keck and J. G. Taylor, “On the equivalence theorem for $S$-matrix elements,” J. Phys. A [**4**]{} (1971) 291 R. E. Kallosh and I. V. Tyutin, “The Equivalence theorem and gauge invariance in renormalizable theories,” Yad. Fiz. [**17**]{} (1973) 190 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**17**]{} (1973) 98\] T. T. Wu and S. L. Wu, “Comparing the $R_\xi$ gauge and the unitary gauge for the standard model: An example,” Nucl. Phys. B [**914**]{} (2017) 421 J. Gegelia and U. G. Meißner, “Once more on the Higgs decay into two photons,” Nucl. Phys. B [**934**]{} (2018) 1 T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, “Degenerate systems and mass singularities,” Phys. Rev. [**133**]{} (1964) B1549 R. Kleiss, “Hard bremsstrahlung amplitudes for $e^+e^-$ collisions with polarized beams at LEP / SLC energies,” Z. Phys. [**C33**]{} (1987) 433 S. Jadach, J. H. Kühn, R. G. Stuart and Z. Was, “QCD and QED corrections to the longitudinal polarization asymmetry,” Z. Phys. [**C38**]{} (1988) 609 \[Erratum-ibid. [**C45**]{} (1990) 528\] H.F. Contopanagos and M.B. Einhorn, “Is there a radiative background to the search of right-handed charged currents?,” Nucl. Phys. [**B377**]{} (1992) 20 H.F. Contopanagos and M.B. Einhorn, “Physical cnsequences of mass singularities,” Phys. Lett. [**B277**]{} (1992) 345 A.V. Smilga, “Quasiparadoxes of massless QED,” Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. [**20**]{} (1991) 69 B. Falk and L. M. Sehgal, “Helicity flip bremsstrahlung: an equivalent particle description with applications,” Phys. Lett. [**B325**]{} (1994) 509 J. G. Körner, A. Pilaftsis and M. M. Tung, “One loop QCD mass effects in the production of polarized bottom and top quarks,” Z. Phys. [**C63**]{} (1994) 575 S. Groote, J. G. Körner and M. M. Tung, “Polar angle dependence of the alignment polarization of quarks produced in $e^+e^-$ annihilation,” Z. Phys. [**C74**]{} (1997) 615 S. Groote, J. G. Körner and J. A. Leyva, “$O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to longitudinal spin–spin correlations in $e^+e^-\to q\bar q$,” Phys. Lett. [**B418**]{} (1998) 192 S. Dittmaier and A. Kaiser, “Photonic and QCD radiative corrections to Higgs boson production in $\mu^+\mu^-\to f\bar f$,” Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 113003 S. Groote, J. G. Körner and J. A. Leyva, “$O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to the polar angle dependence of the longitudinal spin-spin correlation asymmetry in $e^+ e^- \to q \bar q$,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**63**]{} (2009) 391; Erratum: \[Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{} (2014) 2789\] R. Saar and S. Groote, “Mass, zero mass and … nophysics,” Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras [**27**]{} (2017) 2739 T. Choi and S. Y. Cho, “Spin operators and representations of the Poincaré group,” arXiv:1807.06425 \[physics.gen-ph\]
[^1]: We will not make the chiral basis explicit though as we reserve $\lambda=\pm$ for something else.
[^2]: In case of a electric source the right hand side is replaced by $\rho(\vec x,t)$.
[^3]: Note that in contrast to Ref. [@Kleinert:2016] we integrate over the wave vector instead of summing it. According to the usual agreement for normal ordering, there is no contribution to the vacuum energy soever.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'High-quality (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation) ferromagnetic YTiO$_{3}$ thin films were epitaxially synthesized in a layer-by-layer way by pulsed laser deposition. Structural, magnetic and electronic properties were characterized by reflection-high-energy-electron-diffraction, X-ray diffraction, vibrating sample magnetometry, and element-resolved resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy. To reveal ferromagnetism of the constituent titanium ions, X-ray magnetic circular dichroism spectroscopy was carried out using four detection modes probing complimentary spatial scale, which overcomes a challenge of probing ferromagnetic titanium with pure Ti$^{3+}$(3$d^1$). Our work provides a pathway to distinguish between the roles of titanium and A-site magnetic rare-earth cations in determining the magnetism in rare-earth titanates thin films and heterostructures.'
author:
- Yanwei Cao
- 'P. Shafer'
- Xiaoran Liu
- 'D. Meyers'
- 'M. Kareev'
- 'S. Middey'
- 'J. W. Freeland'
- 'E. Arenholz'
- 'J. Chakhalian'
title: 'Magnetism and electronic structure of YTiO$_3$ thin films'
---
Recently the study of magnetism in titanates has attracted tremendous interest due to the variety of remarkable quantum many-body phenomena, i.e., spin ice states in magnetically frustrated pyrochlore titanates Ho$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ and Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ with Ti 3$d^0$ electronic configuration, [@Science-2001-Steven] antiferromagnetism (AFM)-ferromagnetism (FM) crossover behavior of the ground states in the bulk perovskite rare-earth titanates $R$TiO$_3$ ($R$ = La ... Eu etc.) with Ti 3$d^1$ electronic configuration, [@RMP-1998-Imada; @JPCM-2005-Zhou; @NJP-2004-Moch; @PRB-2007-Komarek; @PRB-2010-Tak] strain-induced ferroelectric ferromagnet in EuTiO$_3$ films, [@nature-2010-Lee] and emerging interfacial ferromagnetism in the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and GdTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ heterostructures with a mixture of Ti 3$d^1$/3$d^0$ electronic configurations. [@NM-2012-Hwang; @Nphy-2011-Millis; @Nphy-2013-Gabay; @PRB-2014-Ruh; @MRS-2013-Coey; @NCom-2010-GB; @APL-2011-Moe; @PRX-2012-Moe; @PRB-2013-Jac] Particularly, the unexpected coexistence of ferromagnetism and superconductivity at the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interface makes it intriguing and challenging to understand the interfacial magnetism of titanates. [@Nphy-2013-Gabay; @PRB-2014-Ruh; @MRS-2013-Coey] On the other hand, in $R$TiO$_3$ most rare-earth elements have a partially filled 4$f$-shell with large total spin angular momentum (e.g., $S$ = 7/2 for Gd$^{3+}$), which are usually involved in magnetic interactions with the Ti$^{3+}$ sites. [@JPCM-2005-Zhou] The magnetism in titanates, in the bulk or at interfaces, can arise from either the rare-earth elements, oxygen vacancies, magnetic Ti$^{3+}$, or the combination of these. Therefore, element-resolved and valence-state specific investigations are fundamentally important and imperative not only for greater understanding the role of Ti$^{3+}$ in the emergence of magnetism but also for applications to spintronics based on titanate heterostructures.
Experimentally, however, there are several obstacles on the way to investigating magnetic order of Ti$^{3+}$. First, only very few techniques are capable of probing the element-resolved magnetism on nanoscale. To this end, circularly polarized resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy, used in this work, is one of the most powerful available probes, with the total electron yield (TEY, surface or interface sensitive) mode having been proven to be suitable to investigate the interfacial magnetism. [@RMP-2014-JC; @NP-2006-JC; @Science-2007-JC; @NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee] At the same time, surprisingly, it was found that in the LaMnO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ heterostructures, the circular dichroism signal of interfacial Ti$^{3+}$/Ti$^{4+}$ with TEY detection mode at Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge is very weak ($\sim$ 1% of absorption spectra signal). [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee] Additionally, synthesis of high-quality samples with pure Ti$^{3+}$ (3$d^1$) is challenging due to the rapid conversion of magnetic Ti$^{3+}$ to non-magnetic Ti$^{4+}$ in low vacuum. [@APL-2002-Ohto; @APL-2006-Chae; @APL-2013-Misha] To fully understand the intriguing quantum many-body phenomena in magnetic Ti$^{3+}$ systems, synthesis and experimental investigation of the magnetism of pure Ti$^{3+}$ is essential and yet thus far lacking. [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee]
In this Letter, we study ferromagnetic Mott insulator YTiO$_3$ films (YTO) as a prototypical rare-earth titanate system. The structural and electronic quality of YTO films were confirmed by reflection-high-energy-electron-diffraction (RHEED), X-ray diffraction (XRD), vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) in Physical Properties Measurement System (PPMS), and resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS). We thoroughly investigated the circular magnetic dichroism (XMCD) of titanium ferromagnetism in luminescence yield, reflection, fluorescence yield, and electron yield detection modes. Our work directly demonstrated the presence of long range ferromagnetic order of the constituent titanium ions.
{width="60.00000%"}
High-quality (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation) YTO films were grown in a layer-by-layer fashion on DyScO$_3$ (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation, corresponding to (110)-orientation in orthorhombic notation) single crystal substrates by pulsed laser deposition (PLD) under the same growth conditions reported elsewhere. [@APL-2013-Misha] For this work, YTO was carefully selected as a prototype for three reasons: (1) in contrast to other rare-earth elements, the total spin angular momentum of Y$^{3+}$ with 4$d^0$ electronic configuration is almost zero thus ruling out the contribution of the magnetic rare-earth element, (2) the ferromagnetic transition temperature of bulk YTO is comparatively high (27 - 30 K), [@APL-2006-Chae; @PRB-2009-Knafo; @PB-2003-Suzuki] and (3) bulk YTO has a large Mott gap ($\sim$1.2 eV) compared for example to easily oxidized and metallic LaTiO$_3$ ($\sim$ 0.2 eV).[@PRB-1995-Oki]
Due to the small ionic radius of Y$^{3+}$, bulk YTO has a highly distorted GdFeO$_3$-type orthorhombic structure ($Pbnm$ space group) \[see Fig. 1(a)\] with lattice constants of $a$ = 5.679Å, $b$ = 5.316Å, and $c$ = 7.611Å, [@PRB-2002-Nakao; @JPCM-2007-Loa] and shows intriguing orbital ordering [@PRB-1998-Sawada; @PRB-2002-Nakao; @EPL-2005-Okatov] with magnetic and orbital excitations. [@NJP-2004-Tanaka; @PRL-2006-Ulrich; @PRB-2008-Ulrich] In this work, to monitor the quality of YTO films, during growth RHEED patterns were recorded, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). As seen, the sharp RHEED patterns with expected orthorhombic half-order reflections \[yellow arrows in Fig. 1(b)\] indicate a two-dimensional growth mode of YTO films. Structural quality of the thick ($\sim$ 98.6 nm) and ultra-thin ($\sim$ 5.8 nm) films were further confirmed by XRD using Cu K$_{\alpha1}$ radiation shown in Fig. 1 (c). To characterize the magnetic properties of thick YTO films, the magnetization versus temperature curve was measured with VSM in a PPMS. As shown in Fig. 1(d), as anticipated there is a clear ferromagnetic transition around 25 K for YTO film, showing excellent agreement with the bulk value of 27-30 K in single crystals [@PRB-2009-Knafo; @PRB-2002-Nakao; @PB-2003-Suzuki].
![\[\] (a) Schematic of XAS/XMCD signal detection using four different modes. During measurements, the grazing angles $\theta$ were kept at 20$^{\circ}$ and 10$^{\circ}$ for the beamlines 4.0.2 (ALS) and 4-ID-C (APS), respectively. Here, the arrow \[001\] (pseudo-cubic notation) indicates the growth direction of YTO films. (b) Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge XAS on YTO film using four modes-luminescence yield (Lum, 11K), total fluorescence yield (TFY, 15 K), reflectivity (Refl, 15K), and total yield electron (TEY, temperature 11K). The reference sample SrTiO$_3$ single crystal (5 $\times$ 5 $\times$ 0.5 mm$^3$) was measured at room temperature. XAS spectra of perovskite titanates is almost independent of temperature. [@PRL-2005-Hav; @JPSJ-2007-Ari] The dashed lines indicate the energy positions of t$_{2g}$ state of Ti$^{3+}$ 3$d$ band. The two small pre-edge peaks of STO spectra (bottom, orange curve) at $\sim$457 eV were attributed to the multiplet core hole-$d$ electron interactions. [@PCM-2002-Hen]](Fig2){width="40.00000%"}
![\[\] O $K$-edge XAS on YTO film at 15 K. The triangle suggests the second peak of O $K$-edge spectra on YTO film. The spectra of SrTiO$_3$ single crystal as a reference was measured at room temperature. ](Fig3){width="45.00000%"}
![\[\] Circular dichroism of YTO film under four detection modes - luminescence (Lum, 11K), total fluorescence yield (TFY, 15 K), reflectivity (XRMS, 15K), and total yield electron (TEY, temperature 11K). The dashed lines near 456 and 461 eV indicate the features derived from the t$_{2g}$ state of Ti$^{3+}$ 3$d$ band. The degree of circular polarization is near 100%. The direction of the applied magnetic field is parallel to the sample surface. Comparing with the magnetization versus magnetic field of bulk YTO,[@JPCM-2005-Zhou] the magnetic field-dependent XRMS intensity indicates the magnetization of the YTO film under 0.4 T magnetic field is near saturation.](Fig4){width="45.00000%"}
To further investigate the electronic and magnetic structures of YTO film, XAS measurements using four detection modes were carried out at two synchrotron facilities, beamline 4.0.2 (using the vector magnet) of the Advanced Light Source (ALS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) and beamline 4-ID-C of the Advanced Photon Source (APS, Argonne National Laboratory). As schematically illustrated in Fig. 2(a), these four detection modes are total electron yield (TEY, surface sensitive with 2-10 nm probing depth, measured at ALS with a 20$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@PRB-2000-Gota; @PRB-1997-Pompa] total fluorescence yield (TFY, bulk probing depth $\sim$ 20 nm, measured at APS with a 10$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@PRB-1997-Pompa] reflectivity (surface sensitive, measured at APS with a 10$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@JPCM-2007-Freeland] and new luminescence yield mode (Lum, bulk probing depth $\sim$ 50 nm, measured at ALS with a 20$^{\circ}$ incident angle). [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] Since pure Ti$^{3+}$ is challenging to stabilize and it easily converts to non-magnetic Ti$^{4+}$ on the YTO film surface, only bulk-sensitive TFY and luminescence detection modes are able to probe the properties of the Ti$^{3+}$. In the past , however, TFY signal has been known to distort the line-shape due to the saturation and self-absorption effects, [@PRB-1993-Eis] generally produces a very small absorption signal and even smaller magnetic dichroism at X-ray energies around Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge ($\sim$460 eV) due to the low number of fluorescence transitions. On the other hand, in a *luminescence yield* measurement [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] the X-ray beam transmitted through the YTO thin film is converted to visible light in the substrate. This luminescence signal can be detected with a diode behind the sample as a function of X-ray photon energy and is free of saturation and self-absorption effects. As the result, it is a direct and primarily bulk sensitive probe.
With the confirmed structural quality, we investigated the electronic structures of YTO films by XAS at the Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge. As seen in Fig. 2(b), in contrast with the reference Ti$^{4+}$ spectra of bulk SrTiO$_3$ (STO) with four characteristic peaks,[@Nmat-2013-Lee] the spectra of Ti$^{3+}$ in YTO film shows a distinct lineshape (i.e. two main peaks) with a $\sim$ 2 eV chemical shift to lower energy [@PRL-2005-Hav] - the difference is mainly connected to the crystal field splitting and the Ti 3$d^{1}$ electronic configuration of YTO. In addition, due to the oxidation of Ti$^{3+}$ to Ti$^{4+}$ on the YTO film surface causing a mixture of Ti$^{3+}$/Ti$^{4+}$ after being taken out of the vacuum chamber and exposed to the atmosphere during the delivery process, a significant Ti$^{4+}$ contribution is observed by *surface-sensitive* TEY and reflectivity modes. For the interior unit cells, the recently developed bulk sensitive luminescence mode [@PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach] shows much clearer signal than that of the TFY mode characteristic of pure Ti$^{3+}$.
To further investigate the difference in electronic structure caused by covalency between Ti$^{3+}$-O and Ti$^{4+}$-O bonds, O $K$-edge spectra were measured. To get a fingerprint of Ti$^{4+}$ we acquired O $K$-edge spectra on a STO single crystal. As seen in Fig. 3, due to the hybridization between Ti and O ions, the near-edge two main peaks ($\sim$ 530.5 and 533 eV, marked by the dashed lines) derived from Ti t$_{2g}$ and Ti e$_{g}$ bands are present. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari; @PRB-1989-Groot] In contrast to STO, the O $K$-edge spectra of the YTO film shows that the first peak ($\sim$ 530.5 eV) is strongly suppressed whereas the second peak ($\sim$ 532 eV, marked by the triangle in Fig. 3) is shifted to lower energy and is enhanced; this result agrees well with the previously reported spectra of bulk YTO. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari] To identify these features, we recap that compared to the Ti t$_{2g}$ and e$_{g}$ band splitting on STO driven by the large cubic crystal field, the recent YTO band structure calculation predicts the presence of an occupied lower Hubbard band (LHB) and empty upper Hubbard band (UHB) with partial mixing of Ti t$_{2g}$ and e$_{g}$ bands.[@PRB-2014-Him] Experimentally, previous resonant X-ray *inverse* photoemission data attributed the second peak ($\sim$ 532 eV) seen in our O $K$-edge spectra to the UHB of YTO. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari] On the other hand, for the two peaks with higher energy ($\sim$ 536 eV), they are mainly derived from the hybridizations between the $d$ bands of A-site ions (Y and Sr) and the O 2$p$ bands (see Fig. 3). [@JPSJ-2007-Ari]
To probe magnetism, we carried out XMCD measurements at the Ti *L*$_{2,3}$-edge \[see Fig. 2(a)\] to reveal the magnetic properties of the YTO film, as shown in Fig. 4. Left and right circularly polarized soft X-rays were tuned to the Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge and recorded in TEY, [@PRB-2000-Gota; @PRB-1997-Pompa] TFY, [@PRB-1997-Pompa] reflectivity (X-ray resonant magnetic scattering, XRMS) [@JPCM-2007-Freeland] and Luminescence [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] detection modes below 15 K and in an applied magnetic field. First, we point out that despite the surface sensitivity of TEY mode, the non-magnetic T$^{4+}$ (3$d^{0}$) ions present on the surface of YTO film do not contribute to the magnetism in YTO film and as such the XMCD signal is naturally absent in the TEY mode. For another surface-sensitive mode, XRMS, the XMCD signal near the Ti absorption edge represents the convoluted contribution from both chemical and magnetic scattering, and requires extensive modeling to identify the relevant Ti$^{3+/4+}$ states involved. [@JPCM-2007-Freeland; @PRL-1990-Kao] For the bulk-sensitive TFY mode, on the other hand, a small XMCD signal is visible but its spectral features are difficult to differentiate due to the low fluorescence yield intensity in this energy range. Finally, by using the luminescence detection method we were able to obtain a strong ferromagnetic signal on Ti. As seen in Fig. 4, the circular dichroism signal is strong ($\sim$10%), and its sign (negative or positive) can be flipped by reversing the orientation of the external magnetic field. To emphasize, the circular dichroism detected in the bulk sensitive luminescence mode under small magnetic field of $\pm 0.4$ T lends strong support to the ferromagnetic Ti$^{3+}$ state, whose spectral features are consistent with the suggested ferromagnetic titanium in LaMnO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interfaces and the theoretically predicted Ti 3$d^{1}$ electronic configuration. [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee; @PRB-1991-Laan] However, due to the insufficiently separated Ti $L_{2}$- and $L_{3}$-edge peaks, the pronounced shoulders, and the considerable contribution of the magnetic dipole term for solids lacking cubic symmetry, [@JAP-1994-OB; @PRB-1994-OB] the application of the XMCD sum rules for magnetic $R$TiO$_3$ is very difficult.
In summary, we developed layer-by-layer growth of high-quality Mott insulator YTiO$_3$ films and investigated their electronic structure and ferromagnetism of the Ti and O ions. A combination of RHEED, XRD, VSM and XAS confirmed the proper structural, chemical, magnetic and electronic quality. The ferromagnetism of the constituent Ti ions was directly observed with X-ray circular dichroism measurements in the luminescence detection mode. Our work provides a pathway to disentangle the independent roles of Ti and the A-site magnetic rare-earth ions in the perovskite titanates, and is important for studies of interfacial magnetism in $R$TiO$_{3}$-based heterostructures.
The authors deeply acknowledge the discussions with Se Young Park. Research at the University of Arkansas is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation EPiQS Initiative through Grant GBMF4534 and synchrotron work was supported by the DOD-ARO under Grant No. 0402-17291. The Advanced Light Source is supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
[999]{}
S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Science **294**, 1495 (2001).
M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. **70**, 1039 (1998).
H. D. Zhou and J. B. Goodenough, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **17**, 7395 (2005).
M. Mochizuki and M. Imada, New J. Phys. **6**, 154 (2004).
A. C. Komarek, H. Roth, M. Cwik, W.-D. Stein, J. Baier, M. Kriener, F. Bour$\acute{e}$e, T. Lorenz, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 224402 (2007).
K. Takubo, M. Shimuta, J. E. Kim, K. Kato, M. Takata, and T. Katsufuji, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 020401(R) (2010).
J. Lee, L. Fang, E. Vlahos, X. Ke, Y. Jung, L. Kourkoutis, J. Kim, P. Ryan, T. Heeg, M. Roeckerath, V. Goian, M. Bernhagen, R. Uecker, P. Hammel, K. Rabe, S. Kamba, J. Schubert, J. Freeland, D. Muller, C. Fennie, P. Schiffer, V. Gopalan, E. Johnston-Halperin, D. Schlom, Nature **466**, 954 (2010).
A. Millis, Nature Phys. **7**, 749 (2011).
H. Y. Hwang, Y. Iwasa, M. Kawasaki, B. Keimer, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature Mater. **11**, 103 (2012).
M. Gabay and J. Triscone, Nature Phys. **9**, 610 (2013).
J. Coey, Ariando, and W. Pickett, MRS Bull. **38**, 1040 (2013).
J. Ruhman, A. Joshua, S. Ilani, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 125123 (2014).
J. Garcia-Barriocanal, J. C. Cezar, F. Y. Bruno, P. Thakur, N. B. Brookes, C. Utfeld, A. Rivera-Calzada, S. R. Giblin, J. W. Taylor, J. A. Duffy, S. B. Dugdale, T. Nakamura, K. Kodama, C. Leon, S. Okamoto, and J. Santamaria, Nature Commun. **1**, 82 (2010).
P. Moetakef, J. Zhang, A. Kozhanov, B. Jalan, R. Seshadri, S. Allen, and S. Stemmer, Appl. Phys. Lett. **98**, 112110 (2011).
P. Moetakef, J. R. Williams, D. G. Ouellette, A. P. Kajdos, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, S. J. Allen, and S. Stemmer, Phys. Rev. X **2**, 021014 (2012).
C. A. Jackson and S. Stemmer, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 180403(R) (2013).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, A. J. Millis, C. Panagopoulos, and J. M. Rondinelli, Rev. Mod. Phys. **86**, 1189 (2014).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, G. Srajer, J. Strempfer, G. Khaliullin, J. C. Cezar, T. Charlton, R. Dalgliesh, C. Bernhard, G. Cristiani, H.-U. Habermeier, and B. Keimer, Nature Phys. **2**, 244 (2006).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, H.-U. Habermeier, G. Cristiani, G. Khaliullin, M. van Veenendaal, and B. Keimer, Science **318**, 1114 (2007).
J.-S. Lee, Y. W. Xie, H. K. Sato, C. Bell, Y. Hikita, H. Y. Hwang, and C.-C. Kao, Nature Mater. **12**, 703 (2013).
A. Ohtomo, D. A. Muller, J. L. Grazul, and H. Y. Hwang, Appl. Phys. Lett. **80**, 3922 (2002).
S. C. Chae, Y. J. Chang, S. S. A. Seo, T. W. Noh, D.-W. Kim, and C. U. Jung, Appl. Phys. Lett. **89**, 182512 (2006).
M. Kareev, Yanwei Cao, Xiaoran Liu, S. Middey, D. Meyers, and J. Chakhalian, Appl. Phys. Lett. **103**, 231605 (2013).
W. Knafo, C. Meingast, A. V. Boris, P. Popovich, N. N. Kovaleva, P. Yordanov, A. Maljuk, R. K. Kremer, H. v. L$\ddot{o}$hneysen, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 054431 (2009).
T. Suzuki, H. Higaki, I. Ishii, M. Tsubota, and F. Iga, Phys. B **329-333**, 868 (2003).
Y. Okimoto, T. Katsufuji, Y. Okada, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 9581 (1995).
H. Nakao, Y. Wakabayashi, T. Kiyama, Y. Murakami, M. v. Zimmermann, J. P. Hill, D. Gibbs, S. Ishihara, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 184419 (2002).
I. Loa, X. Wang, K. Syassen, H. Roth, T. Lorenz, M. Hanfland, and Y.-L. Mathis, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **19**, 406223 (2007).
H. Sawada and K. Terakura, Phys. Rev. B **58**, 6831 (1998).
S. Okatov, A. Poteryaev, and A. Lichtenstein, Europhys. Lett. **70**, 499 (2005).
Y. Tanaka, A. Q. R. Baron, Y.-J. Kim, K. J. Thomas, J. P. Hill, Z. Honda, F. Iga, S. Tsutsui, D. Ishikawa, and C. S. Nelson, New J. Phys. **6**, 161 (2004).
C. Ulrich, A. Gössling, M. Grüninger, M. Guennou, H. Roth, M. Cwik, T. Lorenz, G. Khaliullin, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 157401 (2006).
C. Ulrich, G. Ghiringhelli, A. Piazzalunga, L. Braicovich, N. B. Brookes, H. Roth, T. Lorenz, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 113102 (2008).
S. Gota, M. Gautier-Soyer, and M. Sacchi, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 4187 (2000).
M. Pompa, A. M. Flank, P. Lagarde, J. C. Rife, I. Stekhin, M. Nakazawa, H. Ogasawara, and A. Kotani, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 2267 (1997).
J. W. Freeland, J. J. Kavich, K. E. Gray, L. Ozyuzer, H. Zheng, J. F. Mitchell, M. P. Warusawithana, P. Ryan, X. Zhai, R. H. Kodama, and J. N. Eckstein, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **19**, 315210 (2007).
C. T. Chen, Y. U. Idzerda, H.-J. Lin, N. V. Smith, G. Meigs, E. Chaban, G. H. Ho, E. Pellegrin, and F. Sette, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 152 (1995).
D. J. Huang, C. F. Chang, J. Chen, H.-J. Lin, S. C. Chung, H.-T. Jeng, G. Y. Guo, W. B. Wu, S. G. Shyu, and C. T. Chen, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. **137-140**, 633 (2004).
M. Kallmayer, H. Schneider, G. Jakob, H. J. Elmers, B. Balke, and S. Cramm, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **40**, 1552 (2007).
M. Meinert, J. Schmalhorst, M. Glas, G. Reiss, E. Arenholz, T. B$\ddot{o}$hnert, and K. Nielsch, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 054420 (2012).
V. Kachkanov, M. J. Wallace, G. van der Laan, S. S. Dhesi, S. A. Cavill, Y. Fujiwara, and K. P. O$^\prime$Donnell, Sci. Rep. **2**, 969 (2012).
S. Eisebitt, T. B$\ddot{o}$ske, J.-E. Rubensson, and W. Eberhardt, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 14103 (1993).
M. W. Haverkort, Z. Hu, A. Tanaka, G. Ghiringhelli, H. Roth, M. Cwik, T. Lorenz, C. Sch$\ddot{u}$$\beta$ler-Langeheine, S. V. Streltsov, A. S. Mylnikova, V. I. Anisimov, C. de Nadai, N. B. Brookes, H. H. Hsieh, H.-J. Lin, C. T. Chen, T. Mizokawa, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, D. I. Khomskii, and L. H. Tjeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 056401 (2005).
M. Arita, H. Sato, M. Higashi, K. Yoshikawa, K. Shimada, M. Sawada, Y. Ueda, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, S. Fujiomori, Y. Saitoh, M. Tsubota, F. Iga, and T. Takabatake, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **76**, 074720 (2007).
G. S. Henderson, X. Liu, and M. E. Fleet, Phys. Chem. Minerals **29**, 32 (2002).
F. M. F. de Groot, M. Grioni, J. C. Fuggle, J. Ghijsen, G. A. Sawatzky, and H. Petersen, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 5715 (1989).
B. Himmetoglu, A. Janotti, L. Bjaalie, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 161102(R) (2014).
C. Kao, J. B. Hastings, E. D. Johnson, D. P. Siddons, G. C. Smith, and G. A. Prinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 373 (1990).
G. van der Laan and B. T. Thole, Phys. Rev. B **43**, 13401 (1991).
W. L. O$^{\prime}$Brien, B. P. Tonner, G. R. Harp, and S. S. P. Parkin, J. Appl. Phys. **76**, 6462 (1994).
W. L. O$^{\prime}$Brien and B. P. Tonner, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 12672 (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'After a brief introduction to the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, some of its important features in two space dimensions are reviewed. A comprehensive study of the various phases observed numerically in large systems over the whole parameter space is then presented. The nature of the transitions between these phases is investigated and some theoretical problems linked to the phase diagram are discussed.'
author:
- |
[Hugues Chaté$^{\rm a,b}$ and Paul Manneville$^{\rm b,a}$]{}\
$^{\rm a}$ CEA — Service de Physique de l’Etat Condensé,\
Centre d’Etudes de Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
$^{\rm b}$ LadHyX — Laboratoire d’Hydrodynamique,\
Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France
title: |
Phase Diagram of the Two-Dimensional\
Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation
---
This plain LaTeX version of the article, originally published as:\
Physica A [**224**]{} (1996) 348–368
\
is placed on arXiv because the publisher’s link:\
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378437195003614
\
only provides badly resolved black-and-white scans of the figures in place of the initial more readable color pictures.
The complex Ginzburg-Landau equation (CGL) is one of the most important simple nonlinear partial differential equations for two main reasons. First, as we will briefly recall below, it arises as the natural description of many physical situations, or at least is the “kernel” of many systems of amplitude equations. Second, its solutions display a very rich spectrum of dynamical behavior when its parameters are varied, reflecting the interplay of dissipation, dispersion and nonlinearity.
Here, we give a brief and mostly qualitative report of the various regimes observed in the two-dimensional case, and discuss several theoretical aspects of these numerical findings.
Introduction to CGL
===================
A large body of work has already been devoted to the CGL equation, which reads: $$\label{cgl}
\partial_t A = A + (1+i b_1) \nabla^2 A - (b_3 - i) |A|^2 A$$ where $A$ is a complex field.
In the context of amplitude equations [@AMPLI; @PCHMCC], which are large-scale descriptions of physical systems passed (and near) symmetry-breaking instability thresholds, the CGL equation has been recognized as the relevant equation for the slow modulations of oscillations in a continuous medium near a Hopf bifurcation [@CGL-GEN]. More generally, it appears in the description of spatially-extended systems when oscillations or waves are present.
![Phase diagram of the two-dimensional CGL equation. Phase turbulence is observed between lines [L]{} and [BF]{}, defect turbulence to the left of line [T]{}, and frozen states exist (approximately) to the right of line . Details are given in the text.](PDFs/f1.pdf){width="0.65\TW"}
Under the form (\[cgl\]), the CGL equation has been reduced (without loss of generality) to its simplest from, with only two real parameters, $b_1$ and $b_3$. The first term of the rhs is related to the linear instability mechanism which led to oscillations. The second term accounts for diffusion and dispersion, while the cubic nonlinear term insures —if $b_3>0$, otherwise other terms may be necessary— the saturation of the linear instability and is involved in the renormalisation of the oscillation frequency. Two important limits are worth mentioning: when $b_1=0,
b_3 \rightarrow \infty$, one has the real Ginzburg-Landau equation, which possesses a Lyapunov functional and thus exhibits only relaxational dynamics [@RGL]. When $b_1 \rightarrow \infty, b_3=0$ dispersion plays the essential role, as one recovers the nonlinear Schrödinger equation [@NLS]. In the general case, sustained spatio-temporally disordered regimes are observed in large regions of the parameter plane (Fig. 1).
The genericity of the CGL equation, associated to its relative simplicity, has made it one of the favorite playgrounds for testing ideas about spatiotemporal chaos in a rather realistic context [@PCHMCC]. It is only recently, though, that a comprehensive study has been undertaken, as it was realized that away from the intricacy of the bifurcation diagrams at small sizes, there exists a crossover size beyond which chaos becomes extensive and can be characterized by intensive quantities independent of system size, boundary conditions, and, to a large extent, initial conditions [@HSG-EXTEN]. Indeed, when chaos is extensive, statistical approaches are legitimate and should provide rather simple descriptions. In this context, bifurcation diagrams —typically used for small dynamical systems— are replaced by “phase diagrams” delimiting the regions of different statistical signatures in parameter space.
Whereas the one-dimensional case is now rather well known [@CGL1D; @NONLIN; @SANTAFE], the situation in two dimensions is much less satisfactory, mainly because previous work was devoted to punctual problems rather than to acquiring a global picture of the properties of the equation. Here, thanks to current computer power, we provide a comprehensive overview of the two-dimensional CGL equation in the large-size limit [@NOTE1].
Waves, phase instability and defects
====================================
We now introduce a few important features of the CGL equation before proceeding to the description of the phase diagram.
Early work on CGL has dealt with the problem of the linear stability of its family of plane-wave solutions $A=a_k \exp i(kx+\omega_k t)$ with $a_{k}^2=(1-k^2)/b_3$ and $\omega_k=1/b_3-(b_1+1/b_3)k^2$. All these solutions are unstable for $b_1>b_3$ (Newell criterion), a condition which defines the so-called “Benjamin-Feir” ([BF]{}) line (Fig. 1). For $b_1<b_3$, plane-wave solutions with $k^2<k_{\rm max}^2 = (b_3-b_1)/(3b_3-b_1+2/b_3)$ are linearly stable [@ECKHAUS]. The instability of the travelling wave solutions above the [BF]{} line is readily verified as to be linked to the “gauge” invariance of the equation, i.e. its invariance by an arbitrary phase shift ($A\rightarrow A\exp i\phi_0$). Near the [BF]{} line, the amplitude modes are strongly damped, “slaved” to the marginal phase mode, so that one often speaks of a [*phase instability*]{}. This instability has been conjectured to lead to a disordered regime called [*phase turbulence*]{} [@PHASTURB], in which the field $A$ never reaches zero, so that the phase $\phi=\arg A$ is defined everywhere. Near the [BF]{} line, the phase gradient $\nabla \phi$ is expected to remain small, and a systematic expansion can be performed, leading to a description of the large-scale dynamics in terms of the phase only. The behavior of the resulting series of [*phase equations*]{} obtained by truncation of this expansion is actually not very well known, except for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (KS) equation to which these equations reduce infinitely close to the [BF]{} line. If phase turbulence (i.e. spatiotemporal chaos) has been established for the KS equation, it is the subject of an ongoing controversy away from the [BF]{} line, both for the phase equations and for the CGL equation itself [@PHASTURB; @SANTAFE; @CONTRO-PHAS; @HSG-L1].
Another important feature of the CGL equation is the structure, nature, and role of “defects”, i.e. points in space-time where $A=0$. At such points, the phase is not defined, and it varies by a multiple of $2\pi$ when going around them. For space dimensions $d\ge 2$, defects are topologically constrained. This has been recognized for a long time as one of the salient features of the two-dimensional CGL [@COULLET; @SPIRAL]. For $d=2$, defects are points and can only appear and disappear by pairs. For small enough $b_1$ values, they appear in two different types, “spirals” and “shock-line vertices” (Fig. 2). The shock-line vertices have mostly been considered as “passive” objects which play no important role. However accurate this statement may be, it remains that the spiral defects have attracted the most attention [@SPIRAL; @KRAMER-SPI]. In spite of all these efforts, no exact expression is available; on the other hand, much is known about the core structure and the “wings”, i.e. the emitted outward-going waves. Away from the core, these waves are asymptotic to a planewave with a well-defined wavenumber $k_{\rm sp}$ depending only on $b_1$ and $b_3$. The stability properties of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave solution give rise to two important lines in the $(b_1,b_3)$ parameter plane. On the line, $k_{\rm sp}=k_{\rm max}$, the maximum wavenumber of linearly stable planewaves (Fig. 1). This line delimits the region of linear stability of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ wave. To its left, the wave is linearly unstable (perturbations grow exponentially in phase space); this is in fact a [*convective*]{} instability: a [*localized*]{} perturbation indeed grows, but is advected away from its initial position at the group velocity of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave. At this initial position, the solution relaxes to the planewave. According to Aranson et al. [@KRAMER-SPI], the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave becomes [*absolutely*]{} unstable to the left of the line: any initial perturbation grows at its initial location (in addition to spreading in the direction of the wave).
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
It is not exactly known how these stability limits of the planewave with wavenumber $k_{\rm sp}$ are related to the actual stability properties of the spiral solution and to its observability in an experimental context. In most of the region of the parameter plane of considered here, the spiral solution exists and is core-stable [@KRAMER-CORE]. In consequence, it can be argued that its stability properties are essentially related to those of the asymptotic $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave in a [*semi-infinite*]{} domain (with the core sitting at one end). We now formulate, at a somewhat conjectural level, the stability properties of the spiral solution and their consequences observable in experiments (be they numerical or not). To the right of line , one expects the spiral to resist a (small) amount of noise, due to its “complete” (core and wings) linear stability. Between and , perturbations are amplified but convected away from the core at the group velocity of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ solution. Numerical experiments have shown that the spiral is most sensitive to perturbations in the crossover region between the core and the wings [@TBP]. At a given level of (experimental) noise, perturbations coming from this region are the most dangerous ones. This convective instability in fact takes the form of growing oscillations of the [*modulus*]{} $|A|$ as one goes away from the core (see Fig. 6). Experimentally, these oscillations do not saturate, and the wave breaks down, creating more defects. This mechanism defines a maximum radius $R_{\rm noise}$ which limits the size of observable spirals, and depends on the instability rate and (weakly) on the noise level. Approaching the limit of absolute instability (line ), this diameter goes to zero, and beyond the spiral is “completely” unstable and cannot be observed in an experimental (noisy) context.
Finally, we note that if defects do play an important role in the two-dimensional CGL equation, as we will show below, their topological character is not crucial in determining the dynamical regimes: for $d=1$, localized “quasi-defects” —where $|A|$ remains locally very close to zero— have been shown to be the key-ingredient in some disordered regimes [@NONLIN]. But the topological constraint on defects for $d\ge 2$ does provide them with a large domain of existence in parameter space, insuring their relevance in most of the regimes of interest.
Phases
======
Fig. 1 shows the phase diagram of the two-dimensional CGL equation established from a numerical exploration of systems of linear size of the order of $L=512$ with periodic boundary conditions, using a pseudospectral code. Details about the integration scheme and the numerical protocol will be given elsewhere [@TBP]. The various transition lines are discussed in detail in Section 4.
As in the one-dimensional case [@CGL1D; @NONLIN], two types of disordered regimes can be distinguished, depending on whether they exhibit defects or not. To the right of the line [L]{} in the parameter plane, [*phase turbulence*]{} (no defects) is observed, whereas [*defect turbulence*]{} occurs to the left of line [T]{}.
Phase turbulence
----------------
Between the [BF]{} and the [L]{} lines, spatiotemporally chaotic regimes of phase turbulence —where no defect occurs— are observed. With periodic boundary conditions, the total phase gradient across the system (the “winding number”) is conserved. This introduces a new invariant to the problem. Most results reported here (in particular the location of line [L]{}) are for the case of zero winding number.
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
In phase turbulence, the solution consists of a disordered cellular structure, (best seen in plots of $|A|$ or $\nabla \phi$) slowly evolving in time (Fig. 3a). The typical size of the cells diverges like $(b_3-b_1)^{-1/2}$ when approaching the [BF]{} line; this size is in fact of the order of the wavelength of the most unstable mode in the corresponding KS equation. If the correlations of the modulus $|A|$ still decay rapidly, those of the phase $\phi$ decay slowly, with power-law-like behavior. This is apparent in the large-scale modulations of the phase field (Fig. 3b). In Section 5, we discuss the effective large-scale model for phase turbulence and the asymptotic behavior of the correlations in phase turbulence.
Even though they are certainly important to better understanding the dynamics of phase turbulence, the “elementary processes” at play in this regime are not known. For $d=1$, it has been shown that propagative structures are the objects triggering the breakdown of phase turbulence [@SANTAFE]. Here, no equivalent has so far been found (see below). One should also investigate whether the evolution of the cellular structure involves some of the elementary events observed in the coarsening of soap froths [@FROTH] (even though these cannot account for all the dynamics here, since the cellular structure is statistically stationary). Knowledge of the local dynamics is necessary to build a large-scale effective description of two-dimensional phase turbulence in the spirit of the work of Chow and Hwa [@HWA] for the one-dimensional KS equation.
Defect turbulence
-----------------
Defect turbulence is the most chaotic regime of the two-dimensional CGL equation: correlations decay exponentially, with short correlation lengths and times. Depending mostly on $b_1$, the space-time signature of the solutions varies. For large $b_1$, the density of defects is large, they come and go rapidly, and they rarely form spirals (Fig. 4). Indeed, it can be argued that defects [*per se*]{} are not crucial features in this case. “Amplitude turbulence” is a better name for such spatiotemporal chaos regimes. Furthermore, increasing $b_1$ toward the nonlinear Schrödinger equation limit, [*pulses*]{} become the relevant objects: the solutions consist of localized regions where $A\neq 0$. Approaching the [BF]{} line, the defect density decreases, the characteristic scales increase, and spirals can be observed. In fact well-developed spirals can only be observed, in the defect turbulence region, to the right of the line (see the discussion of the transition lines in the next section).
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
Frozen states
-------------
Cellular structures also appear in the two-dimensional CGL equation in the form of quasi-frozen arrangements of spiral defects surrounded by shock lines. In these states, the field $|A|$ is generally completely stationary in time. The network of these lines form the cells of these spatially-disordered states (Fig. 5). Non-spiral defects lie at the shock-line vertices, sometimes also along the shock lines themselves, in metastable arrangements. Because the timescales involved are very long, it is actually difficult to decide when these structures stop evolving. Residual, intermittent, local rearrangements — less and less frequent along time— are observed, and this relaxation process is reminiscent of that taking place in glasses. In fact, much remains to be done in order to decide to what extent these dynamical states are glassy states. A first study along these lines can be found in Huber [@HUBER]. A particular point of interest is to investigate whether some kind of aging phenomena are taking place in these frozen structures.
The frozen states are easily observed in the region of the parameter space to the right of line [T]{}, where they are the only asymptotic solutions possessing defects. Their total domain of existence in the $(b_1,b_3)$ plane can be estimated on the basis of the stability properties of spirals, as discussed in Section 2. The frozen states do not exist to the left of line , since there the spirals are absolutely unstable. On the other hand, nothing precludes their existence to the right of . The size of the cells is not limited, except in the presence of noise, since in this case, between and , spirals have a maximum radius $R_{\rm noise}$. In practice, the dynamical “history” which led to a given frozen structure greatly influences the distribution of sizes of cells in the structure (see the discussion in section 4.1 below).
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
The actual observation of frozen states in the region between lines and [T]{}, where defect turbulence exists, is not easy, though, because these states are metastable with respect to defect turbulence. Coming, for example, from a frozen asymptotic state to the right of line [T]{}, the parameters have to be changed “adiabatically” to prevent the nucleation of defect turbulence. Even then, the necessary rearrangements of the cellular structure, which involve the rapid motion of some defects, most often trigger the “melting” of the frozen structure. Frozen structures are most easily observed far to the right of line [T]{}, and especially to the right of . Their domain of existence probably extends to large values of $b_3$ (except maybe for large $|b_1|$). At any rate, along the $b_1=0$ axis, it extends to the real Ginzburg-Landau ($b_3\rightarrow \infty$) limit, where the spirals become the vortex excitations of the XY model [@CGLXY].
Transitions
===========
The respective domains of existence of the three disordered phases described above are delimited by the lines [BF]{}, [T]{}, [L]{}, and . We discuss now the nature of the various (phase) transitions observed when crossing these lines and comment on the relative stability of the disordered phases.
Lines [T]{} and
----------------
As already mentioned, line [T]{} delimits the (numerically estimated) domain of existence of [*sustained*]{} regimes of defect turbulence. Starting from a defect turbulence regime, [*increasing $b_3$*]{}, this highly chaotic regime is maintained until line [T]{} is crossed; defect turbulence is only transient then, and is followed by the nucleation of a frozen state (Fig. 6). As observed by Huber et al. [@HUBER], this transition is indeed reminiscent of a first-order phase transition. Depending both on the amplitude of the “quench” beyond line [T]{} (i.e. the distance of the current parameters to line [T]{}) and the $b_1$ value of the crossing point, the duration of the transient varies widely. The smaller the quench and the larger $b_1$, the longer the transient. As a matter of fact, line [T]{} can be seen as the line where this transient is infinite.
The nucleation process involves the appearance of a sufficiently large spiral core. To the right of line [T]{}, the spiral may then grow, but its size is limited to a maximum radius $R_{\rm turb}$ (Fig. 6a). This radius results from the interaction between the outward-going spiral waves and the strong, finite-amplitude fluctuations characteristic of the defect turbulence “bath” surrounding it. These fluctuations trigger the most unstable mode of the spiral solutions, i.e. the oscillations of $|A|$ which are the signature of the nonlinear stage of the convective instability, and influence the spiral wave [*inward*]{}. We stress that this is different from the problem usually considered when studying convective instabilities. Here a semi-infinite convectively-unstable medium is put in contact “downstream” with a turbulent medium. The balance between the (destabilizing) turbulent fluctuations and the (regularizing) advection of perturbations by the spiral waves takes place at the nonlinear level, so that the radius $R_{\rm turb}$ cannot be determined from the stability properties of the spiral alone [@TBP].
Approaching line [T]{} from the right, $R_{\rm turb}$ decreases. Numerical experiments [@TBP] show that the line [T’]{} where $R_{\rm turb}=0$ (not shown in Fig. 1) is located to the [*left*]{} of line [T]{}. Note that, in contrast with line [T]{}, line [T’]{} is defined [*via*]{} a local dynamical phenomenon. In the region between lines [T]{} and [T’]{}, “fully developed” defect turbulence decays to mixed states, i.e. mostly-frozen structures in which some localized patches of turbulence subsist (Fig. 6b). Numerically speaking, this residual turbulence does not seem to vanish at long times; extensive statistical data has to be compiled in order to decide whether this remains true in the infinite-time limit, in which case lines [T]{} and [T’]{} are distinct. In the other case, one must conclude that line [T]{}, in the thermodynamic limit, moves to the left to coalesce with line [T’]{}. However, in a similar fashion to what happens with line [L]{} in phase turbulence (see next section), line [T]{} is numerically well-defined for all practical purposes, and it is only a theoretical point to know whether it is distinct from [T’]{} in the infinite-time limit. We note finally that the frozen states nucleated this way (i.e. from the spontaneous decay of defect turbulence) possess a maximal cell size given by $R_{\rm turb}$.
![Nucleation of a frozen state from defect turbulence in a system of linear size $L=1024$ with parameters $b_1=2$ and $b_3=1.33$. (a): two spirals have been nucleated and have reached their maximal size $R_{\rm turb}\sim 225$; (b): asymptotic state consisting of a frozen structure of spirals with maximum radius $R_{\rm turb}$ with some residual turbulence for $L=1024$, $b_1=2$, and $b_3=1.43$. This asymptotic state is typical of the region between lines [T]{} and [T’]{} (compare with Fig. 5). (Snapshots of field $|A|$, color scale from $|A|=0$ (dark red) to $|A|=1.22$ (light yellow)). Note the oscillations of $|A|$ away from the spiral cores, near their maximum radius, which are the signature of the convective instability of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave.](PDFs/f6a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\TW"}![Nucleation of a frozen state from defect turbulence in a system of linear size $L=1024$ with parameters $b_1=2$ and $b_3=1.33$. (a): two spirals have been nucleated and have reached their maximal size $R_{\rm turb}\sim 225$; (b): asymptotic state consisting of a frozen structure of spirals with maximum radius $R_{\rm turb}$ with some residual turbulence for $L=1024$, $b_1=2$, and $b_3=1.43$. This asymptotic state is typical of the region between lines [T]{} and [T’]{} (compare with Fig. 5). (Snapshots of field $|A|$, color scale from $|A|=0$ (dark red) to $|A|=1.22$ (light yellow)). Note the oscillations of $|A|$ away from the spiral cores, near their maximum radius, which are the signature of the convective instability of the $k=k_{\rm sp}$ planewave.](PDFs/f6b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\TW"}
The transition from defect turbulence to frozen states is hysteretic: coming from a frozen state, and [*decreasing $b_3$*]{}, it is, in principle, possible to keep [*completely*]{} frozen structures past line [T]{}, (even if “partially” frozen structures, such as the one shown in Fig. 6b, coexist in the region between lines [T]{} and [T’]{}). As mentioned in Section 3, line is only an absolute and approximate limit of the hysteresis region: in theory, the effects of the curvature of the waves and the spiral core should be taken into account, and in practice, in this region of parameter space, the frozen states are easily destroyed by perturbations, so that it is extremely difficult to observe the frozen states far to the left of line [T]{}. In fact, the real limit of existence of frozen states might be actually determined by the properties of the [*nonlinear*]{} stage of the convective instability of the waves and possibly also by the stability properties of the shock-line vertices, the other key-component of frozen structures. This very intricate situation will be examined in detail in [@TBP]. The distance between lines [T]{} and is thus only an approximate measure of the [*maximal*]{} width of the hysteresis loop.
Line [L]{}
----------
Line [L]{} is the (numerically-determined) line beyond which (to its left) phase turbulence is only transient. To its right, phase turbulence can be observed for as big a system and as long a time as current computers allow. A brief discussion of the existence of phase turbulence in the infinite-size, infinite-time limit is given in the next section, but, numerically speaking, line [L]{} is rather well defined, with the probability of breakdown of phase turbulence being finite to its left and essentially zero to its right.
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
{width="0.48\TW"}{width="0.48\TW"}
The breakdown of phase turbulence is also a nucleation process (Fig. 7). A pair of defects is nucleated by some fluctuation on one side of a cell, triggering a “chain-reaction” leading to the quasi-deterministic invasion of the system by a growing bubble of the defect turbulence phase. The diameter of this bubble increases linearly with time (Fig. 7d).
A priori, three sections of line [L]{} have to be considered, delimited by the crossing points with lines [T]{} and (or, rather, the line actually delimiting the existence of frozen states). Below line [T]{}, the only possible regime is defect turbulence, so that the breakdown of phase turbulence can only lead to this regime. Between lines and [T]{}, defect turbulence and frozen states coexist, and the breakdown could lead to either state. In fact, the nucleation events at the origin of the breakdown are always highly chaotic, and only defect turbulence arises (this is not surprising, considering the metastability of frozen states in this region). The third portion of line [L]{}, above its crossing with line [T]{}, offers an interesting possibility: there, only frozen states are expected asymptotically. But the breakdown of phase turbulence first triggers a defect turbulence transient which then itself nucleates a frozen state. No direct transition from phase turbulence to frozen states seems possible, although it is conceivable that one might observe, in a large system, a nucleating frozen state within the growing bubble of defect turbulence invading phase turbulence.
Finally, we note, not surprisingly, that the breakdown of phase turbulence is also an hysteretic transition. Crossing line [L]{} from left to right, one remains in either defect turbulence or a frozen state.
Discussion
==========
After this brief description of the “phase diagram”, we comment on important related points as well as some theoretical problems currently under investigation.
Infinite-size, infinite-time limit
----------------------------------
The phase diagram of Fig. 1 summarizes numerical results. As such, even though customary precautions have been taken (e.g. to insure the extensivity of chaos in the disordered regimes), it does not represent the “true” phase diagram, i.e. that of the infinite-size, infinite-time, “thermodynamic” limit. This question, which also arises in the $d=1$ case, has been recently investigated [@HSG-L1], in particular with respect to the existence of phase turbulence in the thermodynamic limit (represented by line [L]{} here). Indeed, the very existence of phase turbulence is questioned. As for the $d=1$ case, it is currently impossible to make a definitive statement, on the basis of numerical simulations alone, as to whether line [L]{} coalesces with the [BF]{} line in the thermodynamic limit. A careful analysis of statistical data about phase turbulence in one and two dimensions for various system sizes and integration times is under way and will be reported elsewhere [@TBP]. Extrapolation of size effects, though, seems to lead to the conclusion that phase turbulence might not exist in the thermodynamic limit. It remains nevertheless that for all practical purposes (numerical or experimental), there exists a domain of parameter space where phase turbulence is statistically stationary and subsists —even in very large systems— for times as long as desired. At any rate, Fig. 1 is representative of system sizes and integration times accessible to current computers (say up to linear size L of the order of $10^4$ and integration times up to $10^5$), and line [L]{} is probably slightly shifted for much larger systems.
The status of line [T]{}, which delimits the domain of existence of sustained regimes of defect turbulence, is subjected to similar remarks. Statistical data about the probability of breakdown (to a frozen state) should be cumulated in order to estimate the position of line [T]{} in the thermodynamic limit. This should be completed by a detailed study of the variation of $R_{\rm turb}$ with parameters $b_1$ and $b_3$ to provide a precise determination of line [T’]{}. The question, raised in Section 4.1, of whether lines [T]{} and [T’]{} coalesce in the thermodynamic limit, could thus be addressed. The existence of defect turbulence is not in question, though, as line [T]{} is bound to be situated to the right of line (which limits absolutely the domain of existence of frozen states).
Cellular structures
-------------------
Cellular structures appear both in phase turbulence (Fig. 3) and, of course, as frozen states (Fig. 5). In phase turbulence, the dynamics produces statistically stationary configurations which can be studied along the lines of what is usually done for, say, the coarsening of soap froths [@FROTH]. For example, a first step would be to estimate the statistical properties of cells —their sizes, their number of sides— and a second stage could consist in determining the local events of which their dynamical evolution is composed. As mentioned in section 3.2, this should provide a better understanding of the elementary processes involved in phase turbulence, as well as a better statistical description of this regime. This could also pave the way to a simple “particle model” sharing the same statistical properties, similar to the work of Rost and Krug [@KRUG] on the KS equation. In the case of the frozen states, as discussed earlier, the characteristics of the structures depend strongly on the “dynamical history” that led to them, so that an investigation of their geometrical properties must be correlated to their origin and formation.
Complete phase diagram
----------------------
Admittedly, the phase diagram of Fig. 1 is not quite complete. Work remains to be done, in particular on the three following points:
- The $b_1 \rightarrow \infty$, “nonlinear Schrödinger”, limit needs to be clarified: Where are lines and [T]{} located? How does the [*core*]{} instability of spirals intervene in the dynamical regimes?
- The $b_1 <0$ region, and especially the prolongation of line [T]{}, should be investigated, as well as the $b_1 \rightarrow -\infty$ limit.
- It is known that, at least for $d=1$, the CGL equation exhibits well-behaved disordered regimes in some parts of the $b_3<0$ half-plane [@BRETHER], in spite of the absence of the usual nonlinear saturation mechanism. Such a possibility should also be explored in the two-dimensional case.
- the processes of nucleation of the spiral cores should be studied in detail, at least from a statistical point of view. In particular, the minimal core size that can possibly lead to the growth of a spiral should be estimated, as well as the probability of such an event. This would help define a line to the right of line [T]{} beyond which nucleation is immediate (corresponding to the line “NUC” in [@HUBER]), as well as clarify the nature of the frozen states with residual turbulence observed experimentally between lines [T]{} and [T’]{}.
Large-scale description
-----------------------
The possibility of large-scale descriptions of deterministic spatiotemporal chaos in terms of Langevin-like, (nonlinear) stochastic equations, is a question currently being debated, essentially because one can then hope to apply methods of statistical mechanics [@LANGEVIN]. One central point is to investigate to what extent and under what conditions the local chaotic fluctuations are equivalent to a “noise” at large scales.
The CGL equation offers, here also, a good testground for such questions. In this spirit, phase turbulence has been proposed [@GRINSTEIN] to be described, at large scales, by the noisy Burgers or Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) [@KPZ] equation, which is (among other things) a model for the kinetic roughening of stochastic interfaces. Indeed, since the phase $\phi=\arg A$ is always defined in this regime, one can consider the evolution of the phase field only (at least on an experimental level), which, in turn, can be seen as the progression of a $d$-dimensional interface in a $(d+1)$-dimensional medium (unwinding the phase advance on the real axis). Numerical results for $d=1$ and $d=2$ seem to confirm the validity of the KPZ ansatz [@TBP]. The KPZ picture also reveals the asymptotic behavior of correlations in phase turbulence. In particular, spatial correlations of the phase should decrease either algebraically (“linear regime” of KPZ) or like a stretched exponential (“nonlinear regime”).
To go beyond this type of numerical observation, the effective large-scale stochastic equation has to be built from the original model. An important step toward this aim has been achieved recently for the one-dimensional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation (which is also believed to be described by KPZ at large scales [@KSKPZ]). Carefully studying the elementary mechanisms at the origin of spatiotemporal chaos, Chow and Hwa [@HWA] have succeeded in calculating, from data on local chaos only, the parameters of the effective KPZ equation. It is not clear how such a program could be carried out for the CGL equation in any of its disordered regimes —even for phase turbulence—, but a detailed analysis of the elementary processes at work in each case appears as a necessary step deserving further work.
Conclusion
==========
The general picture of the two-dimensional CGL equation presented here, even though it should be completed along the lines mentioned above, already provides a good starting point to people wanting to study various aspects of spatiotemporal chaos in this system. In particular, our study should help choose specific parameter values. It should also help experimentalists recognize whether the physical or numerical problems they study are typical of the CGL equation and, if so, of what particular regime. Finally, natural extensions of this work include a similar study of the three-dimensional case, and of the various modifications of CGL usually considered in the literature.
[99]{} See, e.g., A.C. Newell, “Envelope Equations”, in [*Nonlinear Wave Motion*]{}, Lectures in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 15, 157 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1974).
Y. Kuramoto, [*Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbulence*]{}, (Springer, Tokyo, 1984); J. Lega, “Défauts topologiques associés à la brisure de l’invariance de translation dans le temps,” Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nice (1989); W. van Saarloos, “The Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation for Beginners”, in [*Spatiotemporal Patterns in Nonequilibrium Systems*]{}, P.E. Cladis and P. Palffy-Muhoray eds., (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994).
See, e.g.: R. Graham, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**10**]{} (1974) 1762.
See, e.g.: A.C. Newell, [*Rocky Mountains J. Math.*]{} [**8**]{} (1978) 25; A.C. Scott, F.Y.F. Chu and D.W. McLaughlin, [*Proc. IEEE*]{} (1973) 1443; Y.S. Kivshar and B.A. Malomed, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**61**]{} (1989) 762; A.C. Newell, D.A. Rand and D. Russell, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**132**]{} (1988) 112; S. Popp, O. Stiller, I. Aranson and L. Kramer, [*Physica D*]{} [**84**]{} (1995) 424.
M.C. Cross and P.C. Hohenberg, “Pattern formation outside of equilibrium”, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} (1993) 851.
D.A. Egolf and H.S. Greenside, [*Nature*]{} [**369**]{} (1994) 129.
B.I. Shraiman, A. Pumir, W. van Saarloos, P.C. Hohenberg, H. Chaté, and M. Holen, [*Physica D*]{} [**57**]{} (1992) 241; A. Pumir, B.I. Shraiman, W. van Saarloos, P.C. Hohenberg, H. Chaté, and M. Holen, “Phase vs. Defect Turbulence in the One-Dimensional Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation,” in: [*Ordered and Turbulent Patterns in Taylor-Couette Flows*]{}, C.D. Andereck ed. (New York: Plenum Press, 1992).
H. Chaté, [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**7**]{} (1994) 185.
H. Chaté, “Disordered Regimes of the One-Dimensional Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation”, in [*Spatiotemporal Patterns in Nonequilibrium Systems*]{}, P.E. Cladis and P. Palffy-Muhoray eds., (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994).
A previous study (see [@HUBER]), using a discretized version of the CGL equation, attempted such a task. In view of the results presented here, it appears that the effects of the discretization scheme on the phase diagram are rather drastic. In particular, no phase turbulence regime was observed by these authors, an artifact, we believe, due to their numerical scheme. Other discrepancies will be discussed elsewhere [@TBP].
B. Janiaud, A. Pumir, D. Bensimon, V. Croquette, H. Richter, and L. Kramer, [*Physica D*]{} [**55**]{} (1992) 259.
H. Chaté and P. Manneville, “Phase Turbulence”, in [*Turbulence: A Tentative Dictionary*]{}, P. Tabeling and O. Cardoso eds. (Plenum, New York, 1994) and references therein.
H. Sakaguchi, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**84**]{} (1990) 792.
D.A. Egolf and H.S. Greenside, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{} (1995) 1751.
Coullet, P., L. Gil, and J.Lega, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**62**]{} (1989) 1619; L. Gil, J. Lega and J.L. Meunier, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**41**]{} (1990) 1138.
P.S. Hagan, [*SIAM J. Appl. MAth.*]{} [**42**]{} (1982) 762; I. Aranson, L. Kramer and A. Weber, “The Theory of Motion of Spiral Waves in Oscillatory Media”, in [*Spatiotemporal Patterns in Nonequilibrium Systems*]{}, P.E. Cladis and P. Palffy-Muhoray eds., (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994); [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**47**]{} (1993) 3231.
I. Aranson, L. Aranson and L. Kramer, [*Phys. Rev. A.*]{} [**46**]{} (1992) R2992;
I. Aranson. L. Kramer and A. Weber, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} (1994) 2316.
H. Chaté and P. Manneville, “Defect Turbulence and Frozen States in the Two-Dimensional Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation” and “Phase Turbulence in the Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation”, to be published.
B. Levitan and E. Domany, “Topological model of soap froth evolution with deterministic T2-processes,” preprint (1995).
C.C. Chow and T. Hwa, [*Physica D*]{} [**84**]{} (1995) 494.
G. Huber, P. Alstr[ø]{}m and T. Bohr, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992) 2380; G. Huber, “Vortex Solids and Vortex Liquids in a Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation”, in [*Spatiotemporal Patterns in Nonequilibrium Systems*]{}, P.E. Cladis and P. Palffy-Muhoray eds., (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994).
H. Chaté and L-H. Tang, unpublished.
M. Rost and J. Krug, [*Physica D*]{} 88 (1995) 1.
C.S. Bretherton and E.A. Spiegel, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**96**]{} (1983) 152.
See [@KSKPZ] and the discussions in: M.S. Bourzutschky and M.C. Cross, [*Chaos*]{} [**2**]{} (1992) 173; J. Miller and D.A. Huse, [*Phys. Rev. E.*]{} [**48**]{} (1993) 2528;
G. Grinstein, C. Jayaprakash, and R. Pandit, “Conjectures about phase turbulence in the complex Ginzburg–Landau equation,” to appear in [*Physica D*]{}.
M. Kardar, G. Parisi and Y.-C. Zhang, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**56**]{} (1986) 889; see also the reviews: J. Krug and H. Spohn, Kinetic roughening of growing surfaces, in: C. Godrèche ed., [*Solids Far From Equilibrium*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 1991); T. Halpin-Healy and Y.C. Zhang, [*Phys. Rep.*]{}, to appear.
V. Yakhot, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**24**]{} (1981) 642; S. Zaleski, [*Physica D*]{} [**34**]{} (1989) 427; K. Sneppen, J. Krug, M.H. Jensen, C. Jayaprakash, and T. Bohr, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**46**]{} (1992) 7351; I. Procaccia, M.H. Jensen, V.S. L’vov, K. Sneppen, and R. Zeitak, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**46**]{} (1992) 3220; V.S. L’vov and I. Procaccia, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{}(1992) 3543; C. Jayaprakash, F. Hayot, and R. Pandit, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{} (1993) 12.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We report observations of the Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) of Nitrogen Vacancy (NV) centers in diamonds that are levitating in an ion trap. Using a needle Paul trap operating under ambient conditions, we demonstrate efficient microwave driving of the electronic spin and show that the spin properties of deposited diamond particles measured by the ESR are retained in the Paul trap. We also exploit the ESR signal to show angle stability of single trapped mono-crystals, a necessary step towards spin-controlled levitating macroscopic objects.'
author:
- 'T. Delord$^{1,2}$'
- 'L. Nicolas$^{1}$'
- 'L. Schwab$^{1}$'
- 'G. Hétet$^{1}$'
title: |
Electron spin resonance from NV centers\
in diamonds levitating in an ion trap
---
The negatively charged Nitrogen Vacancy (NV$^-$) center in diamond has emerged as a very efficient source of single photons and a promising candidate for quantum control and sensing via its electron spin. Recently, there has been much interest in the electronic spin of the NV$^-$ center in levitating diamonds [@Horowitz; @Neukirch2]. This interest is partly motivated by proposals for hybrid optomechanics [@Rabl], and implications in ultrahigh force sensitivity [@Kolkowitz] where the NV center’s spin response to magnetic fields is exploited to read-out the motion of the diamond with high spatial resolution under ambient conditions [@Balasubramanian]. Amongst the many levitation schemes, optical traps are the most widely used [@Ashkin; @Horowitz; @Neukirch; @Li]. They provide efficient localisation for neutral and charged particles and can work under liquid or atmospheric environnements. However the trap light that is scattered from the object means that excessive heating can be at work [@Ashkin; @Hoang; @Rahman; @Neukirch]. Furthermore, optical traps may quench the fluorescence of NV centers [@Neukirch] and affect the electronic spin resonance contrast.
Being able to trap diamonds hosting NV centers without light scattering could thus offer a better control of the spin-mechanical coupling and enlarge the range of applications of levitating diamonds. Levitation techniques such as ion traps [@Pau90] or magneto-gravitational traps [@Hsu] are tantalizing approaches for reaching this goal. Ion traps could not only provide an escape route for scattering free trapping, but also enable a high localisation of the particles together with large trap depths as demonstrated by the impressive control over the motion that have been developped with single ions in the past [@Leibfried]. Various nano-objects have been confined in ion traps already, from coloidal nanocrystals [@Bell], silica nanospheres [@Millen; @Barker2010], graphene flakes [@Nagornykh], micron size diamond clusters containing NV centers [@Kuhlicke], showing their potential for the motional control of macroscopic objects.
In this work, we report measurements of the electronic spin resonance of NV centers embedded in diamonds that are levitating in an ion trap. Further, we observe high contrast Zeeman-splitted levels, demonstrating angular stability over single levitating monocrystals on time scales of minutes, paving the way towards single spin opto-mechanical schemes in scattering-free traps.
The Paul trap
-------------
An ion trap typically consists of electrodes that are placed at an oscillating potential generating a time-varying quadrupolar electric field. In the adiabatic regime, this provides a ponderomotive force that brings charged particles at a minimum of the electric field intensity [@Pau90]. The trap that we use is a Paul-Straubel trap [@Straubel; @Yu] operating under ambient conditions, and consisting of two tungsten needles with a radius of curvature of 25 $\mu$m, surrounded by an uncritical ground electrode structure. The distance $d=2z_0$ between the needles is around $100~\mu$m. We operate the trap with a peak-to-peak voltage ranging from $V_{\rm ac}$=1000 V to 4000 V at $\Omega/2\pi\approx 5$ kHz.
The curvature of and distance between the needles crucially determine the confinement and the potential depth in both the radial and axial planes [@Deslauriers]. The axial angular frequency $\omega_z$ of the harmonic pseudo-potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_z&=&\frac{|Q_{\rm tot}| V_{\rm ac} \eta}{\sqrt{2} m \Omega z_0^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\rm ac}$ is the peak to peak voltage applied between the electrodes and the far distance surrounding ground, $m$ is the mass of the trapped particle and $\eta$ the efficiency factor that accounts for the reduction in the trap potential as compared to an analogous quadrupole trap with hyperbolic electrodes. $\Omega/2\pi$ is the trapping frequency and $Q_{\rm tot}$ is the total excess charge of the particle. 3D numerical simulations show that with our trap geometry and assuming charge to mass ratios on the order of mC.kg$^{-1}$ [@Kuhlicke] we can expect macro-motional frequencies $\omega_z$ that range from 100 Hz to several kHz, depending on $\Omega$ and $V_{\rm ac}$.
The advantage of this needle trap over 3D linear traps is the very opened geometry. This means that high optical access is available for efficient collection of the photoluminescence of the embedded quantum emitters. In this work we use an aspherical lens with a numerical aperture of 0.77 at a working distance of 3.1 mm with no observable perturbations to the diamond motion due to the lens surface charges. Another advantage is flexibility : since we can tune the distance from the trap center to the needles, we can reduce the capture volume after diamond loading, and thus increase the confinement [*a posteriori*]{} by bringing the two needles closer to each other. Similar trapping conditions in terms of confinement and optical access are feasible using ring, or planar traps but the needle trap geometry is the easiest to be tuned whilst particles are trapped.
Fig. \[Setup\] shows a sketch of the experimental apparatus. The position of the aspherical lens and the Paul trap is tuned using micropositioning stages. One needle of the trap is also mounted on an XYZ piezo stage for fine tuning of the diamond to needle and diamond to laser distances. The lens, trap and micropositioning stages are then all enclosed in a box to minimize air currents and are controlled from outside. The diamonds that we used are in the form of monocristalline powders (MSY micron-diamond powder from Microdiamant AG) and did not undergo specific processing. They are produced by HPHT (high-pressure, high-temperature) synthesis and sold in the form of powders containing different mean particle sizes. We have observed NV centers in all the different diamond sizes $d$ we have studied, ranging from $d<$500 nm to $d\sim$12 $\mu m$. The NV density was found to be highly inhomogeneous from one diamond to another.
We load the diamond particles by first dipping a 300 $\mu$m copper wire in the powder and then bringing it in the vicinity of the trap center. Several mechanisms can be at work when the NDs are expelled from the copper wire. Electrons in the wire could be set in motion by the ponderomotive force of the Paul trap, reach the tip of wire and push the already charged diamonds towards the trap center. Another possibility is that charged diamonds are attracted to the trap center from the wire by the ponderomotive potential or by the static Coulomb force itself. Further experiments would be needed to discriminate these effects. This loading method gives us a reliable and simple way to load the diamonds as each trapping run only requires one minute on average. This loading technique further provides a charge to mass ratio that enables trapping of the diamond particles for several days under ambient conditions.
The trapped particles are analysed using a green laser beam with a power ranging from 100 $\mu$W to 3.6 mW for phase contrast imaging (see Fig. 1) and for the photoluminescence measurements. To monitor the particle motion, we use the simplest form of phase contrast imaging : we measure the interference between the input laser field and the scattered field from the diamond. For our diamond sizes, the resulting image is the shadow of the diamond plus some interfering rings due to the sharp features on the side of the diamond, see figure \[PCI\].
Phase contrast imaging provides an efficient way to detect the micromotion and the eventual rotation of the particle on itself by measuring the diamond shadow position when the settings of the trap are changed. We could for instance deduce the trapping frequencies. To measure them, we perform a slow ramp of the trapping frequency downwards from 4 kHz to a few kHz (the so called micromotional frequency). At resonance, when $\Omega$ is close to one of the macromotional frequencies $\omega$, the adiabatic condition (i.e. $\Omega\gg \omega$) is no longer fulfilled and the motion of the particle becomes unstable, thus providing a mean to measure $\omega$. This instability can be characterized using the $q$ parameter of the Mathieu equation [@Pau90] : the motion first becomes unstable for the most confining axis, at $q\geq q_{max}=0.908$. Here the first observed resonance corresponds to the frequency $\omega_z$. It is typically measured to be about 1 kHz for diamonds that have a 10 $\mu$m diameter. Under usual working conditions ($\omega_z\ll \Omega$) this yields an effective macromotional frequency of several hundreds of Hz. Using the stability criterion and the diamond density, we can then extract the total charge on the surface [@Wuerker]. The stability parameter $q_{max}$ relates to $|Q_{\rm tot}| / m$ via the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|Q_{\rm tot}|}{m}=\frac{q_{\rm max}}{ 4 \xi} \Omega^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is the curvature of the static electric potential. 3D simulations of the electric potential of our trap gives us $\xi=2\times10^6~V/m^2$ and so the total number of elementary excess charges $|Q_{\rm tot}|$ on the surface of the diamond is about 5000. Note that this is only an estimate since damping due to collisions with gaz particles slightly modifies the instability and trap frequency [@Hasegawa1995]. We also measured the sign of the total charge by adding a constant voltage to the needles. Due to residual static electric fields, the particles are slightly off centered. Adding an extra DC voltage displaces particles away from or closer to the center of the trap depending on the relative sign between the voltage and surface charges. Applying a positive voltage on more than 20 different particles systematically displaced them towards the trap center, letting us conclude that the total surface charge is negative.
Effect of the radiation pressure
--------------------------------
An important observation that was made is a pronounced rotation of the particles around the laser optical axis for diamonds that are below around 2 $\mu$m in diameter. This rotation takes place on time scales of milliseconds at power levels above hundreds of $\mu$W. For larger particles ($>2~\mu$m in diameter) and power levels below 300 $\mu$W, the particles appear to be stable on time scales of minutes. Several measurements point to a radiation pressure induced perturbation of the diamond position due to the exciting laser.
An order of magnitude of the laser induced force can be obtained by considering only a radiation pressure force along the optical axis for simplicity. To estimate the magnitude of the radiation pressure, we also consider the simplest case of a spherically shaped diamond particle at the focal point of a beam with a total power $P$ that uniformly fills the input lens. We denote $\theta_m$ the angle subtended by the lens. Here, we assume the particle size to be larger than the wavelength $\lambda$=532 nm, so that the ray optics approximation applies.
In our approximate case study, all rays are perpendicular to the surface of the particle so the mean momentum transfer per photon is $2 R_n \frac{h}{\lambda}$ where $R_n \sim 0.2$ is the Fresnel reflection coefficient for a normal wave and $h$ the Planck constant. Since the mean photon rate is $\frac{P \lambda}{h c}$, the total momentum transfer per unit time along the optical axis *i.e.* the radiation pressure force is : $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
F_{rad}&=&\int_{-\theta_m}^{\theta_m} \frac{h}{\lambda} 2 R_n \cos \theta \frac{P \lambda}{h c } \frac{d\theta}{ 2 \theta_m} \\
&=& \frac{2 R_n P}{c} {\rm sinc} (\theta_m).\end{aligned}$$
We compare this force to the force induced by the trap by considering the displacement $\Delta x$ of the particle from the center of the trap. At equilibrium, we have $$\Delta x =\frac{ F_{rad}}{m \omega_x ^2}.$$
For a 10 $\mu$m diamond with a confinement frequency $\omega_x / 2 \pi \sim 1$ kHz and a beam power $P=1$ mW, we get $$\Delta x / P \sim 350~{\rm nm / mW}$$
For smaller diamonds ($\sim$ 2.8 $\mu$m), experiments were done with a slightly higher confinement frequency ($\omega_x / 2 \pi \sim 1.5$ kHz) but the mass being smaller we obtain $$\Delta x / P \sim 11~\mu {\rm m / mW}$$
In the plane orthogonal to the optical axis $x$, since the trapped particles are not spherical, we actually expect the forces due to reflected photons not to cancel out. The resultant force is thus highly dependent on the shape and orientation of the particle.
Those numbers are in good agreement with visual observations of the apparent motion of the particle in the trap : for large particles, the particle is slightly displaced when the beam power is increased to a few mW while for smaller particles, a displacement from the trap center is observed with beam powers on the order of a few hundreds of 100 $\mu$W. Other qualitative observations point towards such a radiation pressure effect. We were for instance able to displace and/or to rotate deterministically single particles crystals : due to the Coulomb force, when many particles are in the trap, they are separated by more than microns and form a “Coulomb crystal”. A laser can thus be applied to one side of this “multiparticle crystal” to make it rotate. A rotation was for instance observed when using three particles trapped in a plane perpendicular to the two needles when the laser beam- and thus the radiation pressure- was focussed on one side of the crystal. Further studies will be conducted in order to better understand the motion of dynamically trapped particles in such moderately intense laser beams.
We now turn to the measurement of the photoluminescence from NV centers imbedded in the levitating diamond.
Photoluminescence count rate and spectrum
-----------------------------------------
The photoluminescence (PL) of the NV centers is collected using the confocal microscope described in Figure \[Setup\]. The green laser excites the NV centers in the phonon continuum (see level scheme in Fig. \[level\]). The PL signal is then filtered using a Notch filter centered at 532 nm and can be directed either onto an avalanche photodiode or a spectrometer. The NV$^-$ centers typically emit about 5% of the total photoluminescence intensity in the zero-phonon line (ZPL) at 637 nm and 95% of the PL into the phonon sidebands ranging from around 640 to 800 nm. With a mW of laser excitation, we can collect around $10^5$ counts per second on the avalanche photodiode (SPCM-AQRH-15 from Perkin Elmer).
A study of the photoluminescence of microdiamonds MSY 8-12 (9.6 $\mu m$ mean diameter) deposited on a glass plate has first been carried out in order to compare their properties with the one of trapped diamonds. Under up to 3.6 mW of 532 nm laser excitation with the same N.A.= 0.77 aspherical lenses for collection and excitation, the photoluminescence count rate detected by our multimode-fibered APD can be as high as 200 MHz for some diamonds. For other diamonds, the count rate can go bellow 0.5 MHz with the same excitation power. There is therefore a variation in the NV density by more than two orders of magnitude from one diamond to an other.
One should also point out that because we do not use aberration-corrected optics for the excitation and the collection of photoluminescence, there is a mismatch between the focal points of the excitation laser and the one corresponding to the optimum photoluminescence detection. For the presented experiment, we have chosen to optimize the input lens position in order to have an efficient collection, at the expense of excitation efficiency. Let us note that since many of the investigated diamonds are much larger than the excitation beam waist at the focal point, we could not saturate all the NV centers with this setup. We estimate the minimum number of NV centers that are excited to vary between a dozen to 4000 for 10 microns size diamonds.
Using the spectrometer (Shamrock 500i ruled grating with 1200 lines/mm from Andor) we also recorded the photoluminescence spectrum from 560 nm to 760 nm of both trapped diamonds and diamonds deposited on a glass coverslip. Some of the spectra obtained for different excitation power are shown in figure \[spectrum\]. One can clearly identify the ZPL (Zero Phonon Line) of both NV$^-$ and NV$^0$ together with the broad PSB (Phonon Side Band) of the NV$^-$. A narrow peak due to Raman scattering is also visible at around 573 nm. Observations of a number of deposited diamonds showed that the relative intensities of the two ZPLs and of the Raman scattering peak vary from one particle to an other. The NV$^-$ to NV$^0$ population ratio is also seen to depend on the 532 nm excitation laser power for both trapped and deposited diamonds as can be seen on the spectra of figure \[spectrum\]. Note that the curves have been offset for clarity.
![\[spectrum\] Spectra obtained using two different excitation powers for 10 $\mu m$ sized diamonds deposited on a glass coverslip (trace (a)) and trapped in the Paul trap (trace (b)). The ZPL (zero-phonon line) of both the NV$^-$ and NV$^0$ centers are seen at 637 nm and 575 nm respectively. The count rates have been corrected for background light and normalized by the acquisition time and the excitation laser power.[]{data-label="Spectra"}](spectra2.pdf)
These data suggest that there is no significant effect of the trap on the NV spectrum. However, since these measurements were done using two different particles, a more precise measurement still needs to be done in order to clearly show no effect of the trap on the NV spectrum. This could be done either by using diamonds samples where all particles display similar spectral properties, or by characterizing the same particle trapped and then deposited with a similar fiber deposition method as in [@Kuhlicke].
Electronic spin read-out from levitating diamonds
-------------------------------------------------
We can now probe the NV$^-$ centers’ electronic spin transitions with the trapped diamonds. The level structure of the NV$^-$ spin is also depicted in Figure \[level\]. The NV$^-$ has two unpaired electrons so the ground state is a spin triplet. The degeneracy between the $m_s=0$ and $m_s=\pm 1$ manifolds, defined with respect to the NV center axis, is lifted by 2.87 GHz due to spin-spin interaction. One of the important properties of the NV center is the photoluminescence rate dependency with respect to the electronic spin state. This is the result of a spin dependent non-radiative decay via the levels $^1A_1$ and $^1E$. As depicted in Figure \[level\], when the spin is in the $m_s=\pm 1$ state, decay to these levels takes place. As a consequence, the PL rate drops. Under continuous microwave and optical excitation, scanning the frequency of a microwave tone around 2.87 GHz typically results in a change of the photoluminescence on the order of 10% with a half-width at half maximum in the range of tens of MHz [@Gruber]. Under a magnetic field, the degeneracy between the two $m_s=\pm 1$ states is lifted due to the Zeeman effect. For a single NV spin, two narrow lines will thus appear in the ESR spectrum, the frequency of which will depend upon the projection of the applied B-field onto the NV axis. This property means that NV centers can be used as sensitive room temperature magnetic field probes on microns lengths scales making NV centers very attractive for applications in magnetometry (see Ref. [@rondin] for a review) and hybrid opto-mechanical schemes [@Rabl]. The NV centers can actually be found in the four equiprobable $[\overline{1} \overline{1}1]$, $[1\overline{1}1]$, $[\overline{1},\overline{1},1]$, $[111]$ orientations within the diamond lattice. In a monocrystal containing several NVs we thus expect to observe four Zeeman-splitted ESR lines for the two electronic transitions, because of the different magnetic field projections along the four NV axes.
To observe the Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) using levitating diamond particles, a 28 $\mu m$ current carrying copper wire that lies 150 microns away from the trap center is used as an antenna, as depicted in Figure 1. We then noticed that the trapping parameters depend upon the distance between the antenna and the center of the trap. Simulations show that the stiffness of the trap increases when the distance decreases. As the antenna is brought close to the trap, the $q$ factor of the Mathieu equation thus increases and so the frequency and AC voltage are often adjusted to keep the $q$ factor well within the stability region. However, in the presence of the antenna, trapping is still critical and the particle is lost more often when sudden local changes in the pressure or nearby charges densities occur. This points towards a decrease of the potential depth due to the increasing asymmetry of the trap. This issue, also confirmed by numerical simulations, prevents us from acquiring data for more than half an hour and limits the signal to noise ratio of our ESR.
We perform two sets of experiments with two different particle sizes. In the first experiment, particles with mean sizes of 710 nm are used, whereas in the second, mean particles sizes of 9.6 $\mu$m will be used.
Fig. \[ESR\]-b), trace i) shows the ESR spectrum obtained from diamonds with sizes of 710 nm. As expected, we observe a decrease of the photoluminescence level with a minimum at the ESR transition frequency of 2.87 GHz without externally applied magnetic field. No change in the ESR contrast was observed compared to when the diamonds are deposited on a quartz coverslip so the temperature of the diamond is close to room temperature. For particle sizes below 1 $\mu$m the laser field sets the particle in motion on time scales that are much faster than the acquisition time of each ESR spectrum (seconds). In the presence of a magnetic field, a broadening of the ESR spectrum takes place as the magnetic field is increased since a single NV center’s spin experiences a time varying magnetic field, as explained in the inset of Fig. \[ESR\] a). In reality, the ESR is actually the superposition of 8 sinusoidal distributions that can be displaced from the zero-field splitting ($\delta=0$). Qualitatively, a single NV center’s spin experiences a time varying magnetic field $\Delta(t)$ leading to an ESR that follows a distribution $P_d$ that is sinusoidal, the amplitude of which (denoted $\Delta_{\rm max}$ in Fig. \[ESR\] a)) depends upon the magnetic field strength. In the inset, for simplicity, we describe an ESR for a transition $m_s=0$ to $m_s=+1$ and a single NV center whose rotation axis is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Besides, the efficiency of the micro-wave driving is time-modulated, leading to a further reshaping of the ESR profiles [@Horowitz]. ESR spectra are shown in Figure \[ESR\]-b), with traces ii) and iii) corresponding to increasing B-fields. As anticipated, the experimental curves display a reduced contrast and broader linewidths demonstrating that the particle rotates in the magnetic field in accordance with the observed motion of the particle in transmission imaging. From the extremal frequency points of the graphs, we estimate the B-field to be 10 G for trace ii) and 30 G for trace iii). These values are derived from the projection maxima over the NV axis that goes through a maximal alignement with the magnetic field during its rotation.
We now move to an experiment where microdiamonds with mean sizes 9.6 microns are injected in the trap. The corresponding ESR is shown Fig.\[ESR2\]-a) trace i). It displays 8 resonances, corresponding to the projection of the two spin transitions $|m_s=0\rangle \rightarrow |m_s=\pm 1\rangle$ on the 4 orientations of the NV centers within the levitating diamond. Here, we adjusted the magnetic field angle and strength so that the spectral lines are equally separated. Compared to the results presented in Figure \[ESR\], observing such a splitting demonstrates that the microdiamonds do not rotate during the course of the measurement and that we can stably trap single monocrystals for extended periods of time. Let us note that the contrast of each line also varies due to differing alignements of the NV axes with respect to the microwave polarisation.
Such angular stability was also shown using an optical tweezer with nanodiamonds in water [@Geiselmann] and under vacuum [@Hoang] by adjusting the polarisation of the trapping light. Here, the stability of the particle orientation can be understood by considering the relationship between its angular momentum and the torque applied by the electric field of the Paul trap. Let us consider the rotation around the $y$ axis of an ellipsoidal particle in the trap. It can be shown that the angle $\alpha$ between the axis of the ellipsoid and the $z$ axis is given by the following equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot\alpha- \sqrt{2} \omega_\alpha \Omega \cos(\Omega t) \frac{\sin(2\alpha)}{2}=0\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_z$ is the axial angular frequency of the harmonic pseudo-potential for the center of mass, $I_{yy}$ is the moment of inertia about the $y$ axis,
$$\rm S_I=\frac{3}{S} \iint \left( z^2-x^2 \right) dS$$
with $x$ and $y$ defined in the reference frame of the ellipsoid and $S$ is the surface of the ellipsoid. This relation is deduced from integrating the torque applied by the electric field on the surface charges and factorizing the $\alpha$ dependency. In the limit of small rotations around $\alpha=0$ or $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2}$, this equation is similar to the one that governs the dynamics of the center of mass of the particle in the trap. It thus leads to a harmonic pseudo-potential for the angle $\alpha$, here with angular frequency $\omega_\alpha$. It thus leads to a harmonic pseudo-potential for the angle for the rotation about the $x$ and $y$ axis. Moreover since neither the levitating particle nor the trap setup are actually rotationally symmetric about the $z$ axis, we can also expect a confinement for the rotation about the $z$ axis.
Using the ESR spectra, one can deduce the angle of the diamond monocristal orientation with respect to the magnetic field and the value of the magnetic field. We write $(\theta,\phi)$ the azymutal and polar angles respectively for the coordinates of the NV orientation labelled $1$ in the sketch b)-i) in Figure \[ESR2\].
In the experiment where micronsize particles are injected in the trap, four equidistant ESR peaks are obtained for both positive and negative frequencies in Fig. \[ESR2\] a). We consider only the positive part of the spectrum. Writing $\vec{x}_1=[1,1,1]$, $\vec{x}_2=[\overline{1},1,1]$, $\vec{x}_3=[1,\overline{1},1]$ and $\vec{x}_4=[\overline{1},\overline{1},1]$ for the directions of the NV axes and $\vec{B}=B(\cos\theta \sin\phi, \sin\theta \sin\phi, \cos\phi)$, with $\phi=]0,\pi/4[$, the equidistance between the peaks lead to the condition $\tan \theta=2 +n \pi$. This also gives the following equations for the projections of the four NV on the B field $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\vec{x}_1\cdot \vec{B}&=&(\frac{3}{2}\sin\theta \sin\phi +\cos\phi)B \\
\nonumber
\vec{x}_2\cdot \vec{B}&=&(\frac{1}{2}\sin\theta \sin\phi +\cos\phi)B\\
\nonumber
\vec{x}_3\cdot \vec{B}&=&(-\frac{1}{2}\sin\theta \sin\phi +\cos\phi)B\\
\nonumber
\vec{x}_4\cdot \vec{B}&=&(-\frac{3}{2}\sin\theta \sin\phi +\cos\phi)B.\end{aligned}$$ The condition $\vec{x}_i\cdot \vec{B}>0$ imposes $n=0$, which implies that $\theta=\arctan 2$.
We can deduce the value of the magnetic field and the angle $\phi$ by measuring the Zeeman frequency shifts of the levels corresponding to orientations 1 and 2 with respect to the zero-field splitting line. These are $\omega_1/2\pi=0.37$ GHz and $\omega_2/2\pi=0.25$ GHz. Writing $r=\omega_1/\omega_2$, we obtain the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\tan\phi=\frac{r-1}{\frac{1}{2}\sin\theta(3-r)},\end{aligned}$$ giving $\phi=36$ degrees. We then obtain the magnitude of the B field to be 80 G knowing the gyromagnetic factor of the electron $\gamma_e=2.8$ MHz/G. The resulting NV centers’ structure with respect to the B-field axis is depicted in Fig. \[ESR2\]-b-i). In this figure, $\theta=\arctan(2)-\pi/4$, i.e. about $18 ^{\circ}$ with respect to the orientation $1$ because the directions of the axes 2 and 3 are inverted for more readibility and the tetrahedron is centered at the origin in a coordinate frame $(x',y',z')$ for which the projection of the B-field is 0 along $x'$. When tuning the trapping frequency from $\Omega/2\pi=3.3$ kHz to $\Omega/2\pi=2.6$ kHz we observe a change in the phase contrast image which points to a deterministic change in the particle angle. We attribute the rotation to the presence of residual electric fields on the needles. Here, the patch potentials on the needle generate an angle/position dependent residual field in the vicinity of the particle, which when integrated over the charges of the particle will result in an angle-dependent torque. Residual electric fields due to patch potentials typically shift the center of mass of ions when the trap voltage or frequency is changed, because of the change in the relative weight between the Paul trap potential and this extra electric potential. If instead such angle-dependent torque is applied to the particle, this will shift the stable angular position. We observe a change in the phase contrast image which indeed points towards a deterministic rotation of the particle on itself. Trace ii) displays an ESR spectrum taken with the same particle as for trace i), but with this increased confinement. The extremal ESR peak positions do not shift, meaning that, in the NV frame, $\vec{x}_4\cdot (\gamma_e \vec{B})=\vec{x}_4\cdot (\gamma_e \vec{B}')$, where $B'$ is the B field seen by the rotated particle. The two central peaks merge, which implies that $\vec{x}_3\cdot (\gamma_e \vec{B}')=\vec{x}_2\cdot (\gamma_e \vec{B}')$. The first condition implies that $\phi'=\phi=36$ degrees while the second implies that $\theta'=0$. Let us note that there are degeneracies since $n\pi/2$ rotations with the polar angle $\theta$ ($n$ an integer number) does not change the ESR spectrum while the diamond may have rotated.
We conclude that the diamonds necessarily rotated around the vertical axis $z'$ after this change in the trap parameters, as depicted in Fig. \[ESR2\]-b ii). In this figure, $\theta'=45 ^{\circ}$ for the same reason of readibility than on Fig. \[ESR2\]-b i).
Conclusion
----------
We observed electron spin resonances from NV centers with single diamond monocrystals levitating in a Paul trap. This experiment is realized in a unique regime where the trap does not impact the photo-physical properties of NV centers. Our results furthermore show angular stability of the charged diamonds over time scales of minutes, a necessary step towards spin-controlled levitating particles. Ramsey spectroscopy or electric field noise measurements [@Jamonneau] will then be implemented to assess the applicability of nanodiamonds containing NV$^-$ centers in ion traps for quantum sensing. This system can for instance be a potentially useful tool for vectorial magnetometry, and enable the observation of quantum geometric phases [@Maclaurin] and be used as high precision multi-axis rotational sensor [@Maclaurin; @Ledbetter]. Using a more confining trap combined with electrospray ionisation for loading, will enable selection of particles with higher charge to mass ratios and thus pave a path towards efficient single spin opto-mechanical schemes [@Scala; @Rabl; @arcizet; @DelordAngular].
We would like to acknowledge fruitful discussions with the optics team at LPA and with V. Jacques, L. Rondin, F. Treussard, J. -F. Roch, Q. Glorieux, F. Dubin, L. Guidoni, J.-P Likforman, and B. Fox. We also thank A. Denis and the team of D. Courtiade for their help in the initial phase of the experiment. This research has been partially funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the project SMEQUI.
[32]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , pp. ().
, **** ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.123604>.
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , (), .
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , **** ().
, , , , **** ().
, ****, ().
, , , **** ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, (), ISSN .
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , (), .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '[**The persistence barcode is a well-established complete discrete invariant for finitely generated persistence modules [@ComputingPersistentHomology] [@ZigzagPersistence]. Its definition, however, does not extend to multi-dimensional persistence modules. In this paper, we introduce a new discrete invariant: the *exterior critical series*. This invariant is complete in the one-dimensional case and can be defined for multi-dimensional persistence modules, like the *rank invariant* [@TheoryOfMultidimensionalPersistence]. However, the exterior critical series can detect some features that are not captured by the rank invariant.** ]{}'
author:
- Pawin Vongmasa
- Gunnar Carlsson
bibliography:
- 'persistencehomology.bib'
title: Exterior Critical Series of Persistence Modules
---
Introduction
============
The structure theorem for finitely generated modules over a graded principal ideal domain is a well-known result that applies almost directly to finitely generated persistence modules with integer grading [@ComputingPersistentHomology]. This defines the [***persistence barcode***]{} as an invariant of the corresponding persistence module. The persistence barcode is simply a collection of [***bars***]{} (synonymously, [***intervals***]{}), each of which can be represented by two numbers, its [***birth time***]{} and [***death time***]{}.
As the concept of persistence modules is extended to multiple dimensions, the structure theorem does not extend. The notion of bars becomes undefined. In [@TheoryOfMultidimensionalPersistence], Carlsson and Zomorodian studied the structure of multi-dimensional persistence modules, showed that no complete discrete invariant [^1] can exist, and introduced three discrete invariants that can be defined for multi-dimensional persistence modules: $\xi_0$, $\xi_1$ and the rank invariant. $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ are simply collections (multisets) of birth times and death times. They are less informative than the barcode in the one-dimensional case because pairing information of birth times and death times is not available. The rank invariant, on the other hand, is complete in the one-dimensional case.
In this paper, we define a new discrete invariant called the [***exterior critical series***]{}, a special case of a more general framework also presented here. Its definition is based on the [***critical series***]{}, which is (for 1-dimensional persistence modules) essentially the same as $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$, the multiset of birth times and the multiset of death times, respectively. (See Proposition \[proposition:finitelypresentedmatching\].) The main idea is that although pairing information is not maintained by $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$, it is in some ways encoded in $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ of higher exterior powers of the module. More specifically, suppose $M$ is a persistence module. The exterior critical series of $M$ is the collection of critical series of $M, \Lambda^2 M, \Lambda^3 M$, and so on, where $\Lambda^p M$ is the $p$-th exterior power of $M$. We show in Theorem \[theorem:main\] that the exterior critical series is complete, [*i.e.*]{}, as informative as the barcode, for $1$-dimensional persistence modules. One conclusion that can be drawn is that the collection of $\xi_0(\Lambda^p M)$ and $\xi_1(\Lambda^p M)$ does carry information about pairing of birth and death times in $M$. It is therefore reasonable to use this collection as an invariant even when $M$ is a multi-dimensional persistence module. In this paper, we give a natural definition of the exterior critical series that easily extends to multi-dimensional persistence modules. The extension involves new invariants $\xi_2, \xi_3, \ldots$, which are simply generalization of $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$. All $\xi_i$ can be defined via a free resolution of the module and an additive functor. (See Section \[section:invariantswithrespecttofunctors\].)
The rank invariant, as defined in [@TheoryOfMultidimensionalPersistence], is also a discrete invariant that is complete in the $1$-dimensional case and extends to the multi-dimensional case, just like the exterior critical series. However, there are examples of modules that can be distinguished by their exterior critical series but not by their rank invariants. We give one example in Fig. \[figure:invariantexample\].
The organization of this paper is as follows. We start with basic definitions of *graded modules* and their tensor products. *Persistence modules* are then defined as graded modules with more information added. A procedure to derive an invariant from an additive functor is discussed in Section \[section:invariantswithrespecttofunctors\], and the *critical series* is simply the result of the said procedure. Section \[section:structuretheorems\] follows with a list of proven structure theorems for (certain classes of) 1-dimensional persistence modules, phrased in our terminology. We discuss *causality* and state the specialized classification result for “nice” *causal persistence modules* in Corollary \[corollary:causalbarcodedecomposition\]. Section \[section:main\] starts with a list of definitions specific to the class of persistence modules of interest ($1$-dimensional, finitely-presented, and bounded). Another definition of the critical series is given, and Proposition \[proposition:finitelypresentedmatching\] shows that in this specific setting, it coincides with the more general definition given earlier in Section \[section:invariantswithrespecttofunctors\]. Finally, Theorem \[theorem:main\], the main result, is stated and proved in Section \[section:mainresult\].
Definitions of terms in this paper are made quite general for the purpose of future extension. In the statement of the main result, we choose to work with real-valued grading instead of the traditional integer-valued grading. We choose so because in most applications, the persistence module is constructed from a filtration with a real-valued parameter, and in most works, if not all, the notion of *stability* of the invariant relies on the metric on the parameter space rather than the integer grades. Also, if one desires to go back to integer grades, one can simply consider the integers as a subset of the real numbers.
Notations, Conventions and Background
=====================================
We will assume $R$ is a commutative ring with unity throughout the paper.
Graded $R$-Modules
------------------
Suppose $G$ is a set. A [***$G$-graded $R$-module***]{} is an $R$-module $M$ together with a collection ${\ensuremath{\left\{M_g\right\}}}_{g\in G}$ of $R$-submodules of $M$ indexed by $G$ such that $M = \bigoplus_{g \in G} M_g$. This indexed collection is called [***grading of $M$***]{}, and $G$ is the set of [***grades***]{}.
The indexed collection is in fact a function from $G$ to the collection of submodules, so a $G$-graded $R$-module is determined by the couple $(M, \Gamma)$ where $\Gamma:g \mapsto M_g$ satisfies $M = \bigoplus_{g \in G} \Gamma(g)$. However, we will usually avoid the reference to $\Gamma$ and assume $\Gamma$ is given when we say that “$M$ is a $G$-graded $R$-module” (instead of “$(M, \Gamma)$ is a $G$-graded $R$-module”). The notation $M_g$ will also be assumed present, and it is equal to $\Gamma(g)$. (We need $\Gamma$ because it matters which $g \in G$ goes to which submodule of $M$.)
Every $G$-graded $R$-module $M$ comes equipped with natural projections $\pi_g:M \to M_g$ and inclusions $\iota_g:M_g \to M$. The [***support of $M$***]{} is ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{supp}}}(M) = {\ensuremath{\left\{g \in G\vphantom{M_g \ne 0}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{g \in G}M_g \ne 0\right\}}}$. The [***support of $m \in M$***]{} is ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{supp}}}(m) = {\ensuremath{\left\{g \in G\vphantom{\pi_g(m) \ne 0}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{g \in G}\pi_g(m) \ne 0\right\}}}$. We say that $M$ or $m \in M$ is [***bounded***]{} if its support is contained in some interval $[g, g'] \subseteq G$ [^2]. An element $m \in M$ is [***homogeneous***]{} if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{supp}}}(m)$ has cardinality $0$ or $1$, [*i.e.*]{}, there exists $g \in G$ such that $m \in M_g$. If $m \in M$ is non-zero and homogeneous, then there exists a *unique* $g \in G$ with $m \in M_g$. $g$ is called the [***degree of $m$***]{}, written $\deg(m)$.
An $R$-module homomorphism $\varphi:M \to M'$ between $G$-graded modules is [***graded***]{} if $\varphi(M_g) \subseteq M'_g$ for all $g \in G$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, G)$ the category whose objects are $G$-graded $R$-modules and morphisms are graded $R$-module homomorphisms. Submodules are defined by monomorphisms and quotient modules are defined by epimorphisms. It follows that every $G$-graded $R$-submodule is generated by homogeneous elements.
The [***tensor product***]{} between graded modules are defined as follows. Suppose $H, H'$ and $G$ are sets, $\cdot: H \times H' \to G$ is a binary function, $M \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H)$ and $M' \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H')$. The usual tensor product $M \otimes_R M'$ can be given the structure of a $G$-graded $R$-module by defining the grading $${\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_R M'\right)}}_g =
\bigoplus_{\substack{(h, h') \in H \times H'\\ h \cdot h' = g}}
M_h \otimes_R M'_{h'}.$$ In other words, the binary operation $\cdot: H \times H' \to G$ induces the bifunctor $$\otimes_R: {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H) \times {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H') \to
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, G).$$ More generally, suppose we have a collection of modules $M_i \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H_i)$, $i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. A function $o: \prod_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} H_i \to G$ makes the tensor product $\bigotimes_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}}M_i$ into a $G$-graded $R$-module. The induced tensor product is a multifunctor from $\prod_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, H_i)$ to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, G)$.
Persistence Modules
-------------------
Suppose $G$ is a partially ordered set and $X$ is a commutative monoid acting on $G$. We say that $(X, G)$ is a [***persistence grading***]{} if
1. \[actionpositivity\] For $g \in G$ and $x \in X$, $g \preceq xg$.
2. \[actiontransitivity\] For $g, g' \in G$ with $g \preceq g'$, there exists a unique $x \in X$ such that $xg = g'$.
These conditions imply that $X$ is a cancellative monoid that can be embedded as a subset of $G$. Any choice of embedding induces the same order on $X$, so we assume $X$ is ordered by $\preceq$ also. By condition on the action of $X$ on $G$, we define $g/g' =\frac g{g'} = x$, where $g, g' \in G$, $g \succeq g'$ and $g=xg'$.
A $G$-graded $R$-module $M$ can be made into a [***persistence module***]{} by adding the following:
1. \[persistencegrading\] A persistence grading $(X, G)$. $X$ is called the [***monomial monoid***]{} and its elements are called [***monomials***]{}.
2. \[compatibleaction\] An $R[X]$-module structure on $M$ where such that $xM_g \subseteq M_{xg}$ for all $x \in X$ and $g \in G$. $P = R[X]$ is called the [***ring of polynomials***]{}, and its elements are called [***polynomials***]{}.
For each $x \in X \subseteq P$, the action of $x$ on $M$ induces an $R$-module endomorphism $M^x: M \to M$. When restricted to $M_g$, $g \in G$, the image of $M^x$ is contained in $M_{xg}$ (by ), so we define $M^x_g: M_g \to M_{xg}$ by $M^x_g(m) = M^x(m) = xm$. $M^x_g$ is obviously an $R$-module homomorphism. We call $M^x_g$ the [***monomial homomorphism of $x$ on $M_g$***]{}.
The set of [***$X$-annihilators of $m \in M$***]{} is ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m) = {\ensuremath{\left\{x \in X\vphantom{xm = 0}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{x \in X}xm = 0\right\}}}$. This is a subsemigroup of $X$. The [***lifespan of $m \in M$***]{}, written $L(m)$, is the complement of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m)$, [*i.e.*]{}, $L(m) = X - {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m)$. Note that the set of annihilators of $m$, defined conventionally by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(m) = {\ensuremath{\left\{p \in P\vphantom{pm = 0}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{p \in P}pm = 0\right\}}}$ may contain more information than ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m)$ only when $R$ is not a field. When $R$ is a field, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(m)$ is simply the vector space with basis ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m)$.
With $R, X$ and $G$ fixed, we define the category ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R,X,G)$ whose objects are persistence modules with respect to the given $R, X$ and $G$, and whose morphisms are *$G$-graded* $P$-module homomorphisms. Persistence submodules and quotient modules are defined by monomorphisms and epimorphisms respectively. We simply say that “$M$ is a persistence module” when it is clear what $R$, $X$ and $G$ are, and morphisms of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R,X,G)$ will be called “persistence module homomorphisms”.
A persistence module can easily be made into a graded $R$-module by forgetting the action of $X$ on the module. Conversely, a graded $R$-module can be made into a persistence module by adding the trivial action of $X$ on the module. The former operation is a forgetful functor from ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, G)$; the latter operation is an embedding of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf GrdMod}}}(R, G)$ in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$.
### Tensor Products of Persistence Modules {#tensor-products-of-persistence-modules .unnumbered}
Suppose we have $(X, G)$ a persistence grading, $M \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H)$, $M' \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H')$, and $\cdot: H \times H' \to G$ a binary function such that $(xh) \cdot h' = h \cdot (xh') = x(h \cdot h')$ for all $x \in X$, $h \in H$ and $h' \in H'$. The tensor product $M \otimes_P M'$ can be given the structure of a persistence module in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ as follows.
Let $\iota: M \otimes_R M' \to M \otimes_P M'$ be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism defined by $\iota{\ensuremath{\left(m \otimes_R m'\right)}} = m \otimes_P m'$. The kernel of $\iota$ is generated by elements of the form $xm \otimes m' - m\otimes xm'$ for $m \in M$, $m' \in M'$ and $x \in X$. Passing from $M \otimes_R M'$ to $M \otimes_P M'$ via $\iota$ is simply extension of scalars from $R$ to $P$. We impose the following $G$-grading on $M \otimes_P M'$: $${\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_P M'\right)}}_g
= \iota{\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_R M'\right)}}_g\right)}}
= \bigoplus_{\substack{(h, h') \in H\times H'\\h\cdot h' = g}}
\iota{\ensuremath{\left(M_h \otimes_R M'_{h'}\right)}}.
\label{eq:persistencetensorgrading}$$ To check that the action of $P$ on $M \otimes_P M'$ indeed satisfies the condition $x{\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_P M'\right)}}_g \subseteq {\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_P M'\right)}}_{xg}$ for all $x \in X$ and $g \in G$, suppose $h \in H$, $h' \in H'$, $m \in M_h$, $m' \in M'_{h'}$ and $x \in X$ are given. Then $$x\iota{\ensuremath{\left(m \otimes_R m'\right)}}
= x{\ensuremath{\left(m \otimes_P m'\right)}}
= xm \otimes_P m' = \iota{\ensuremath{\left((xm) \otimes_R m'\right)}}
\in \iota{\ensuremath{\left(M_{xh} \otimes_R M'_{h'}\right)}}
\subseteq {\ensuremath{\left(M \otimes_P M'\right)}}_{xh\cdot h'}.$$ Hence, defines $M \otimes_P M'$ as a persistence module. We conclude that the binary function $\cdot$ induces the bifunctor $$\otimes_P: {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H) \times {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H') \to
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G).$$
More generally, suppose there is a collection of modules $M_i \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H_i)$, $i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$, and a function $o: \prod_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} H_i \to G$ such that $x o(\gamma) = o(\gamma_i)$ for all $\gamma \in \prod_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} H_j$ and $i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$, where $\gamma_i$ are defined by $$\gamma_i(j) = \begin{cases}
x \gamma(j) & ; i = j \\
\gamma(j) & ; i \ne j
\end{cases}$$ Then the function $o$ induces a tensor product multifunctor from $\prod_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, H_i)$ to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$. If all $H_i$ are monoids, we only need $o: \bigoplus_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} H_j \to G$.
Suppose $m_i \in M_i$ for $i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}$. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X{\ensuremath{\left(\bigotimes_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} m_i\right)}} =
\bigcup_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X{\ensuremath{\left(m_i\right)}}$. In terms of lifespans, we have $L{\ensuremath{\left(\bigotimes_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} m_i\right)}} = \bigcap_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} L(m_i)$.
### Tensor Products in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ {#section:tensorpowers .unnumbered}
In order for the tensor product to be defined within one category ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$, we need the binary function $\cdot:G \times G \to G$ such that $x(g \cdot g') = (xg) \cdot g' = g \cdot (xg')$ for $g, g' \in G$ and $x \in X$. Instead of requiring separate functions for tensor products with different numbers of factors, it is more convenient to impose another condition: that $\cdot$ is associative. Now $G$ and $\cdot$ form a semigroup. We will omit writing $\cdot$ in an expression involving elements of $X$ and $G$. (This semigroup structure does not define a tensor product with infinitely many factors, but we will not need such generality.)
### Tensor Powers, Symmetric Powers and Exterior Powers {#tensor-powers-symmetric-powers-and-exterior-powers .unnumbered}
Consider the $n$-th symmetric power of a persistence module $M$, written $S^n(M)$. $S^n(M) = M^{\otimes n} / K$, where $K$ is the module generated by symmetry. $K$ is a persistence module because it can be generated by homogeneous elements, so $S^n(M)$ is a persistence module.
Similarly, the $n$-th exterior power of $M$ is $\Lambda^n(M) = M^{\otimes n} / K$, where $K$ is the module generated by antisymmetry. $K$ is, again, a persistence module, so $\Lambda^n(M)$ is also a persistence module.
In $M^{\otimes n}$, $S^n(M)$ and $\Lambda^n(M)$, we have the same relation regarding ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X$ and $L$ of simple tensors and their components: for $m_i \in M$, if $m_i \ne 0$, then $$\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X{\ensuremath{\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X{\ensuremath{\left(\bigodot_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
\bigcup_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m_i)
} \\
\displaystyle{
L{\ensuremath{\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
L{\ensuremath{\left(\bigodot_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
\bigcap_{i=1}^n L(m_i),
}
\end{array}$$ where $\bigodot$ stands for the symmetric product. Moreover, if $m_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge m_n \ne 0$, we also have $$\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X{\ensuremath{\left(\bigwedge_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
\bigcup_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(m_i)
} \\
\displaystyle{
L{\ensuremath{\left(\bigwedge_{i=1}^n m_i\right)}} =
\bigcap_{i=1}^n L(m_i),
}
\end{array}$$ where $\bigwedge$ stands for the exterior product.
Invariants With Respect to Functors {#section:invariantswithrespecttofunctors}
-----------------------------------
Suppose ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$ is an additive covariant functor from ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ to $R$-${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf Mod}}}$, and suppose $M$ is a persistence module with a free resolution $$\ldots \to F_2 \to F_1 \to F_0 \to M \to 0$$ with $F_i$ free persistence modules. The [***${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-homology sequence of $M$***]{} is the homology sequence of the chain complex $$\ldots \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(F_2) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(F_1) \to {\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(F_0) \to 0.$$ We will denote by $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)$ the $i$-th homology module, and write $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_*(M)$ to refer to the whole sequence $(H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_0(M), H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_1(M), \ldots)$. The sequence $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_*(M)$ is independent of the choice of resolution because ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$ is additive.
If each $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)$ has finite rank, we say that $M$ [***admits an ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Hilbert-Poincaré series***]{}, and we define the [***${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Hilbert-Poincaré series of $M$***]{} by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(M) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty {\ensuremath{\operatorname{rank}}}{\ensuremath{\left(H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)\right)}}t^i
\label{eq:hilbertpoincareseries}$$ where $t$ is an indeterminate. ${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(M)$ is a member of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[[t]]$, the ring of formal power series with integer coefficients.
In addition to all $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)$ having finite rank, if only finitely many $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)$ are non-zero modules, we say that $M$ [***admits an ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Euler characteristic***]{}, and we define the [***${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Euler characteristic of $M$***]{} by substituting $t = -1$ in the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Hilbert-Poincaré series: $$\chi{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(M) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty {\ensuremath{\operatorname{rank}}}{\ensuremath{\left(H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_i(M)\right)}}(-1)^i
= {\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}(M)|_{t = -1}.
\label{eq:eulercharacteristic}$$
By construction, $H{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}_*$ is an invariant for persistence modules. ${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$ is an invariant for the subclass of persistence modules that admit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Hilbert-Poincaré series. $\chi{\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$ is an invariant for the subclass of persistence modules that admit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-Euler characteristics.
Causal Onset Functor and Critical Series {#causal-onset-functor-and-critical-series .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
Suppose $M$ is a persistence module. For a fixed $g \in G$, define the [***lower sum of $M$ at $g$***]{} by $$M_{\prec g} = \sum_{h \prec g} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{image}}}{\ensuremath{\left(M_h^{g/h}\right)}}
= \sum_{h \prec g} (g/h)M_h \subseteq M_g.$$ (Recall that $g/h$ is defined as the unique $x \in X$ such that $xh = g$.) The [***causal onset functor***]{} ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$ is defined by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(M) = M_g/M_{\prec g}.$$ ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$ maps an object in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ to an object in $R$-${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf Mod}}}$. Naturally, morphisms should be mapped by $${\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(\varphi)\right)}}(m + M_{\prec g}) = \varphi(m) + M'_{\prec g}
; \qquad m \in M_h, h \prec g
\label{eq:lowerendfunctoronmorphisms}$$ where $\varphi:M \to M'$ is a persistence module homomorphism.
${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$ is an additive functor.
This follows immediately from . What may not be so obvious is that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$ is indeed well-defined by . Suppose $\varphi:M \to M'$ is a persistence module homomorphism, and $m, n \in M_g$ with $m - n \in M_{\prec g}$. Then ${\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(\varphi)\right)}}(m + M_{\prec g}) -
{\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(\varphi)\right)}}(n + M_{\prec g}) = \varphi(m - n) + M'_{\prec g}$. We need $\varphi(m - n) \subseteq M'_{\prec g}$, [*i.e.*]{}, $\varphi(M_{\prec g}) \subseteq M'_{\prec g}$, but this follows from $\varphi(xM_h) = x\varphi(M_h) \subseteq xM'_h$ for any $h \in G$. Therefore, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(\varphi)$ is well-defined.
A persistence module $M$ [***admits a causal series***]{} if it admits the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$-Hilbert-Poincaré series for each $g \in G$. The [***causal series of $M$***]{} is the function ${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M): G \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[[t]]$ defined by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M)(g) = {\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(M).
\label{eq:causalseries}$$ $M$ [***admits a critical series***]{} if it admits the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$-Euler characteristic for each $g \in G$. The [***critical series of $M$***]{} is the function $\chi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}(M): G \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ defined by $$\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M)(g) = \chi{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(M).
\label{eq:criticalseries}$$
The invariant of interest in this paper is the [***exterior critical series***]{}, which is the collection of critical series of the module and its exterior powers.
The [***exterior critical series of $M$***]{} is the function $\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}^{\wedge}(M): G \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[[z]]$ defined by $$\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}^{\wedge}(M)(g) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \chi{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(\Lambda^i M)z^i.
\label{eq:exteriorcriticalseries}$$
We note here that it is possible to use tensor or symmetric powers instead of (or together with) exterior powers to define different invariants. We choose to study exterior powers because the number of non-trivial powers is equal to the number of generators of the module, in contrast with tensor and symmetric powers, which will be non-zero for all positive powers (except when the module is zero).
Conventions for Formal Series {#conventions-for-formal-series .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[[G]]$ the collection of all functions from $G$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The subcollection consisting of functions with finite support can be identified with ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[G]$, the free abelian group generated by $G$. We embed $G$ as a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[G]$ via the [***indeterminate embedding***]{} $x:G \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[G]$ defined by $$x(g)(h) =
\begin{cases}
1 & ; h = g \\
0 & ; h \ne g
\end{cases}$$ We adopt the more common notation of writing $x^g$ instead of $x(g)$. The symbol $x$ will be called an [***indeterminate***]{}. This allows expressing an element of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[G]$ as a finite sum $\sum_{i=1}^n n_i x^{g_i}$ where $n_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $g_i \in G$. We extend this convention to allow a formal infinite series to represent an element of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[[G]]$. (This construction remains valid with any unital ring replacing ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.) With this convention, , and can be written in full as $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}(M) & = \sum_{g \in G} \sum_{i=0}^\infty
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{rank}}}{\ensuremath{\left((H{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g)_i(M)\right)}}t^ix^g \\
\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M) & = \sum_{g \in G} \sum_{i=0}^\infty
(-1)^i{\ensuremath{\operatorname{rank}}}{\ensuremath{\left((H{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g)_i(M)\right)}}x^g \\
\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}^\wedge(M) & =
\sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{g \in G} \sum_{j=0}^\infty
(-1)^j{\ensuremath{\operatorname{rank}}}{\ensuremath{\left((H{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g)_j(\Lambda^iM)\right)}}x^g z^i.\end{aligned}$$
Structure Theorems {#section:structuretheorems}
------------------
A subset $S \subseteq G$ is [***convex***]{} if for all $g, g' \in S$ with $g \preceq g'$, $[g, g'] \subseteq S$. We also define $(-\infty, g']$, $(\infty, g')$, $[g, \infty)$ and $(g, \infty)$ in an obvious way (assuming $-\infty$ and $\infty$ are not in $G$).
A [***region module of $S \subseteq G$***]{}, written ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(S)$, is a persistence module defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(S)\right)}}_g & =
\begin{cases}
R & ; g \in S \\
0 & ; g \notin S
\end{cases} \\
{\ensuremath{\left({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(S)\right)}}_g^x & =
\begin{cases}
\text{identity} & ; [g, xg] \subseteq S \\
0 & ; [g, xg] \not\subseteq S
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ A region module ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(S)$ is [***indecomposable***]{} if $S$ is convex. An indecomposable region module $M$ have the property that $M_g^x$ is always an identity when $M_{xg} \ne 0$.
Since region modules from intervals of the form $[g, g']$, $[g, g')$, $(g, g')$ and $(g, g']$ are of special importance ($g$ may be $-\infty$ and $g'$ may be $\infty$), we will omit the outer parentheses and simply write ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[g, g']$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[g, g')$ and so on.
The first known structure theorem is the classification of finitely generated graded modules over a graded principal ideal domain [@ComputingPersistentHomology]. This theorem applies when $R$ is a field and $X = G = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\ge 0}$, where the action of $X$ on $G$ is the usual addition.
Let $R$ be a field and $X = G = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\ge 0}$. Then, every finitely generated persistence module $M$ can be written as $$M \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\alpha_i, \alpha_i + \ell_i)$$ where $\alpha_i \in G$, $\ell_i > 0$, and $\ell_i$ may be $\infty$.
Webb [@DecompositionOfGradedModules] proved a more general result. $G$ can be extended to cover negative degrees.
\[theorem:decompositionofgradedmodules\] Let $R$ be a field, $X = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\ge 0}$ and $G = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Then, $M$ can be written as a direct sum of cyclic module $$M \cong \bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\alpha_i, \alpha_i + \ell_i)$$ where $\alpha_i \in G$, $\ell_i > 0$, and $\ell_i$ may be $\infty$, if one of the following is true:
1. $M$ is [***pointwise finite-dimensional***]{} ($\dim(M_g) < \infty$ for all $g \in G$) and $M$ contains no injective submodule.
2. $M$ is [***bounded below***]{} (there exists $g \in G$ such that $g' \prec g$ implies $M_g = 0$).
Crawley-Boevey [@DecompositionOfPointwiseFiniteDimensionalPersistenceModules] gave a different extension for locally finite modules. Assuming $M$ is locally finite, $G$ is allowed to be any totally ordered set with a countable subset. The requirements on $X$ can also be weakened because in [@DecompositionOfPointwiseFiniteDimensionalPersistenceModules], $G$ is not assumed to be translation invariant, but this is of little significance. Here is a special case of the result by Crawley-Boevey that is more than sufficient for our use.
\[theorem:barcodedecomposition\] Let $R$ be a field, $X$ a submonoid of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$, $G$ a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $(X, G)$ a persistence grading. If $M$ is pointwise finite-dimensional, then $$M \cong {\ensuremath{\left(\bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal A}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(\alpha_i, \alpha'_i)\right)}}
\oplus {\ensuremath{\left(\bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal B}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(\beta_i, \beta'_i]\right)}}
\oplus {\ensuremath{\left(\bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal C}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\gamma_i, \gamma'_i]\right)}}
\oplus {\ensuremath{\left(\bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal D}}} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\delta_i, \delta'_i)\right)}}$$ where $\alpha_i < \alpha'_i$, $\beta_i < \beta'_i$, $\gamma_i \le \gamma'_i$ and $\delta_i < \delta'_i$. $\alpha_i, \beta_i$ and $\delta_i$ may be $-\infty$, while $\alpha'_i, \gamma'_i$ and $\delta'_i$ may be $\infty$.
Causality {#causality .unnumbered}
---------
A persistence module $M$ is [***causal***]{} if for every $g \in G$, there exists $x \in X - {\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}$ such that $x' \preceq x$ implies $M_g^{x'}: M_g \to M_{x'g}$ is an isomorphism. Regions of the forms ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(g, g')$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}(g, g']$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[g, g']$ are not causal. If a persistence module $M$ can be decomposed as $M = M' \oplus M''$ with $M'$ non-causal, then $M$ itself is non-causal. Combining this with Theorem \[theorem:barcodedecomposition\], we get
\[corollary:causalbarcodedecomposition\] Let $R$ be a field, $X$ a submonoid of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$, $G$ a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $(X, G)$ a persistence grading. If $M$ is pointwise finite-dimensional and causal, then it can be written as $$M \cong \bigoplus_{i \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal I}}}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\alpha_i, \alpha_i + \ell_i)$$ where $\alpha_i \in G$, $\ell_i > 0$, and $\ell_i$ may be $\infty$.
This covers the first case of Theorem \[theorem:decompositionofgradedmodules\] as well as allowing $G$ and $X$ to be different from ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\ge 0}$.
Completeness of Exterior Critical Series in 1-Dimensional Case {#section:main}
==============================================================
In this section, we assume that $R$ is a field, $G$ is a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and $X$ is a submonoid of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$ acting on $G$ by addition. (This means $a \in G$ implies $a + X \subseteq G$.) Also, we assume $M$ is a persistence module that is finitely presented and bounded, hence it is necessarily causal and pointwise finite-dimensional. Corollary \[corollary:causalbarcodedecomposition\] gives an interval decomposition $$M \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Region}}}[\alpha_i, \alpha_i + \ell_i)
\label{eq:boundedfinitedecomposition}$$ where $\alpha_i \in G$ and $\ell_i > 0$. (Boundedness forces $\ell_i < \infty$.) Since there is an embedding of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, X, G)$ into ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, and such embedding preserves finite presentation and boundedness, we will assume that $X = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$ and $G = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. It should be clear how the main result, to be stated, can be applied to more general $G$ and $X$. For ease of notation, we define $X_+ = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{> 0}$.
A [***barcode***]{} of $M$ with the decomposition in , is $$\varepsilon(M) =
\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i} \in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}}
\label{eq:finitebarcode}$$ where $x$ and $y$ are indeterminates, and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0 = {\ensuremath{\left\{0, 1, 2, \ldots\right\}}}$.
It is immediate that $\varepsilon(M)$, if exists, determines the isomorphism class of $M$. It is also true that an arbitrary member of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}}$ has a corresponding isomorphism class of persistence modules. We will call a member of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}}$ a [***barcode***]{}.
A monomial $b = x^{\alpha}y^{\ell}$ is called a [***bar***]{}. The [***birth grade of $b$***]{} is $\alpha$. The [***lifespan of $b$***]{} is $\ell$. The [***death grade of $b$***]{} is $\alpha + \ell$.
A barcode is essentially a multiset of bars. Suppose $f$ is a barcode $$f = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}.$$ We define
- The [***birth series of $f$***]{}: $$B(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0[G].$$
- The [***death series of $f$***]{}: $$D(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i + \ell_i} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0[G].$$
- The [***critical series of $f$***]{}: $$C(f) = B(f) - D(f) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}[G].$$
- The [***lifespan series of $f$***]{}: $$L(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\ell_i} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0[X_+].$$
Note that all these *series* are actually *polynomials* (with possibly non-integer exponents). The maps $f \mapsto B(f)$, $f \mapsto D(f)$, $f \mapsto C(f)$ and $f \mapsto L(f)$ are ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$-module homomorphisms.
\[proposition:finitelypresentedmatching\] If $M$ is finitely presented and bounded, then $C(\varepsilon(M)) = \chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M)$.
The decomposition suggests that $M$ has a two-step free resolution $$0 \to F_1 \stackrel{\psi}{\to} F_0 \stackrel{\phi}{\to} M \to 0$$ such that
- $F_0$ is generated by $f_1, \ldots, f_n$;
- $F_1$ is generated by $h_1, \ldots, h_n$;
- $\deg(f_i) = \alpha_i$;
- $\deg(h_i) = \alpha_i + \ell_i$ (where $h_i$ are considered elements of $F_0$);
- ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(\phi(f_i)) = [\ell_i, \infty)$.
Since the resolution has finite length and all these modules are finitely generated, $M$ admits a critical series. From the definition of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g$, $\dim{\ensuremath{\left((H{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g)_0(M)\right)}}$ is equal to the number of $i$ such that $\alpha_i = g$, and $\dim{\ensuremath{\left((H{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g)_1(M)\right)}}$ is equal to the number of $i$ such that $\alpha_i + \ell_i = g$. This translates to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M) = B(\varepsilon(M)) + tD(\varepsilon(M))$ (recall that $t$ is the indeterminate in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}_g(M)$, $g \in G$), and so $C(\varepsilon(M)) = \chi_{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}(M)$.
Tensor, Symmetric and Exterior Powers of Barcodes
-------------------------------------------------
Assuming that $M$ can be decomposed as in , there exist a set of homogeneous generators $g_1, \ldots, g_n$ of $M$ such that $\deg(g_i) = \alpha_i$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(g_i) = [\ell_i, \infty)$. Each $g_i$ corresponds exactly to the monomial $x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}$ in .
From this set of generators, we obtain a set of generators of $M^{\otimes p}$, the $p$-th tensor power of $M$. There are $n^p$ generators, namely $g_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes g_{i_p}$ where $i_j \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, \ldots, n\right\}}}$. Suppose $g = g_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes g_{i_p}$. Then $\deg(g) = \sum_{j=1}^p \deg(g_{i_j}) = \sum_{j=1}^p \alpha_{i_j}$, and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(g) = \bigcup_{j=1}^p {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}_X(g_{i_j})
= [{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}_j \ell_{i_j}, \infty)$. The means the barcode of $M^{\otimes p}$ is $$\varepsilon{\ensuremath{\left(M^{\otimes p}\right)}} =
\sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_p \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, \ldots, n\right\}}}}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}}.
\label{eq:tensorpowerofbarcode}$$ In the same way, we can argue about the barcodes of $S^p(M)$ and $\Lambda^p(M)$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon{\ensuremath{\left(S^p(M)\right)}} & =
\sum_{1 \le i_1 \le i_2 \le \ldots \le i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}}.
\label{eq:symmetricpowerofbarcode}\\
\varepsilon{\ensuremath{\left(\Lambda^p(M)\right)}} & =
\sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}}.
\label{eq:exteriorpowerofbarcode}\end{aligned}$$ We take , and as definitions of the [***$p$-th tensor power***]{}, [***symmetric power***]{} and [***exterior power***]{} of barcodes: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}\right)}}^{\otimes p}
& =
\sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_p \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, \ldots, n\right\}}}}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}} \\
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}\right)}}^{\odot p}
& =
\sum_{1 \le i_1 \le i_2 \le \ldots \le i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}} \\
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}\right)}}^{\wedge p}
& =
\sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{{\ensuremath{\operatornamewithlimits{min}}}{\ensuremath{\left\{\ell_{i_1}, \ldots, \ell_{i_p}\right\}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This makes $\varepsilon$ commute with the tensor power, symmetric power and exterior power: $\varepsilon(M^{\otimes p}) = \varepsilon(M)^{\otimes p}$, $\varepsilon(S^p(M)) = \varepsilon(M)^{\odot p}$ and $\varepsilon(\Lambda^p(M)) = \varepsilon(M)^{\wedge p}$.
Following the convention that $\Lambda^0(M) = R$, we define $f^{\wedge 0} = 1$ for all $f \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}} - {\ensuremath{\left\{0\right\}}}$. Note that $1 \notin {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}}$ as ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X_+\right]}}$ is a proper ideal of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0{\ensuremath{\left[G \times X\right]}}$, which has $1$.
For convenience, we also define the [***$p$-th tensor power***]{}, [***symmetric power***]{} and [***exterior power***]{} of members of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0[G]$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}\right)}}^{\otimes p} & =
\sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_p \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, \ldots, n\right\}}}}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \alpha_{i_2} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
\label{eq:tensorpowerofseries}\\
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}\right)}}^{\odot p} & =
\sum_{1\le i_1 \le i_2 \le \ldots \le i_p\le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \alpha_{i_2} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
\label{eq:symmetricpowerofseries}\\
{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}\right)}}^{\wedge p} & =
\sum_{1\le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p\le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \alpha_{i_2} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}.
\label{eq:exteriorpowerofseries}\end{aligned}$$
Main Result {#section:mainresult}
-----------
Now that we have the correspondence between isomorphism classes of persistence modules and their barcodes, we will be working solely with polynomials in this section.
The [***exterior critical series of barcode $f$***]{} is a member of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}{\ensuremath{\left[G \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_0\right]}}$ defined by $$C^\wedge(f) = \sum_{p=1}^\infty C{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge p}\right)}}z^p
\label{eq:exteriorcriticalseriesofbarcode}$$ where $z$ is the second indeterminate.
Note that the sum is actually finite because $f^{\wedge p}$ will be zero for all $p > f|_{(x, y) = (1, 1)}$. (Recall that the two indeterminates of $f$ are $x$ and $y$.) The main focus of this paper is to prove
\[theorem:main\] The map $f \mapsto C^{\wedge}(f)$ is one-to-one.
The method of proof is to assume that $C^\wedge(f)$ is given, then construct $f$ from $C^\wedge(f)$. Let us start by assuming that $$f = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}
\label{eq:barcode}$$ with $\ell_1 \le \ell_2 \le \ldots \ell_n$. Then, for $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\wedge p} & = \sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
y^{\ell_{i_1}}
\label{eq:exteriorpowers} \\
B{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge p}\right)}} & = \sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}
\label{eq:birthpowers} \\
D{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge p}\right)}} & = \sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p} + \ell_{i_1}}
\label{eq:deathpowers} \\
C{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge p}\right)}} & = \sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_p}}{\ensuremath{\left(
1 - x^{\ell_{i_1}}\right)}}
\label{eq:criticalpowers} \\
L{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge p}\right)}} & = \sum_{1 \le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_p \le n}
x^{\ell_{i_1}}.
\label{eq:lifespanpowers}\end{aligned}$$ The first piece of information we can get from $C^{\wedge}(f)$ is $n$: $n$ is the largest integer such that $C(f^{\wedge n}) \ne 0$.
\[proposition:numberofbars\] The number of bars of $f$, which is equal to $n = f|_{(x, y) = (1, 1)}$, can be determined from $C^\wedge(f)$.
From , $n$ is the unique non-negative integer such that $C(f^{\wedge n}) \ne 0$ and $C(f^{\wedge (n + 1)}) = 0$.
### Moment {#section:moment}
For each $P \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}[G]$, we define the [***moment of $P$***]{} by $$\mu(P) = P'|_{x=1} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$$ where $P'$ is the formal derivative of $P$, and $P'|_{x=1}$ is the result from substitute $1$ into $x$ in $P'$. A more explicit definition is $$\mu{\ensuremath{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n r_i x^{\alpha_i}\right)}}
= \sum_{i=1}^n r_i \alpha_i.$$ $\mu$ is obviously an ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$-module homomorphism from ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}[G]$ (or any of its subrings) to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
### Lifespan Series
If $f$ is defined by , then $$\mu(C(f)) = \mu(B(f)) - \mu(D(f))
= \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i - \sum_{i=1}^n (\alpha_i + \ell_i)
= -\sum_{i=1}^n \ell_i.$$ By a counting argument and the condition that $\ell_1 \le \ell_2 \le \ldots \le \ell_n$, we get $$\mu(C(f^{\wedge p})) =
-\sum_{i=1}^{n-p+1}
\binom{n-i}{p-1} \ell_i =
-\ell_{n-p+1} - \sum_{i=1}^{n-p}\binom{n-i}{p-1} \ell_i.
\label{eq:measures}$$ for $p \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, 2, \ldots, n\right\}}}$. Assuming that $C(f^{\wedge p})$ are given for all $p$, we can compute all $\mu(C^{\wedge p})$, and is a system of $n$ linear equations with $\ell_i$ as knowns. The solution to the system is given by the recursive formula $$\ell_{i} = -\mu(C(f^{\wedge (n - i + 1)})) -
\sum_{j=1}^{i - 1} \binom{n - j}{n - i}\ell_j.$$ This means $L(f)$ can be found from $C^{\wedge}(f)$.
It is easy to see from that once $L(f)$ is known, $L(f^{\wedge p})$ can be computed for any $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. Thus, we have proved
\[proposition:lifespanseries\] $L(f)$, hence all $L(f^p)$, can be determined from $C^\wedge(f)$.
### Drift
With $f$ in , define the [***drift of $f$***]{} as $$\Delta(f) = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i
= \mu{\ensuremath{\left(f|_{y=1}\right)}}.$$ The drift can be computed by substituting $y = 1$ then computing the moment, so $\Delta$ is an ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$-module homomorphism. Direct computation yields $$\Delta(f^{\wedge p}) = \binom{n - 1}{p - 1}\Delta(f).
\label{eq:driftofpower}$$ When $p = n$, we get $\Delta(f^{\wedge n}) = \Delta(f)$. However, $f^{\wedge n}$ has only one bar: $f^{\wedge n} = x^{\Delta(f)}y^{\ell_1}$. We see that $C(f^{\wedge n}) = x^{\Delta(f)} - x^{\Delta(f) + \ell_1}$, so $$\begin{aligned}
x^{\Delta(f)} & = \frac{1}{1 - x^{\ell_1}}C(f^{\wedge n}) \nonumber\\
\therefore \quad
\Delta(f) & = \mu{\ensuremath{\left(\frac{1}{1 - x^{\ell_1}}C(f^{\wedge n})\right)}},
\label{eq:drift}\end{aligned}$$ where the last equation comes from computing the moment on both sides. This, combined with , proves
\[proposition:drift\] $\Delta(f^{\wedge p})$, for any $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, can be obtained from $n$ and $C(f^{\wedge n})$.
### The Case of Single Lifespan
If the lifespan series $L(f)$ consists of only one monomial, [*i.e.*]{}, all bars in $f$ have the same lifespan, then $L(f) = nx^\ell$, $f = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell}$, and $D(f) = x^\ell B(f)$. Since $C(f) = B(f) - D(f) = {\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^\ell\right)}}B(f)$, $$B(f) = \frac{C(f)}{1 - x^\ell}.$$ Also, $f = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^\ell = y^\ell B(f)$, hence $$f = \frac{y^\ell}{1 - x^\ell}C(f). \label{eq:singlelifespan}$$ We have shown that
\[proposition:singlelifespan\] The map $f \mapsto C(f)$ is one-to-one if the domain is restricted to $${\ensuremath{\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell}\right\}}}$$ with $\ell$ fixed.
### The Case of Two Lifespans with One Outlier
If we know beforehand that in a barcode $f$, one bar has lifespan of $\tilde\ell$ and all other bars have the same lifespan of $\ell \ne \tilde\ell$, it is possible to extract $f$ by using $C(f)$ and $\Delta(f)$. We demonstrate the procedure below.
Suppose $\ell_j = \tilde\ell$ ($j$ fixed) and $\ell_i = \ell$ for $i \ne j$. (According to our ordering $\ell_1 \le \ell_2 \le \ldots \ell_n$, we must have either $j = 1$ or $j = n$.) We can determine $\alpha_j$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
f & = x^{\alpha_j}{\ensuremath{\left(y^{\tilde\ell} - y^{\ell}\right)}} +
\sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell} \\
C(f) & =
{\ensuremath{\left(x^{\alpha_j + \ell} - x^{\alpha_j + \tilde\ell}\right)}} +
\sum_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\left(x^{\alpha_i} - x^{\alpha_i + \ell}\right)}} \\
xC(f)' & =
{\ensuremath{\left((\alpha_j + \ell)x^{\alpha_j + \ell}
- (\alpha_j + \tilde\ell)x^{\alpha_j + \tilde\ell}\right)}} +
\sum_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\left(\alpha_i x^{\alpha_i} -
(\alpha_i + \ell)x^{\alpha_i + \ell}\right)}} \\
\mu(xC(f)') & =
{\ensuremath{\left((\alpha_j + \ell)^2 - (\alpha_j + \tilde\ell)^2\right)}} +
\sum_{i=1}^n {\ensuremath{\left(\alpha_i^2 - (\alpha_i + \ell)^2\right)}} \\
& = (2\alpha_j + \ell + \tilde\ell)
(\ell - \tilde\ell) - \ell\sum_{i=1}^n (2\alpha_i + \ell)\\
& = 2\alpha_j(\ell - \tilde\ell) +
(\ell + \tilde\ell)(\ell - \tilde\ell)
- 2\ell\Delta(f) - n\ell^2 \\
\therefore \quad
\alpha_j & = \frac{1}{2(\ell - \tilde\ell)}
{\ensuremath{\left(
\mu(xC(f)') - (\ell + \tilde\ell)(\ell - \tilde\ell) + 2\ell\Delta(f)
+ n\ell^2
\right)}}.\end{aligned}$$ This means we can compute $\alpha_j$ from $\tilde\ell$, $\ell$, $C(f)$ and $\Delta(f)$. Next, let $$\tilde f = f - x^{\alpha_j}y^{\tilde\ell}
= \sum_{\substack{1\le i \le n\\i \ne j}} x^{\alpha_i}y^\ell.$$ $\tilde f$ has $n - 1$ bars, all of which have equal lifespan of $\ell$, and $C(\tilde f) = C(f) - C(x^{\alpha_j}y^{\ell_j})
= C(f) - {\ensuremath{\left(x^{\alpha_j} - x^{\alpha_j + \tilde\ell}\right)}}$. Hence, we can use Proposition \[proposition:singlelifespan\] (equation ) to get $\tilde f$ from $C(\tilde f)$, and finally obtain $f$ from $f = \tilde f + x^{\alpha_j}y^{\tilde\ell}$. This result, combined with Proposition \[proposition:singlelifespan\], gives
\[proposition:twolifespans\] The map $f \mapsto C(f)$ is one-to-one if the domain is restricted to $${\ensuremath{\left\{f = x^{\tilde\alpha}y^{\tilde\ell}
+ \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}\vphantom{\Delta(f) = \delta}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{f = x^{\tilde\alpha}y^{\tilde\ell}
+ \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}}\Delta(f) = \delta\right\}}}$$ with $\ell, \tilde\ell$ and $\delta$ fixed.
### Extracting Birth and Death Series
Suppose we are given $C^{\wedge}(f)$, where $f$ is of the form . Consider the $(n-1)$-th exterior power of $f$: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\wedge(n - 1)} & =
x^{\Delta(f) - \alpha_1}y^{\ell_2} +
\sum_{i=2}^n x^{\Delta(f) - \alpha_i}y^{\ell_1}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that one bar in $f^{\wedge(n-1)}$ has lifespan of $\ell_2$ while all other bars have lifespan of $\ell_1$. (All $\ell_i$ are known by Proposition \[proposition:lifespanseries\].) $\Delta(f^{\wedge(n-1)})$ is known by Proposition \[proposition:drift\]. Hence, Proposition \[proposition:twolifespans\] applies to give us $f^{\wedge(n - 1)}$. We can then compute $B(f^{\wedge(n-1)})$ and relate it to $B(f)$: $$B(f^{\wedge(n-1)}) = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{\Delta(f) - \alpha_i}
= x^{\Delta(f)}\sum_{i=1}^n x^{-\alpha_i}.$$ Replacing $x$ by $1/x$, we get $$B(f) = x^{\Delta(f)}B(f^{\wedge(n-1)})|_{1/x}$$ where $B(f^{\wedge(n-1)})|_{1/x}$ is the result from replacing $x$ by $1/x$ in $B(f^{\wedge(n-1)})$. Now that $B(f)$ has been determined, and give $B(f^{\wedge p}) = B(f)^{\wedge p}$ for all $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. Then, $D(f^{\wedge p})$ can be obtained from $D(f^{\wedge p}) = C(f^{\wedge p}) + B(f^{\wedge p})$. We summarize these results as
\[proposition:birthseries\] For any $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, $B(f^{\wedge p})$ and $D(f^{\wedge p})$ can be obtained from $C^{\wedge}(f)$.
### Proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\]
Suppose $f$ is of the form but we are given just $C^{\wedge}(f)$. We know $n$ (the number of bars in $f$) from Proposition \[proposition:numberofbars\]. From Proposition \[proposition:lifespanseries\], we know $L(f)$, and so all $\ell_i$. We will prove the theorem by induction on the number of distinct lifespans.
The base case is when $\ell_1 = \ell_2 = \ell_3 = \ldots = \ell_n$. Proposition \[proposition:singlelifespan\] gives $f$ and we are done.
Otherwise, there exists $m \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, 2, \ldots, n - 1\right\}}}$ such that $\ell_1 = \ell_2 = \ldots = \ell_m < \ell_{m+1}
\le \ldots \le \ell_n$. Let $\ell = \ell_1 = \ldots = \ell_m$ and $\tilde f = \sum_{i=m+1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}$. Consider $f^{\wedge(n-m)}$. Exactly one bar in $f^{\wedge(n-m)}$ has lifespan $\ell_{m+1}$ while all other bars have lifespan $\ell$. $\Delta(f^{\wedge(n-m)})$ is known from Proposition \[proposition:drift\], hence we know $f^{\wedge(n-m)}$ completely by Proposition \[proposition:twolifespans\]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\wedge(n-m)} & =
x^{\alpha_{m+1} + \ldots + \alpha_n}{\ensuremath{\left(y^{\ell_{m+1}} - y^{\ell}\right)}} +
\sum_{1\le i_1 < i_2 < \ldots < i_{n-m}\le n}
x^{\alpha_{i_1} + \alpha_{i_2} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_{n-m}}}
y^{\ell} \\
& = x^{\alpha_{m+1} + \ldots + \alpha_n}{\ensuremath{\left(y^{\ell_{m+1}} - y^{\ell}\right)}} +
y^\ell B(f)^{\wedge(m-n)},\end{aligned}$$ we can solve for $\delta = \alpha_{m+1} + \ldots + \alpha_n$: $$\begin{aligned}
x^{\delta} & =
\frac{1}{y^{\ell_{m+1}} - y^{\ell}}
{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge(n - m)} - y^\ell B(f)^{\wedge(m - n)}\right)}} \\
\delta & = \mu{\ensuremath{\left(
\frac{1}{y^{\ell_{m+1}} - y^{\ell}}
{\ensuremath{\left(f^{\wedge(n - m)} - y^\ell B(f)^{\wedge(m - n)}\right)}}
\right)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, consider $f^{\wedge(n-m-1)}$: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\wedge(n-m-1)} & = &
x^{\delta - \alpha_{m+1}} {\ensuremath{\left(y^{\ell_{m+2}} - y^{\ell}\right)}}
+ \sum_{i=m+2}^{n}
x^{\delta - \alpha_i}{\ensuremath{\left(y^{\ell_{m+1}} - y^{\ell}\right)}}
+ B(f)^{\wedge(n-m-1)}y^{\ell}\end{aligned}$$ $$\therefore \quad C(f^{\wedge(n-m-1)}) =
x^{\delta - \alpha_{m+1}} {\ensuremath{\left(x^{\ell} - x^{\ell_{m+2}}\right)}}
+ \sum_{i=m+2}^{n}
x^{\delta - \alpha_i}{\ensuremath{\left(x^{\ell} - x^{\ell_{m+1}}\right)}}
+ B(f)^{\wedge(n-m-1)}{\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^{\ell}\right)}}.
\label{eq:n-m-1barcode}$$ Let $g = x^{\delta-\alpha_{m+1}}y^{\ell_{m+2}-\ell}
+ \sum_{i=m+2}^n x^{\delta-\alpha_i}y^{\ell_{m+1}-\ell}$. $g$ is simply the result from shortening all bars in $f^{\wedge(n-m-1)}$ by $\ell$ and removing those with zero remaining lifespan. We see that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(g) & = &
\sum_{i=m+1}^n {\ensuremath{\left(\delta - \alpha_i\right)}}
\ = \ (n-m-1)\delta, \label{eq:deltaofg} \\
C(g) & = &
x^{\delta - \alpha_{m+1}}{\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^{\ell_{m+2} - \ell}\right)}}
+ \sum_{i=m+2}^n x^{\delta-\alpha_i}{\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^{\ell_{m+1} - \ell}\right)}}
\nonumber\\
& = & x^{-\ell}{\ensuremath{\left(
C(f^{\wedge(n-m-1)}) - B(f)^{\wedge(n-m-1)}{\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^\ell\right)}}\right)}}
\label{eq:criticalofg}\end{aligned}$$ where the last equation comes from . Using Proposition \[proposition:twolifespans\], we can determine $g$ from known information, then compute $$B(g) = x^{\delta}\sum_{i=m+1}^n x^{-\alpha_i} \quad\text{ and }\quad
\bar B = B(f) - x^{\delta}{\ensuremath{\left(B(g)|_{1/x}\right)}} = \sum_{i=1}^m x^{\alpha_i},$$ where $B(g)|_{1/x}$ is the result from substituting $1/x$ into $x$ in $B(g)$.
Let $\tilde f = \sum_{i=m+1}^n x^{\alpha_i}y^{\ell_i}$. $f$ can be expressed simply as $$f = \bar B y^{\ell} + \tilde f.
\label{eq:induction}$$ It follows that for any $p \in {\ensuremath{\left\{1, 2, \ldots, n\right\}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\wedge p} & =
\tilde f^{\wedge p}
+ y^{\ell}\sum_{i=1}^p \bar B^{\wedge i} B(f)^{\wedge(p-i)}
\nonumber\\
B(f^{\wedge p}) & =
B(\tilde f^{\wedge p}) +
\sum_{i=1}^p \bar B^{\wedge i} B(f)^{\wedge(p-i)}
\label{eq:subbirthseries}\\
D(f^{\wedge p}) & =
D(\tilde f^{\wedge p}) +
x^{\ell}\sum_{i=1}^p \bar B^{\wedge i} B(f)^{\wedge(p-i)}.
\label{eq:subdeathseries}\end{aligned}$$ Subtract from and rearrange to get $$C(\tilde f^{\wedge p}) =
C(f^{\wedge p}) - {\ensuremath{\left(1 - x^\ell\right)}}
\sum_{i=1}^p \bar B^{\wedge i}B(f)^{\wedge(p-i)}.$$ All terms on the right-hand side of this equation are known, so $C^\wedge(\tilde f)$ is known. By definition, $\tilde f$ has one fewer distinct lifespan than $f$, so $\tilde f$ can be constructed by the induction hypothesis. $f$ can then be obtained from . This completes the proof.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
Since we have already established that $C^{\wedge}(\varepsilon(M)) = \chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}^\wedge(M)$ in Proposition \[proposition:finitelypresentedmatching\], Theorem \[theorem:main\] translates into the language of persistence modules as
\[corollary:main\] For finitely presented and bounded persistence modules in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{\bf PersMod}}}(R, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, the exterior critical series $\chi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal O}}}(M)$ completely determines the isomorphism class of $M$.
The definition of the critical series, by construction, is available in a very general setting. Corollary \[corollary:main\] shows that it carries enough information to be complete in the one-dimensional case. These properties are not different from the rank invariant [@TheoryOfMultidimensionalPersistence], so we note here that there are situations where the rank invariant cannot distinguish between persistence modules that have different exterior critical series. (See Figure \[figure:invariantexample\].)
![ \[figure:invariantexample\] An example situation where the exterior critical series captures information that is not detected by the rank invariant. $a, b, c, d, e, f$ are generators of a graded vector space over a field $R$. We build two persistence modules $M$ and $M'$ over this graded vector space by defining actions of $x$ and $y$ as follows: (1) $M$: $ya = c$, $xa = d = yb$ and $xb = f$; (2) $M'$: $ya = c$, $xa = d$, $yb = e$ and $xb = f$. The rank invariant is the same for both modules but the exterior critical series are different, as can be seen from the fact that $M$ is generated by at least $3$ elements while $M'$ can be generated by $2$ elements. ](InvariantExample.pdf)
We hope that Corollary \[corollary:main\] should extend to cover more general cases, such as unbounded tame modules, without much difficulty. Similar results might be available for special modules such as zigzag persistence modules [@ZigzagPersistence] embedded as 2-dimensional persistence modules. The general construction of the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal F}}$-homology sequence may allow more information to be detected; for example, one may define reverse-onset functors that capture intervals of the form $(g, g']$. Also, incorporating tensor powers and symmetric powers may give information that is unavailable with exterior powers alone in the case of multi-dimensional persistence.
There is still much to study about the computational aspect of this concept. In its raw form, the exterior critical series requires $O(2^n)$ storage for a persistence module with $n$ generators (with persistence dimension $1$), so it is not computationally practical. We do hope, however, that there will be a procedure to choose and compute only parts of the exterior critical series that provide sufficient information about major characteristics of the module.
[^1]: A [***discrete invariant***]{}, as discussed in [@TheoryOfMultidimensionalPersistence], is an invariant that does not depend on the ground field. The ground field will be denoted by $R$ throughout this paper.
[^2]: An interval $[g, g']$ is defined by $[g, g'] = {\ensuremath{\left\{h\vphantom{g \preceq h \preceq g'}\ \right|\left.\vphantom{h}g \preceq h \preceq g'\right\}}} \subseteq G$. Intervals of forms $[g, g')$, $(g, g']$ and $(g, g')$ are defined similarly.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We propose an experimentally feasible scheme to generate nonmaximal entanglement between two atomic ensembles. The degree of entanglement is readily tunable. The scheme involves laser manipulation of atomic ensembles, adjustable quarter- and half-wave plates, beam splitter, polarizing beam splitters, and single-photon detectors, and well fits the status of the current experimental technology. Finally we use the nonmaximally entangled state of ensembles to demonstrate quantum nonlocality by detecting the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality.
PACS number(s): 03.65.Ud, 03.67.-a, 42.50.Gy, 42.50.-p
address: |
Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, University of Science and Technology\
of China, Hefei 230026, P. R. China
author:
- 'Peng Xue[^1], and Guang-Can Guo[^2]'
title: Scheme for preparation of nonmaximal entanglement between two atomic ensembles
---
Quantum entanglement is one of the most striking features of quantum mechanics. The recent surge of interest and progress in quantum information theory allows one to take a more positive view of entanglement and regard it as an essential resource for many ingenious applications such as quantum computation [@Shor; @Grover; @Ekert1], quantum teleportation [@Bennett1; @Pan1], superdense coding [@Bennett3], and quantum cryptography [@Ekert2; @Lo; @xue1; @xue2]. The technology of generation and manipulation of bipartite or multipartite entangled states has been realized in some systems [@Kwiat; @Kwiat1; @Kwiat2; @other; @Bou; @Rau; @Sac; @Pan2]. In most of the above schemes, the subsystems are taken as single-particle. Remarkably, Lukin and Duan [*et al.* ]{}have proposed some schemes [@Lukin; @Duan1; @Duan2; @Duan3] for preparation of entanglement, in which atomic ensembles with a large number of identical atoms are used as the basic system. For example, one can use atomic ensembles for generation of substantial spin squeezing [@spin] and continuous variable entanglement [@Duan1; @Jul], and for efficient preparation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [@Duan2], Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) type of maximally entangled states [@Duan3] and W class of maximally entangled states [@xue3]. The schemes have some special advantages compared with other quantum information schemes based on the control of single particles [@Duan4].
In all experimental efforts, it is hard to vary the degree of entanglement, and to produce nonmaximally entangled states without compromising the purity of the state. Nonmaximally entangled states have been shown to reduce the required detector efficiencies for loophole-free tests of Bell inequalities [@Eberhard], as well as allowing logical arguments that demonstrate the nonlocality of quantum mechanics without inequalities [@Hardy]. Recently, we have proposed some schemes for applications of nonmaximal entanglement [@xue1; @xue2; @xue4]. Up to now, nonmaximally entangled states have been deterministically generated with an ion-trap [@Tur], and with a spontaneous down converter (SPDC) [@Torgerson; @Dig; @White].
Here, we describe an experimental scheme of preparing nonmaximally entangled states based on Raman type laser manipulation of the atomic ensembles and single photon detection which postselects the desired state in a probabilistic fashion.
The basic element of this scheme is an ensemble of many identical alkali atoms with a Raman type $\Lambda $-level configuration shown as Fig. 1, the experimental realization of which can be either a room-temperature dilute atomic gas [@Jul; @Phi] or a sample of cold trapped atoms [@Liu; @Roch]. We continue to use the symbols and corresponding definitions in Refs. [@Duan2; @Duan3]. The collective atomic operator is defined as $$s=\left( 1/\sqrt{N_a}\right) \sum_{i=1}^{N_a}\left| g\right\rangle
_i\left\langle s\right| , \eqnum{1}$$ where $N_a\gg 1$ is the total atom number. The Raman transition $\left|
g\right\rangle \rightarrow \left| e\right\rangle $ is coupled by the classical laser and the forward scattered Stokes light comes from the transition $\left| e\right\rangle \rightarrow \left| s\right\rangle $ [@Duan2]. The scheme for preparation nonmaximally entangled states works in the following way (seeing Fig. 2). Here we choose a $\Lambda $ configuration of atomic states of $^{87}$Rb by way of example, which is coupled by a pair of optical fields.
There are two light fields with the Rabi frequencies $\Omega $ and $\omega $, respectively, which couple pairs of Zeeman sublevels of electronic ground state $5S_{1/2}$ $^{87}$Rb atoms $\left( \left| g\right\rangle ,\left|
s\right\rangle \right) $, with magnetic quantum numbers differing by two, via the excited $5P_{1/2}$ state [@Phi; @XP]. In this case $\left|
g\right\rangle $ and $\left| s\right\rangle $ of the simplified three-level model correspond, respectively, to $\left| F=2,M_F=-2\right\rangle $ and $%
\left| F=2,M_F=0\right\rangle $. The atoms in the ensembles are initially prepared to the ground state $\left| g\right\rangle $ through optical pumping. The two ensembles 1 and 2 are illuminated by the synchronized classical laser pulses of right circularly polarized ($\sigma _{-}$) light. The excitations $5S_{1/2}$ $F=2$, $M_F=-2\rightarrow 5P_{1/2}$ $F=1$, $%
M_F=-1 $ can be transferred to optical excitations. Assume that the light-atom interaction time $t_0$ is short so that the mean photon number in the forward scattered Stokes light is much smaller than 1. It is defined in Ref. [@Duan2] an effective single-mode bosonic operator $a$ for this Stokes pulse. The whole state of the atomic collective mode and the forward scattering Stokes mode can be written as $$\left| \varphi \right\rangle =\left| vac\right\rangle _a\left|
vac\right\rangle _p+\sqrt{p_c}s^{+}a^{+}\left| vac\right\rangle _a\left|
vac\right\rangle _p+o\left( p_c\right) , \eqnum{2}$$ where $\left| vac\right\rangle _a$ and $\left| vac\right\rangle _p$ denote the vacuum states of atomic ensembles and Stokes light respectively, and $%
p_c $ is the small excitation probability [@Duan2]. The forward scattered Stokes pulses of left circularly polarized ($\sigma _{+}$) light from both ensembles are combined at a $50\%-50\%$ beam splitter (BS) and a single-photon detector click in one of the four detectors, after the quarter-and half-wave plates (QWP and HWP), and polarizing beam splitter (PBS). Adjustable QWP, HWP and PBS allow polarization analysis in any basis, i.e., at any position on the Poincare sphere [@White; @Born].
Nonmaximally entangled states are produced simply by adjusting the relative inclination between the optic axes of QWP and HWP. After some filters which filter out the pumping laser pulses, by rotating the optic axis of QWP, the Stokes light is turned to linearly polarized photon and the orientation of the linear polarizer lies in the vertical plane. For an inclination $\theta
_i$ between the optic axis of HWP and the orientation of the linear polarizer of the Stokes light in arm $i$ ($i=1,2$), the Stokes photon is $%
\sin 2\theta _i\left| H\right\rangle +e^{i\phi }\cos 2\theta _i\left|
V\right\rangle $, where $H$ and $V$, respectively, represent the horizontal and vertical polarizations of the photon, and $\theta _1=\frac \pi 4-\theta
_2$. Then the Stokes pulses in both arms are combined at the BS and the output light goes through a PBS, respectively, and a single-photon detector click in one of the four detectors D1, D2, D3 and D4 measures the combination radiation from the samples $A^{+}A$ or $A^{\prime +}A^{\prime }$. Here, $$A=\alpha a_1+e^{i\phi _{12}}\beta a_2, \eqnum{3}$$ or $$A^{\prime }=\beta a_1+e^{i\phi _{12}}\alpha a_2, \eqnum{4}$$ where $\phi _{12}=\phi _2-\phi _1$ is a difference of the phase shift which is fixed by the optical channel connecting the two atomic ensembles, and $%
\alpha =\sin 2\theta _1$, $\beta =\cos 2\theta _1$. That is, if D1 or D3 clicks, the two ensembles are entangled in the form $$\left| \psi \right\rangle _{12}=\left( \alpha s_1^{+}+e^{i\phi _{12}}\beta
s_2^{+}\right) \left| vac\right\rangle _{12}; \eqnum{5}$$ if D2 or D4 clicks, the state of the ensembles is $$\left| \psi ^{\prime }\right\rangle _{12}=\left( \beta s_1^{+}+e^{i\phi
_{12}}\alpha s_2^{+}\right) \left| vac\right\rangle _{12}\text{.} \eqnum{6}$$ The subscripts $1$ and $2$ are used to distinguish the atomic ensemble $E1$ and $E2$ (seeing Fig. 2). If one excitation is registered, we succeed to entangle the two ensembles in a nonmaximally entangled state. Otherwise, we need to repeat the above steps until we get a click in one of the four detectors.
Now, we consider the efficiency of this scheme, which is usually described by the total generation time. The preparation based on the Raman driving $%
\left| g\right\rangle \rightarrow \left| e\right\rangle \rightarrow \left|
s\right\rangle $, succeeds with a controllable probability $p_c$ for each Raman driving pulse, and needs to be repeated in average $1/p_c$ times for the final successful state generation. In the generation process, the dominant noise is the photon loss, which includes the contributions from the channel attenuation, the spontaneous emissions in the atomic ensembles, the coupling inefficiency of Stokes light into and out of the channel, and the inefficiency of the single-photon detectors which can no perfectly distinguish between one and two photons. All the above noise is described by an overall loss probability $\eta $. Due to the noise, the total generation time is represented by $T\sim t_0/\left[ \left( 1-\eta \right) p_c\right] $, where $t_0$ is the light-atom interaction time.
Also with the noise, the state of the ensembles is actually described by $$\rho _{12}=\frac 1{c+1}\left( c\left| vac\right\rangle _{12}\left\langle
vac\right| +\left| \psi \right\rangle _{12}\left\langle \psi \right| \right)
, \eqnum{7}$$ and $$\rho _{12}^{\prime }=\frac 1{c+1}\left( c\left| vac\right\rangle
_{12}\left\langle vac\right| +\left| \psi ^{\prime }\right\rangle
_{12}\left\langle \psi ^{\prime }\right| \right) , \eqnum{8}$$ where the vacuum coefficient $c$ is basically given by the conditional probability for the inherent mode-mismatching noise contribution [@Duan4].
Since the nonmaximally entangled states shown in Eqs. (5) and (6) are entangled in the Fock basis, it is experimentally hard to do certain single-bit rotation. In the following we will show how the nonmaximally entangled states can be used to realize the communication protocols, such as the CHSH detection, with simple experimental configurations.
The first step is to share an EPR type of entangled state [@Duan2] $$\left| \Psi _\phi \right\rangle _{L_1R_1}=\left( s_{L_1}^{+}+e^{i\phi
}s_{R_1}^{+}\right) /\sqrt{2}\left| vac\right\rangle _{L_1R_1} \eqnum{9}$$ between two distant ensembles $L_1$ and $R_1$, and the presence of the noise modifies the projected state of the ensembles to $$\rho _{L_1R_1}=\frac 1{c+1}\left( c\left| vac\right\rangle
_{L_1R_1}\left\langle vac\right| +\left| \Psi _\phi \right\rangle
_{L_1R_1}\left\langle \Psi _\phi \right| \right) . \eqnum{10}$$ The ensembles $L_2$ and $R_2$ are prepared in a nonmaximally entangled state $\rho _{L_2R_2}$ shown in Eq. (7). The $\phi $-parameters in $\rho _{L_1R_1}$ and $\rho _{L_2R_2}$ are the same provided that the two states are established over the same stationary channels.
A basis of the “polarization” qubit (in analogy to the language for photons) can be defined from the states $\left| H\right\rangle
_i=s_{i_1}^{+}\left| vac\right\rangle _{i_1i_2}$, $\left| V\right\rangle
_i=s_{i_2}^{+}\left| vac\right\rangle _{i_1i_2}$ ($i=L,R$). Single-bit rotations in this basis can be done using the phase shift $\phi _i$ together with the corresponding beam splitter operation with the rotation angle $%
\theta _i=\phi _i/2$ similarly to the manipulations shown in Ref. [@Duan2].
The four ensembles are illuminated by the synchronized classical laser pulses with the frequency $\omega $. If the ensemble is in the metastable state after the repumping pulse, the transition $\left| e\right\rangle
\rightarrow \left| s\right\rangle $ will occur [*determinately*]{}. We register only the coincidences of the two-side detectors, so the protocol is successful only if there is a click on each side. Under this condition, the vacuum components in the entangled states and the state $%
s_{L_1}^{+}s_{L_2}^{+}\left| vac\right\rangle _{L_1L_2R_1R_2}$ and $%
s_{R_1}^{+}s_{R_2}^{+}\left| vac\right\rangle _{L_1L_2R_1R_2}$ have no contributions to the experimental results. Then, for the measurement scheme shown by Fig. 3, the state $\rho _{L_1R_1}\otimes \rho _{L_2R_2}$ is effectively equivalent to the following “polarization” nonmaximally entangled (PNE) state $$\left| \psi \right\rangle _{PNE}=\left( \alpha s_{L_2}^{+}s_{R_1}^{+}+\beta
s_{L_1}^{+}s_{R_2}^{+}\right) \left| vac\right\rangle _{L_1L_2R_1R_2}\text{.}
\eqnum{11}$$ The success probability for the projection is given by $p=1/\left[ 4\left(
c+1\right) ^2\right] $.
Now, it is clear how to do the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality detection [@CHSH]. We define the measurement results to be $1$ if D1 or D3 clicks, and $-1$ if D2 or D4 clicks. Then the quantity $$E\left( \phi _L,\phi _R\right) =P_{D_1D_3}+P_{D_2D_4}-P_{D_1D_4}-P_{D_2D_3}
\eqnum{12}$$ is the corresponding coefficient of the measurements performed by Side L in the basis rotated by $\phi _L/2$ and by Side R in the basis rotated by $\phi
_R/2$. According to the quantum rules $$E\left( \phi _L,\phi _R\right) =4\alpha ^2\beta ^2\cos \left( \phi _L-\phi
_R\right) , \eqnum{13}$$ one can define the quantity $S$ composed of the correlation coefficients for which both sides used analysis (phase shift $\phi _i$) of different orientation $$\begin{aligned}
S &=&E\left( \phi _L^1,\phi _R^3\right) +E\left( \phi _L^1,\phi _R^2\right)
+E\left( \phi _L^2,\phi _R^3\right) -E\left( \phi _L^2,\phi _R^2\right)
\nonumber \\
&=&8\sqrt{2}\alpha ^2\beta ^2, \eqnum{14}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi _L^1=0$, $\phi _L^2=\frac \pi 2$, $\phi _L^3=\frac \pi 4$, and $%
\phi _R^1=0$, $\phi _R^2=-\frac \pi 4$, $\phi _R^3=\frac \pi 4$. Any local realistic theory requires $S<2$. As Eq. (14) shows, $S$ varies with degree of entanglement, for maximally entangled states, the quantity is $2\sqrt{2}$. For $0.479\leq \alpha \leq 0.878$ or $-0.878\leq \alpha \leq -0.479$, the inequality is violated.
We have a brief conclusion. In this report, we describe an experimental scheme of generating nonmaximal entanglement between two atomic ensembles. The degree of entanglement is readily tunable. This protocol fits well the status of the current experimental technology. Finally we use the nonmaximally entangled states to measure the CHSH inequality.
We thank L.-M. Duan for helpful discussion, and Y.-S. Zhang and Z.-W. Zhou for stimulating comments. This work was funded by National Fundamental Research Program (2001CB309300), National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Innovation funds from Chinese Academy of Sciences, and also by the outstanding Ph. D thesis award and the CAS’s talented scientist award entitled to Luming Duan.
P. W. Shor, in [*Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, p. 124-133 (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California,1984).
L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 325 (1997).
A. K. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 733 (1996)[**.**]{}
C. H. Bennett [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70,** ]{}1895 (1993).
D. Bouwmeester [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**390,**]{} 575 (1997).
C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69,**]{} 2881 (1992).
A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67,**]{} 661 (1991).
H.-K. Lo, H.-F. Chau, and M. Ardehali, Preprint [*quant-ph*]{}/0011056.
P. Xue, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A, [**64**]{}, 032305 (2001).
P. Xue, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A, [**65**]{}, 034302 (2002).
P. G. Kwiat [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4337 (1995).
P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum and P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, R773 (1999).
A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3103 (1999).
E. Hagley [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1 (1997); Q. A. Turchette [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3631 (1998).
D. Bouwmeester [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1345 (1999).
A. Rauschenbeutel [*et al.*]{}, Science [**288**]{}, 2024 (2000).
C. A. Sackett [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**404**]{}, 256 (2000).
J. W. Pan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4435 (2001).
M. D. Lukin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 037901 (2001).
L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5643 (2000).
L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature (London) [**414**]{}, 413 (2001).
L.-M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 170402 (2002).
A. Kuzmich, N. P. Bigelow, and L. Mandel, Europhys. lett. A [**42**]{} 481 (1998); J. Hald, J. L. Sorensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1319 (1999); A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1594 (2000); A. Sorensen, and K. Molmer, Preprint [*quant-ph*]{}/0011035.
B. Julsgard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, Nature (London) [**413**]{}, 400 (2001).
P. Xue, and G.-C. Guo, Preprint [*quant-ph/*]{}0205176.
L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Preprint [*quant-ph/*]{}0205005.
P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, R747 (1993); A. Garuccio, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, 2535 (1995).
L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1665 (1993).
P. Xue, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 032304 (2001).
Q. A. Turchette [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3631 (1998).
J. R. Torgerson, D. Branning, C. H. Monken, and L. Mandel, Phys. Lett. A [**204**]{}, 323 (1995).
G. Digiuseppe [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 176 (1997).
A. G. White [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3103 (1999).
D. F. Phillips [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 783 (2001).
C. Liu, Z. Dutton, C. H. Behroozi, and L. V. Hau, Nature (London) [**409**]{}, 490 (2001).
J. F. Roch [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 634 (1997).
P. Xue [*et al.*]{} unpublished.
M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 1999), 7th ed.
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**23**]{} 880 (1969).
Figure captions:
[**Figure 1.** ]{}The relevant type $\Lambda $-level structure of the alkali atoms in the ensembles. A pair of metastable lower states $\left|
g\right\rangle $ and $\left| s\right\rangle $ can be achieved, for example, Zeeman sublevels of electronic ground states $5S_{1/2}$ $^{87}$Rb atoms, and $\left| e\right\rangle $ ($5P_{1/2}$)is the excited state.
[**Figure 2.** ]{}Schematic setup for entangling two ensembles $1$and $2$ in the nonmaximally entangled state. The ensembles are illuminated by the synchronized pumping laser pulses and the forward-scattering Stokes pulses are collected after the filters. The dashed line represents the pumping laser pulses with the frequency $\Omega $ and the solid line represents the Stokes pulses with the frequency $\omega $.
[**Figure 3.** ]{}Schematic setup for the realization of the CHSH inequality detection. Two pairs of ensembles $L_1$, $R_1$ and $L_2$, $R_2$ have been prepared in an EPR type of entangled state and a nonmaximally entangled state, respectively. The collective atomic excitations on each side are transferred to the optical excitations, which respectively are detected by the detectors. By choosing the relative phase shift $\phi _L$ and $\phi _R$, we can measure the CHSH inequality.
[^1]: Email address: [email protected]
[^2]: Email address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Recently, vision-based control has gained traction by leveraging the power of machine learning. In this work, we couple a model predictive control (MPC) framework to a visual pipeline. We introduce deep optical flow (DOF) dynamics, which is a combination of optical flow and robot dynamics. Using the DOF dynamics, MPC explicitly incorporates the predicted movement of relevant pixels into the planned trajectory of a robot. Our implementation of DOF is memory-efficient, data-efficient, and computationally cheap so that it can be computed in real-time for use in an MPC framework. The suggested Pixel Model Predictive Control (PixelMPC) algorithm controls the robot to accomplish a high-speed racing task while maintaining visibility of the important features (gates). This improves the reliability of vision-based estimators for localization and can eventually lead to safe autonomous flight. The proposed algorithm is tested in a photorealistic simulation with a high-speed drone racing task.\
Supplementary video:
author:
- 'Keuntaek Lee, Jason Gibson, and Evangelos A. Theodorou[^1][^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'pixelmpc.bib'
title: |
Aggressive Perception-Aware Navigation using\
Deep Optical Flow Dynamics and PixelMPC
---
Model Learning for Control, Optimization and Optimal Control, Visual Servoing, Visual Tracking, Visual-Based Navigation
Introduction
============
introduce a novel mechanism which combines vision into a model predictive control (MPC) framework.
Deep learning (DL)-based perceptual control using end-to-end imitation learning has shown great success in many robotics disciplines including autonomous driving [@PanRSS18; @bojarski2016end; @zhang17aaai], manipulation [@LevineVisuomotor], and autonomous drone flying [@giusti2016machine; @Smolyanskiy2017TowardLA].
In this paper, instead of taking a fully end-to-end approach ([@giusti2016machine; @Smolyanskiy2017TowardLA]), we deploy the power of DL in novel system modeling. In a traditional (not end-to-end) navigation, DL-aided vision pipeline played a big role in detecting objects and obstacles as a perception module and sometimes as a part of state estimation (e.g. VSLAM [@murORB2]). A controller then performed its task of navigation, avoidance, or tracking using the information provided from the vision part .
The visual object tracking or visual servoing technologies have been developed over the past few decades and can be found in some commercial drone products. However, most of the work in literature [@giusti2016machine; @Smolyanskiy2017TowardLA; @Kaufmann18DeepDrone] are all based on reactive controllers; the robot turns left if the object is on the right-side of a robot’s view, and vice versa. This reactive visual servoing requires the drone to fly at a slow speed or hover until it finishes servoing. Here we propose a predictive visual tracking controller for high-speed racing with a data-driven optical flow dynamics model composed of optical flow and robot dynamics.
In a drone racing scenario, the optical flow mostly comes from a moving camera and a static environment. Since the controller moves the robot through space, the changes in scene, the optical flow, can be thought of as dynamics.
![MPC-predicted future pixel trajectory (Green) of a target pixel, the center of a gate. PixelMPC computes the optimal control which accomplishes a racing task and drives the target pixel to the center of the image.[]{data-label="fig:pixeltraj"}](figs/pixeltraj.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Recently, there has been a lot of progress in DL-based optical flow techniques [@flownet2; @Sun_2018_CVPR; @Ranjan2017SpyNet]. However, all prior work relies on large convolutional neural networks with a lot of parameters to estimate the optical flow of the entire image. In our work, the application of the optical flow is to a ‘single’ pixel, so we use a small fully-connected feedforward network. The main problem we address in this paper is the visibility/field of view of a moving camera, especially when it comes to high-speed racing. The more the robot observes through a camera, the more information we use to perform accurate state estimation and navigation. Therefore, it is important to control the robot to see more information, for example, by pitching up or rolling/yawing. However, this conflicts with the high-speed flying task for a drone because a quadrotor needs to pitch down to fly at a high speed and this results in losing more visual information. To solve the problem of limitation in the field of view by visual servoing, [@Penin2017MinTime; @Murali2019DiffFlat] proposed a Sequential Quadratic Programming-based approach where the visibility is formulated in hard constraints. However, these methods do not fit into our problem formulation which requires real-time planning and control.
In the visual servoing literature, to the best of our knowledge, the real-time predictive controllers used for a visual tracking task are [@Negeli2017ViewpointOpt; @falanga2018pampc]. Although [@Negeli2017ViewpointOpt] formulated an MPC problem for a viewpoint optimization, the goal of the paper was controlling the drone to stabilize a gimbal to get a good quality of a video. In [@falanga2018pampc], the most relevant work to us, the authors derived the target pixel velocity based on the information of the relative 3D position ($x, y, z$) of the target and the robot. With the pixel velocity information, the authors were able to form an MPC problem along with vision and perform visual object tracking control in a predictive way.
However, in our work, we implement a data-driven deep-learning approach, that does not require any prior information of camera intrinsics, extrinsics, or the 3D global position of the target. Instead, our algorithm requires an object detector that detects a target in image space. Thanks to the great success in the field of computer vision, we can use real-time object detectors [@yolov3; @fasterrcnn] with GPUs. Although our method requires prior knowledge of the targets (gates) and a trained detector, we believe this is less restrictive than full knowledge of the global 3D position of features like in [@falanga2018pampc]. Furthermore, we believe our case is less restrictive since our proposed approach can be used for any target objects located anywhere in the scene. In summary, the contributions of this work are twofold:
- We introduce data-driven Deep Optical Flow (DOF) dynamics, learned from the optical flow of consecutive images and robot dynamics. DOF dynamics are efficient in memory and computation.
- We introduce the Pixel Model Predictive Control (PixelMPC) algorithm which by actuating the robot to visually track important features (targets) while accomplishing the high-level tasks (e.g. racing or chasing). The algorithm makes the vision-based state estimation more robust as it explicitly allows the control algorithm to prioritize visual information.
The remaining of the paper is organized as follows: In \[sec:Preliminaries\], we briefly review some preliminaries used in our work. The DOF dynamics are introduced in \[sec:DeepOpticalFlowDynamics\] and in \[sec:PixelMPC\], we introduce our PixelMPC algorithm. \[sec:Experiments\] details vision-based drone racing and state estimation experiments with analysis and comparisons of the proposed methods. Finally, we conclude and discuss future directions in \[sec:conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
In this section, we provide the building blocks of the proposed : MPC, drone dynamics model, and the optical flow.
Model Predictive Optimal Control {#subsec:MPC}
--------------------------------
-based optimal controllers (e.g. Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) [@mppi]) provide planned control trajectories given an initial state and a cost function by solving the optimal control problem. An optimal control problem whose objective is to minimize a task-specific cost function $J(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{U})$ can be formulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
J(\mathbf{X}(t), \mathbf{U}(t)) &= \phi(\mathbf{X}(t_f)) + \int_{t=t_0}^{t_f}l(\mathbf{X}(t), \mathbf{U}(t))dt \label{eq:costfunction} \\
V(\mathbf{X}(t_0), t_0) &= \min_{\mathbf{U}(t)}\Big[ J(\mathbf{X}(t), \mathbf{U}(t)) \Big] \label{eq:optcontrolprob}\end{aligned}$$ subject to dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\mathbf{X}}{dt} = F(\mathbf{X}(t), \mathbf{U}(t), t), \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ represents the system states, $\mathbf{U} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ represents the control, $\phi$ is the state cost at the final time $t_f$, $l$ is the running cost, and $V$ is the value function. By solving this local optimization problem, we get the optimal control sequences. This can be solved in a receding horizon fashion in an MPC framework and it allows us to have a real-time optimal controller with feedback.
In our work, a sampling-based receding-horizon stochastic optimization algorithm, MPPI controller [@mppi] is used as an MPC controller. We chose MPPI for several reasons, first off being the generality of cost functions and dynamics allowed. Most variants of MPC require us to have a convex cost function and first or second-order approximations of the dynamics. MPPI has neither of these requirements. Therefore we can directly encode our task into the cost function without any modifications to the high-level objective. Second, MPPI has been shown to be highly successful at aggressive autonomous racing on ground vehicles with general cost functions and neural network dynamics [@mppi].
For a short summary of MPPI algorithmically, it samples $N$ trajectories by applying noise into the control channels and forward propagating the dynamics. Each sample can be rolled out in parallel, and then each corresponding trajectory and cost are combined to generate a final control vector. The optimization can be run $K$ times to further refine the solution before executing it. The previous control solution is used as the center value of the Gaussian sampling to warm start the optimization each round.
Quadrotor Dynamics {#sec:dronedynamics}
------------------
We use the quadrotor dynamics model provided in the FlightGoggles simulator [@FlightGoggles] used in this paper. The defined 10 states are $\mathbf{X}_{\textcolor{black}{\text{robot}}}=[\mathbf{p}; \mathbf{q}; \mathbf{v}]=[x, y, z, q_w, q_x, q_y, q_z, \dot{x}, \dot{y}, \dot{z}]^T$, where $\mathbf{p}=[x, y, z]^T$ is the world-coordinate position vector, $\mathbf{q}=[q_w, q_x, q_y, q_z]^T$ is the vehicle attitude unit quaternion vector, and $\mathbf{v}=\dot{\mathbf{p}}=[\dot{x}, \dot{y}, \dot{z}]^T$ is the world-coordinate linear velocity vector. The vehicle dynamics are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{p}} &= \mathbf{v} \label{eq:dronedynamics1} \\
\dot{\mathbf{v}} &= \mathbf{g} + m^{-1}(\mathbf{R}_b^\omega \mathbf{f}_T \textcolor{black}{ + } \mathbf{f}_D + \mathbf{w_f}) \label{eq:dronedynamics2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{g}$ is the gravitational acceleration, $m$ is the quadrotor mass, $\mathbf{R}_b^\omega$ is the rotation matrix from body to world frame, $\mathbf{f}_T$ is the total thrust, $\mathbf{f}_D$ is the aerodynamic drag, and $\mathbf{w_f}$ is the stochastic force vector to capture unmodeled dynamics (e.g. vibrations and turbulance). The rotation matrix from body to world frame is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_b^\omega =
\begin{bmatrix}
1-2(\textcolor{black}{q_y}^2+q_z^2) & 2(q_x q_y-q_z q_w) & 2(q_x q_z + q_y \textcolor{black}{q_w}) \\
2(q_x q_y + q_z q_w) & 1-2(q_x^2+q_z^2) & 2(q_y q_z - q_x q_w) \\
2(q_x q_z - q_y q_w) & 2(q_y q_z + q_x q_w) & 1-2(q_x^2+q_y^2)
\end{bmatrix}, \label{eq:dronedynamics3}\end{aligned}$$ and the is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{q}} = \frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-q_x & -q_y & -q_z \\
q_w & -q_z & q_y \\
\textcolor{black}{q_z} & q_w & -q_x \\
-q_y & q_x & q_w
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_x \\ \omega_y \\ \omega_z
\end{bmatrix}, \label{eq:dronedynamics4}\end{aligned}$$ where the angular rates $\omega_x, \omega_y,$ and $\omega_z$ are the control inputs we used along with the total thrust $\mathbf{f}_T$. . We make a small assumption here that the model immediately follows the control inputs, especially the angular rates. Indeed, the quadrotor in the FlightGoggles takes $\mathbf{U}$ as an input and the low-level PID controller controls the robot to follow the commands. Since we directly input the angular rates, we do not use the dynamics of the angular rates, described in [@FlightGoggles] when we propagate the model in MPC. The robot dynamics we used in this paper is also described in \[fig:fx\].
Optical Flow {#subsec:OpticalFlow}
------------
The motion comes from the relative motion between an observer and a scene. In our case, the motion comes from a moving observer (a camera attached on a robot) and a static environment. To compute the optical flow, two strict assumptions are required: 1) The brightness of any observed object point on images is constant over time, 2) In the image plane, neighborhood points move similarly with similar velocity. The first constraint can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
I(u,v,t) = I(u+\Delta u, v+\Delta v, t+\Delta t),\end{aligned}$$ where $I$ represents the intensity of a pixel $(u, v)$ and $\Delta u, \Delta v$ represent the displacement of the pixel position between two consecutive images observed at time $t$ and $t+\Delta t$. This equation can be written in a form of Taylor series by assuming that the movement is small: $$\begin{aligned}
I(u+\Delta u, v+\Delta v, t+\Delta t) &= I(u, v, t) + \frac{\partial I}{\partial u} \Delta u + \frac{\partial I}{\partial v} \Delta v \nonumber \\
&\hspace{0.5cm}+ \frac{\partial I}{\partial t} \Delta t + H.O.T,\end{aligned}$$ which results in $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial I}{\partial u} \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta t} + \frac{\partial I}{\partial v} \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t} + \frac{\partial I}{\partial t} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
However, it is impossible to estimate the two unknowns $\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta t}$ and $\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}$, only with one equation, so all the optical flow calculation methods make additional assumptions to estimate the actual flow.
We used one of the most popular algorithms [@Farneback03] to calculate the dense optical flow. The algorithm approximates each neighborhood of both frames by quadratic polynomials. The details of the algorithm can be found in [@Farneback03] and the implementation of the algorithm is available in OpenCV [@opencv]. For a better calculation of the dense optical flow, we used a sequence of downsized gray-scaled images instead of original RGB images. The parameters used for calculating optical flow with [@Farneback03] were: pyr scale=0.5, levels=10, winsize=51, iterations=15, poly$_n$=5, poly$_\sigma$=1.1. The visualization of the dense optical flow as a vector or in color can be found in \[fig:deep\_optical\_flow\] and the supplementary video includes the optical flow of a full run of racing.
[.15]{} ![Ground truth optical flow and the DOF prediction in the case of a quadrotor flying forward, pitching down. Deep optical flow provides more smooth optical flow compared to the ground truth. DOF predicts a single pixel’s optical flow instead of the whole image’s flow.[]{data-label="fig:deep_optical_flow"}](figs/optical_flow_legend.png "fig:"){width=".6\textwidth"}
[.15]{} ![Ground truth optical flow and the DOF prediction in the case of a quadrotor flying forward, pitching down. Deep optical flow provides more smooth optical flow compared to the ground truth. DOF predicts a single pixel’s optical flow instead of the whole image’s flow.[]{data-label="fig:deep_optical_flow"}](figs/gt_000050.png "fig:"){width=".9\textwidth"}
[.15]{} ![Ground truth optical flow and the DOF prediction in the case of a quadrotor flying forward, pitching down. Deep optical flow provides more smooth optical flow compared to the ground truth. DOF predicts a single pixel’s optical flow instead of the whole image’s flow.[]{data-label="fig:deep_optical_flow"}](figs/nn_000050.png "fig:"){width=".9\textwidth"}
Deep Optical Flow Dynamics {#sec:DeepOpticalFlowDynamics}
==========================
By taking advantage of the algorithms [@Farneback03] calculating the optical flow, deep optical flow learning becomes self-supervised learning, which does not require any manual labeling. Our proposed neural network-based Deep Optical Flow (DOF) dynamics have two major selling points:
### Computationally efficient
DOF dynamics predict an optical flow/vector of a single pixel while most of the DL-based optical flow predicts the next timestep’s image of optical flow, with the same size of the input images. This allows us to have a very small network, so we can use the model in a real-time optimal controller that performs optimization within 20-50ms. If we build a U-Net-like convolutional neural network, which predicts an image from an input image, we have to propagate the deep CNN every timestep in MPC framework to generate optical flow, which is computationally very expensive and slow. For the parameters used in the paper, our MPC algorithm samples over a million times per second.
### Data-efficient
Given an image, size of W$\times$H, DOF can use W$\times$H data points for training, whereas typical DL-based optical flow only uses a single data point (an image of the whole optical flow).
DOF dynamics predict, just like typical robot dynamics models, the derivative of the states. Here, in DOF, it predicts the velocity of a pixel. DOF takes 3 components as input: pixel state (position) $\mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}$, control actions $\mathbf{U}$, and robot orientation $\mathbf{q}$. The pixel position means the position in (u, v) coordinate system on the image plane, where the top left corner is the origin (0, 0). Control actions command angular velocities in $x,y,z$ frame and total thrust, which affects both robot motion/acceleration and the image stream. The main point here in the DOF input is the robot orientation part. We incorporate the orientation of the robot into the DOF dynamics because even with the same control input, the optical flow changes depending on the roll, pitch, and yaw angles of the robot as shown in \[fig:optical\_flow\_orientation\].
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/straight_000563.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/move_left_000916.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/roll_CW_000783.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/straight_000563_flow.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/move_left_000916_flow.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.13]{} ![Optical flow depending on the robot orientation and control. For a legend of the colormap, please refer to \[fig:optical\_flow\_legend\].[]{data-label="fig:optical_flow_orientation"}](figs/roll_CW_000783_flow.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
We train the DOF dynamics with a neural network (NN) model to predict the magnitude $l$ and the angle $\theta$ of a single optical flow/vector. By defining the state of the pixel $\mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}} = [u, v]^T$, we can write the optical flow as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:polar2euler}
\dot{u} = l cos(\theta) , ~~ \dot{v} = l sin(\theta),\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ and $\theta$ are the optical flow vector component, predicted from the DOF. Therefore, the final DOF dynamics $F_{\text{pixel}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{X}}_{\text{pixel}} &= F_{\text{pixel}}(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}, \mathbf{U}) \\
&= \text{PolarToEuler}(DOF(\mathbf{q}, \mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}, \mathbf{U})), \label{eq:DOFdynamics}\end{aligned}$$ where the PolarToEuler mapping is \[eq:polar2euler\]. \[alg:trainingdeepopticalflow\] describes the training process of DOF dynamics.
We normalize the pixel state into \[0.0, 1.0\]$\times$\[0.0, 1.0\] space and do regression. This allows the original discrete image space \[0, W\]$\times$\[0, H\] to be a continuous 2D space \[0.0, 1.0\]$\times$\[0.0, 1.0\] and same for the pixel state space, as well.
We designed a feed-forward NN with 5 layers having \[10, 128, 128, 128, 2\] neurons per each, where 10 is for an input layer and 2 is for the output. The is used for the activation function in layers 1-4, and the output layer has a linear activation. For training the neural network, the Adam [@adam] optimizer was used with Tensorflow [@tensorflow].
The usage of the trained model can be found in \[alg:testingdeepopticalflow\].
\[ht\]
\[alg:trainingdeepopticalflow\] $\newline \text{Img}_t \text{: Observed image from onboard camera at timestep $t$, } \newline \text{W, H: Image width, height}, \mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t} \text{: Robot states at timestep $t$}, \newline \mathbf{q} \text{: Robot orientation,} ~\text{MPC} \text{: Model predictive optimal controller, } \newline J_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}) \text{: Task-dependent state cost function for MPC,} \newline $$f_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}, \mathbf{U}) \text{: Robot Dynamics, } \newline \text{OptFlow(Img}$$_t, \text{Img}_{t+1} \text{): Function calculating optical flow,} \newline \mathbf{N}_{data} \text{: Number of data points for training, } \newline \textcolor{black}{ \mathbf{N}_{epoch} \text{: Number of training epochs, }} \newline \textcolor{black}{\mathbf{N}_{batch} \text{: Number of batches in total data, } } \newline \phi \text{: Initial weights and biases of } DOF \text{ NN, } \newline Adam \text{: Stochastic optimization algorithm \cite{adam}}$ $U^*_t \leftarrow $MPC$(J_{\text{robot}}\text{(}\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t}\text{)}, f_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t}, \mathbf{U}_t))$ $l_{t-1}, \theta_{t-1} \leftarrow$ OptFlow(Img$_{t-1}$, Img$_t$) $\mathcal{L} = 0$ $\hat{l}, \hat{\theta} \leftarrow DOF(\mathbf{q}, u, v, \mathbf{U})$ $\mathcal{L}~ += MSE(l(u, v), \hat{l}) $+$ MSE(\theta(u, v), \hat{\theta})$ $\phi \leftarrow Adam.step(\mathcal{L}, \phi)$
\[ht\]
\[alg:testingdeepopticalflow\] $\newline \text{Detector: detects targets on image, } \mathbf{U} \text{: Control candidate, } \newline DOF \text{: Trained DOF dynamics, } \mathbf{q} \text{: Robot orientation,} \newline \text{Img: Observed image from an onboard camera } $ $u, v \leftarrow$ Detector(Img) $l, \theta$ $\leftarrow DOF(\mathbf{q}, u, v, \mathbf{U})$ $\dot{u}$ = $l$ cos($\theta$), $\dot{v}$ = $l$ sin($\theta$)
[c|c|c|c|c|c]{}\
& $N_{\text{pixel}}$ & $N_{\text{sample}}$ & $N_{\text{timestep}}$ & $\mu\pm2\sigma$ & max\
YOLOv3 & 204$\times$153 & 1 & 1 & 14.9 $\pm$ 5.6 & 21.1\
DOF & 1$\times$1 & 1 & 1 & 1.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & 2.1\
DOF & 1$\times$1 & 1 & 80 & 6.7 $\pm$ 2.9 & 10.1\
DOF & 1$\times$1 & 512 & 1 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 2.8\
DOF & **1$\times$1** & **512** & **80** & **8.6 $\pm$ 3.0** & **11.9**\
DOF & 204$\times$153 & 1 & 1 & 6.9 $\pm$ 1.5 & 9.4\
DOF & 204$\times$153 & 1 & 80 & 327.0 $\pm$ 10.6 & 340.3\
DOF & 204$\times$153 & 512 & 1 & OOM & OOM\
SpyNet & 192$\times$160 & 1 & 1 & 3.3 $\pm$ 0.5 & 4.0\
SpyNet & 192$\times$160 & 512 & 1 & OOM & OOM\
We have included a comparison table, \[table:runtime\], that shows the differences in runtimes of our optical flow prediction with another state-of-the-art network. However, even though our DOF dynamics approach cares about accuracy, our primary constraint was speed. Therefore, we compared our network with the fastest and smallest of state-of-the-art networks, the SpyNet[@Ranjan2017SpyNet]. We refer to Table 9 in [@Ilg2018ECCV] for benchmark results for optical flow. The table shows the accuracy and the runtime of the state-of-the-art approaches ([@flownet2; @Sun_2018_CVPR; @Ranjan2017SpyNet], etc). Note that the total number of parameters in DOF dynamics NN is 34,690, whereas the SpyNet has 1,200,250 parameters. We tested DOF dynamics both with a single pixel prediction case and the whole-image prediction case (31,212 pixels). We clearly see that for multi-step prediction ($N_{\text{timestep}}=80$), running DOF dynamics for a whole image ($N_{\text{pixel}}=204\times153$) to predict the optical flow is too slow (3 Hz) and does not fit into real-time MPC algorithms. Since the SpyNet requires the input image pairs to have width and height to be multiple of 32, we resized the image to have a similar size as our training data set: 192$\times$160=30,720 pixels. From \[table:runtime\], it is apparent that the single pixel approach with our DOF dynamics can only fit into a real-time “sampling-based” MPC framework.
We believe comparing the accuracy of our method and the standard full-image optical flow method is unfair because both approaches use different information to predict the optical flow. While the full-image approach uses more perceptual information, our DOF approach uses more non-visual information; the robot orientation and controls.
Pixel Model Predictive Control {#sec:PixelMPC}
==============================
In this chapter, we introduce Pixel Model Predictive Control (PixelMPC) algorithm for visual object tracking and autonomous racing. PixelMPC literally predicts the future state trajectory of a “pixel model”, the deep optical flow (DOF) dynamics, and calculates the optimal control sequence (\[fig:pixeltraj\]).
Assuming we have a visual object detector, for example, detecting custom classes of objects using You Look Only Once (YOLO) [@yolov3] algorithm. Given some detected objects, we can predict the future trajectories of their center points/pixels \[$u, v$\]. For a visual tracking task, one cost function for the optimal control of the DOF dynamics can be the L1 distance between the object pixel position \[$u, v$\] and the center of the image. This L1 cost function will force the pixel to be close to the center of the image $O$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pixelcost}
J_{\text{pixel}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}) = \int_{t=0}^{t_f} c_{\text{pixel}}L1([u_t, v_t], O) dt.\end{aligned}$$ This cost function is reasonable for visual object tracking because the closer the target is to the center of the image, the longer we observe the target. In addition, the center of the image has the least distortion, which means the lowest information lost.
The autonomous racing task-related cost function for a finite-horizon optimal control problem can be designed in a form of \[eq:costfunction\]. For example, to follow the desired position, orientation, and velocity $\mathbf{p}_d, \mathbf{q}_d,$ and $\mathbf{v}_d$: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}) &= \int_{t=0}^{t_f} c_1h(\mathbf{p}_d, \mathbf{p}_t)^2 + c_2(\mathbf{q}_d-\mathbf{q}_t)^2 \nonumber \\
&\hspace{1.2cm}+ c_3(\mathbf{v}_d-\mathbf{v}_t)^2 dt,
\label{eq:statecost}\end{aligned}$$ which control cost is ignored and $h(\mathbf{p}_d, \mathbf{p})$ is an indicator function which returns 1,000 if a robot crashes into a gate or a value between \[-1, 1\]. A smaller return represents the robot being closer to the desired path. The ordered waypoints (gates) are assumed to be given with the map of the entire racing track (e.g. \[fig:course\]).
Now, the total cost function for the optimization \[eq:optcontrolprob\] is formed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:totalJ}
J(\mathbf{X}) = J_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}) + J_{\text{pixel}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}),\end{aligned}$$ where a new state $\mathbf{X}$ is defined as $\mathbf{X}=[\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}; \mathbf{X}_{\text{pixel}}]=[\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{q}, \mathbf{v}, u; v] = [x, y, z, q_w, q_x, q_y, q_z, \dot{x}, \dot{y}, \dot{z}, u, v]^T$.
The total dynamics $F(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{U})$ used to optimize \[eq:totalJ\] can be written as a combination of two dynamics Eqs. (\[eq:dronedynamics1\])-(\[eq:dronedynamics4\]) and \[eq:DOFdynamics\]. Our formulation allows us to emphasize one task over another by tuning the cost function. If we want to achieve a faster speed instead of more visibility, then we can weight it more heavily.
![The total model dynamics $\dot{\mathbf{X}}=F(\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{U})$ used in the PixelMPC. The model is composed of the deep optical flow (DOF) dynamics and robot dynamics.[]{data-label="fig:fx"}](figs/fx.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
\[ht\]
\[alg:PixelMPC\] $\newline \text{Detector \cite{yolov3}: detects targets on image, } \newline DOF \text{: Deep optical flow dynamics, } \Delta t \text{: timestep size, } \newline \text{Img: Observed image from an onboard camera, } \newline \text{Ctrl$^*(J$($\mathbf{X}, \mathbf{U}$)): Optimal controller, computes } d\mathbf{U}^*, \newline J_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}}$$) \text{: Task-dependent robot state cost function, } \newline J_{\text{pixel}}(u, v) \text{: Task-dependent pixel state cost function, } \newline f_{\text{robot}} \text{: Robot dynamics}, \mathbf{U}_{0:T} \text{: Initial control sequence, } \newline \mathbf{T} \text{: MPC time horizon, } \mathbf{K} \text{: Number of optimization}$ Receive a new state $\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},0}$ and Img $u_0, v_0 \leftarrow$ Detector(Img) $J_t$ = $J_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t})$ + $J_{\text{pixel}}(u_t, v_t)$ $\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t+1} = \mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},t} + f_{\text{robot}}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot}, t}, \mathbf{U}_t)\Delta t$\
$l, \theta \leftarrow DOF(\mathbf{q}_t, u_t, v_t, \mathbf{U}_t)$\
$\dot{u} = l$ cos($\theta$), $\dot{v} = l$ sin($\theta$)\
$u_{t+1} = u_t + \dot{u}\Delta t, v_{t+1} = v_t + \dot{v}\Delta t$ $d\mathbf{U}^*_{\textcolor{black}{0}:T} \leftarrow$ Ctrl$^*$($ J_{0:T}(\mathbf{X}_{\text{robot},0:T}, u_{0:T}, v_{0:T}, \mathbf{U}_{0:T})$) $\mathbf{U}_{\textcolor{black}{0}:T} \leftarrow \mathbf{U}_{\textcolor{black}{0}:T} + d\mathbf{U}^*_{\textcolor{black}{0}:T}$ Execute $\mathbf{U}_0$ $\mathbf{U}_{0:T-1} \leftarrow \mathbf{U}_{1:T}$
![The race course in the FlightGoggles [@FlightGoggles] used in this paper. Image credit: the AlphaPilot–Lockheed Martin AI Drone Racing Innovation Challenge^\[footnote:alphapilot\]^.[]{data-label="fig:course"}](figs/course.png){width="49.00000%"}
{width="99.00000%"}
Experiments/Results {#sec:Experiments}
===================
Experimental Setup
------------------
We tested our algorithm in the FlightGoggles simulation [@FlightGoggles], which is developed for agile flight simulation with high fidelity. The racing scenario is from the AlphaPilot–Lockheed Martin AI Drone Racing Innovation Challenge[^4] (\[fig:course\]).
We used the quadrotor’s dynamics model introduced in \[sec:dronedynamics\] Eqs. (\[eq:dronedynamics1\])-(\[eq:dronedynamics4\]).
To derive our DOF dynamics from optical flow data, we collected 10 rounds of autonomous flight using a nominal MPPI controller, which took around 30 seconds for each round. To fully explore the state space we varied the target speed between 6m/s and 14m/s across rounds. The timestep in MPPI was 0.025 seconds. In total 14,000 images from a monocular camera along with drone states and controls were collected. The images were each downsized to a size of \[204, 153\]. This provided 204$\times$153=31,212 data points. As a result, around 437 million data points for training DOF were collected from 5 minutes of flying data. The states are collected from ground truth provided in the FlightGoggles simulator.
For object detection, we used one of the state-of-the-art algorithms, YOLOv3 [@yolov3], which allows us to detect multiple objects in real-time. 3,000 downsized images were used to train the YOLOv3 model to predict 7 classes of gates in the FlightGoggles racing environment (\[fig:course\]).
Model Predictive Path Integral control (MPPI)
---------------------------------------------
In this work, out of many real-time MPC algorithms, we adopt the sampling-based stochastic optimal control algorithm, the Model Predictive Path Integral control (MPPI) [@mppi]. MPPI allows us to handle stochasticity and it provides the easiness of designing and tuning non-quadratic cost functions, compared to other optimal control algorithms where most of them require a quadratic cost function.
For a drone racing task along with the visual object tracking task, the cost function parameters used for MPPI are $\Delta t$=0.025 ($sec$), $c_1$=400, $c_2$=250, $c_3$=8.0, $T$=80, and $K$=1. The control variance had noise profiles: $\sigma_{\text{roll}}$=0.2, $\sigma_{\text{pitch}}$=0.2, $\sigma_{\text{yaw}}$=0.3, and $\sigma_{\text{thrust}}$=2.2. A total of 512 samples were used to propagate the 12 states with a time horizon of 80 in 40 Hz, which results in a 2 second trajectory. The number of samples depends on the hardware (GPU, CPU, RAM, etc.) and the size of the DOF NN dynamics.
Drone Racing with Object Tracking
---------------------------------
We compare the visibility in percentage; how long the robot grabs the target in its view. In the PixelMPC framework, there are some additional DOF dynamics-related parameters we can tune: 1) the time horizon $t_f$ considered for the pixel cost and 2) the cost coefficient $c_{\text{pixel}}$. $t_f=1.0 sec$ means the pixel cost \[eq:pixelcost\] only penalizes the pixel trajectory within 1.0 second.
\[table:lostcount\] shows the time the drone loses the target in $sec$ ($\mu\pm2\sigma$). We consider the ‘loss’ as visually losing the target after the robot first sees it. In this experiment, we used the ground truth provided by the FlightGoggles for robot states.
In the nominal case, without considering DOF dynamics in MPPI, the time the robot has less than 50% visibility of a target was .6 $sec$, which is more than 42% of the total flying time ($\sim$31.8 $sec$). With PixelMPC, we can decrease it to 1.5 $sec$, 4.5% of the flying time ($\sim$33.5 $sec$). The time of robot having less than 0% visibility of a target also decreased from 3.6 $sec$ (4% of flying time) to 0.2 $sec$ (less than 1% of flying time). Notice that in both 0% and 50% cases, the 2$\sigma$ of the lost time is very large in the nominal case, compared to the PixelMPC cases. This can be explained in \[fig:total\_variation\], where the plots show how smooth the movement is when we use PixelMPC.
[c|\*[4]{}r]{}\
& 0.0 & 3.0e+6 & 6.0e+6 & 9.0e+6\
0.0 & 13.6$\pm$3.6 & - & - & -\
1.0 & - & 3.6$\pm$0.6 & 1.9$\pm$0.6 & **1.5$\pm$0.2**\
2.0 & - & 3.1$\pm$0.9 & 2.0$\pm$0.6 & 1.9$\pm$1.2\
[c|\*[4]{}r]{}\
& 0.0 & 3.0e+6 & 6.0e+6 & 9.0e+6\
0.0 & 3.6$\pm$1.1 & - & - & -\
1.0 & - & 1.0$\pm$0.3 & 1.1$\pm$0.5 & **0.2$\pm$0.1**\
2.0 & - & 0.7$\pm$0.4 & 0.6$\pm$0.2 & **0.2$\pm$0.1**\
In \[table:laptime\], we compare the race time for each case to see how much lap time delay we get to pay for more visual information. \[table:laptime\] shows the mean and the 2$\sigma$ standard deviation from 10 laps of racing per each case. As expected, the PixelMPC loses lap time by achieving more visibility of the racecourse. However, we believe it is worth to pay 1.7 $sec$, sometimes less than 0.2 $sec$, to achieve 42% $\rightarrow$ 4.5% decrease in time that the robot loses important information in its view.
[.22]{} ![ []{data-label="fig:multistep_mae"}](figs/comparison_on_img_2_crop.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[.26]{} ![ []{data-label="fig:multistep_mae"}](figs/multistep_36.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[c|\*[4]{}r]{}\
& 0.0 & 3.0e+6 & 6.0e+6 & 9.0e+6\
0.0 & **31.8$\pm$1.0** & - & - & -\
1.0 & - & 32.7$\pm$0.4 & 33.2$\pm$0.2 & 33.5$\pm$0.2\
2.0 & - & 33.2$\pm$0.1 & 34.2$\pm$0.3 & 34.0$\pm$0.5\
![The total variation of roll, pitch, yaw angles of 25 laps of robot trajectories running the nominal MPPI and the PixelMPC. Both controllers were tested with ground truth (GT) and a particle filter (PF) state estimator. The error bar represents $\mu\pm2\sigma$. The smaller total variation of the robot orientation implies less shaky robot behavior.[]{data-label="fig:total_variation"}](figs/total_variation_noRC.png){width="49.00000%"}
{width="99.00000%"}
Vision-based State Estimation with Particle Filter {#sec:state_estimation}
--------------------------------------------------
For state estimation with sensors (IMU, cameras, etc.), having more visual information and smooth flying behavior will benefit the state estimation and result in fewer failures overall. The most likely cause of a collision is an inaccurate state estimate. In a racing scenario, we can still assume that the racing map, i.e. the gates’ location information is given. Then, one of the biggest challenges will be estimating the robot’s state, to perform accurate path planning and control.
For estimating the robot’s state, we use a particle filter with an observation model using gate information from observed images. The particle filter is run with 6400 particles and uses the GPU to parallelize the motion and sensor updates.
### Motion Update
The motion update of the particle filter is done by integrating the IMU measurements directly. Additional Gaussian noise is injected into the filter with mean $0$ and variance $0.2$ directly on position \[$m$\]. In addition to that, Gaussian noise is added to the IMU measurements directly both with mean $0$ and variance $0.2$ for acceleration and variance $0.1$ for angular rates. These tunings allow the particle filter to quickly jump to whatever sensor update occurs, but make the state estimate very unstable. The filter’s covariance will quickly balloon without any feature detections.
### Sensor Update
The only sensor model of the particle filter is to use the nominal locations of the gate corners in the 3D world and back project them into the image plane. Then we find the difference between the detected results and the expected ones. Any missing detection is penalized heavily by $4\times$ W where W is the width of the camera image. Our custom YOLOv3 [@yolov3] gate detector is used to generate the detection of the 2D positions from an image along with a bounding box, which includes the third (depth) information.
\[table:successrate\] shows that, with the target speed of 14 $m/s$, the success rate of both cases are the same (80$\%$) but if we increase the target speed to 16 $m/s$ with the same cost parameters, the PixelMPC reports a higher success rate. The 25 trajectories of running PixelMPC ($t_f$=1.0, $c_{pixel}$=9.0e+6) and the nominal MPPI with a particle filter is shown in \[fig:robot\_trajs\]. Since the racetrack we used only allows few seconds of flying between two consecutive gates, it is not intuitive to see if the PixelMPC decreases the particle filter covariance because even nominal MPPI could see the target gates very often. Therefore, we did one more straight-line flying test to fully see the effect of PixelMPC on state estimation. In this case, we increased the target speed to 20 $m/s$, where MPPI has to pitch down a lot to hit the target speed. As soon as the detector detects the gates, the PixelMPC tries to grab the feature in its view and this results in a smaller covariance of the particle filter.
[c|\*[2]{}c|c]{} & & $\Sigma_{max}$\
& 14$m/s$ & 16$m/s$ & 20$m/s$\
MPPI & \[80$\%$, 31.8$\pm$0.7\] & \[52$\%$, 29.6$\pm$0.8\] & 9.2\
PixelMPC & \[80$\%$, 33.0$\pm$0.8\] & \[**60**$\%$, 30.6$\pm$0.7\] & **5.7**\
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
By fusing vision, path planning, and control into a single optimization framework, high-speed racing can be accomplished with more stable state estimation along with more visual information. Our algorithm can be generally used in any camera-based robot system for visual servoing. The suggested deep optical flow (DOF) dynamics does not take the depth/distance of the target pixel information into account. The current DOF approach works well thanks to the generalization property of the deep neural network, but incorporating the target pixel’s depth information will result in a more robust dynamics propagation. Another direction to robustify the suggested dynamics will be propagating the target bounding box, i.e. the 4 corners of it, like a particle filter approach.
Citations {#citations .unnumbered}
=========
Plain Text:\
\
K. Lee, J. Gibson, and E. A. Theodorou, “Aggressive Perception-Aware Navigation using Deep Optical Flow Dynamics and PixelMPC,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2020.\
\
BibTeX:\
\
@ARTICLE$\{$lee2020pixelmpc,\
author=$\{$Keuntaek $\{$Lee$\}$ and Jason $\{$Gibson$\}$ and Evangelos A. $\{$Theodorou$\}$$\}$,\
journal=$\{$IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters$\}$,\
title=$\{$$\{$Aggressive Perception-Aware Navigation using Deep Optical Flow Dynamics and PixelMPC$\}$$\}$,\
year=$\{$2020$\}$\
$\}$
[^1]: Manuscript received: September, 10, 2019; Revised December, 6, 2019; Accepted January, 6, 2020.
[^2]: This paper was recommended for publication by Editor Eric Marchand upon evaluation of the Associate Editor and Reviewers’ comments. This work was supported by NASA.
[^3]: The authors are with the Autonomous Control and Decision Systems Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: https://www.herox.com/alphapilot/85-2019-virtual-qualifier-tests \[footnote:alphapilot\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We consider a variety of Euler’s conjecture, i.e., whether the Diophantine system $$\begin{cases}
n=a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1},\\
a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{s-1}(a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1})=b^{s}
\end{cases}$$ has solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2,\ldots,s-1,s\geq 3.$ By using the theory of elliptic curves, we prove that it has no solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ for $s=3$, but for $s=4$ it has infinitely many solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ and for $s\geq 5$ there are infinitely many polynomial solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}[t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_{s-3}]$ with positive value satisfying this Diophantine system.
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, People’s Republic of China '
- 'Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, People’s Republic of China '
author:
- Tianxin Cai
- Yong Zhang
title: 'A variety of Euler’s conjecture'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In 1769, Euler conjectured that the Diophantine equation $$a_1^s+a_2^s+\cdots+a_{s-1}^s=a_s^s$$ has no positive integer solutions for $s\geq3$. It is called Euler’s conjecture.
For $s=3$, (1.1) corresponds to the case $a_1^{3}+a_2^{3}=a_3^{3}$ of Fermat’s Last Theorem and Fermat proved that it has no nontrivial integer solutions.
For $s=4$, in 1988, N. Elkies \[3\] disproved Euler’s conjecture by showing that $a_1^4+a_2^4+a_3^4=a_4^4$ has infinitely many integer solutions. In particular, he gave the following solution: $$2682440^{4}+15365639^{4}+18796760^{4}=20615673^{4},$$ and shortly after, R. Frye found the smallest counterexample: $$95800^{4}+217519^{4}+414560^{4}=422481^{4}.$$
For $s=5$, in 1966, L. J. Lander and T. R. Parkin \[5\] found the first counterexample: $$27^{5}+84^{5}+110^{5}+133^{5}=144^{5}.$$ In 2004, J. Frye found the only other known primitive solution for $s=5$: $$55^{5}+3183^{5}+28969^{5}+85282^{5}=85359^{5}.$$
For $s\geq6$, there are no known solutions. More information about Euler’s conjecture can be found in \[4\]: *D1 Sums of like powers. Euler’s conjecture.*
In 2011, the first author raised a new variant of the Hilbert-Waring Problem (cf. \[1\]): to express a positive integer $n$ as a sum of $s$ positive integers whose product is a $k$-th power, i.e., $$n=a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s}$$ such that $$a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{s}=b^k$$ for $n,a_{i},b,k \in \mathbb{Z}^+.$
Now we expand this idea to Euler’s conjecture and consider whether the Diophantine system $$\begin{cases}
n=a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1},\\
a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{s-1}(a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1})=b^{s}
\end{cases}$$ has solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2,\ldots,s-1,s\geq3.$
Obviously, the solutions of (1.1) is a subset of the solutions of (1.2). The motivation of studying (1.2) is that we try to find a counterexample to Euler’s conjecture for $s=6$. Although we can’t get anyone, but we find some interest results about this problem.
By using the theory of elliptic curves, we prove the following theorems for (1.2).
For $s=3$, $(1.2)$ has no solution $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2$.
For $s=4$, $(1.2)$ has infinitely many solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2,3$.
For $s\geq 5$, $(1.2)$ has infinitely many polynomial solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}[t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_{s-3}]$ with positive value for $i\geq4$.
From Theorem 1.3, we have
For $s\geq 5$, $(1.2)$ has infinitely many solutions $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2,\cdots,s-1$.
Two auxiliary lemmas
====================
To prove our theorems, we need the theory of the elliptic curves which includes Nagell-Lutz Theorem and the theorem of Poincaré and Hurwitz, we list them in the following two lemmas.
(Nagell-Lutz Theorem, see \[7\], p. 56) Let the equation of the elliptic curve be $$y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx+c~(a,b,c\in \mathbb{Z}),$$ the discriminant of the cubic polynomial is $\Delta=-4a^3c+a^2b^2+18abc-4b^3-27c^3,$ let $P=(x,y)$ be a rational point of finite order, then $x$ and $y$ are integers; and either $y=0$ or else $y| \Delta$.
From this theorem, we know that if $x$ or $y$ is not an integer, then $P=(x,y)$ is a rational point of infinite order, hence there are infinitely many rational points on the elliptic curve.
(The theorem of Poincaré and Hurwitz, see \[8\], Chap. V, p.78, Satz 11) If the elliptic curve has infinitely many rational points, then it has infinitely many rational points in every neighborhood of any one of them.
Proofs of the Theorems
=======================
In this section, we give the proofs of our theorems. For $s=3$, there is no positive integer solution of (1.2), which is similar to the Euler’s conjecture. For $s=4$, there are infinitely many positive integer solutions of (1.2). But for $s\geq 5$, there are infinitely many polynomial solutions of (1.2), which is different from the Euler’s conjecture as we have known.\
[***Proof of Theorem 1.1.***]{} For $s=3$, (1.2) is equal to $$\begin{cases}
n=a_{1}+a_{2},\\
a_{1}a_{2}(a_{1}+a_{2})=b^{3},
\end{cases}$$ because of $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2$, from the second of the above equations, we have $$\frac{a_{1}}{b}\frac{a_{2}}{b}\bigg(\frac{a_{1}}{b}+\frac{a_{2}}{b}\bigg)=1.$$ Let $$b_i=\frac{a_{i}}{b}\in\mathbb{Q}^+,i=1,2,$$ we get $$b_{1}b_{2}(b_{1}+b_{2})=1,$$ leading to $$\bigg(\frac{b_{1}}{b_{2}}\bigg)^2+\frac{b_{1}}{b_{2}}=\frac{1}{b_{2}^3}.$$ Let $$u=\frac{b_{1}}{b_{2}},v=\frac{1}{b_{2}},$$we have $$u^2+u=v^3,$$ by $y=16u+8,x=4v,$ we get $$y^2=x^3+64,$$using the package of Magma \[6\], we can get the only rational points on it, i.e., $$(x,\pm y)=(8,24),(0,8),(-4,0).$$ Tracing back, we find that there is no integer solution of (1.2). $\oblong$\
[***Proof of Theorem 1.2.***]{} For $s=4$, (1.2) is $$\begin{cases}
n=a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3},\\
a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}(a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3})=b^{4},
\end{cases}$$ because of $n,b,a_i\in\mathbb{Z}^+,i=1,2,3$, from the second equation of (3.1), we have $$\frac{a_{1}}{b}\frac{a_{2}}{b}\frac{a_{3}}{b}\bigg(\frac{a_{1}}{b}+\frac{a_{2}}{b}+\frac{a_{3}}{b}\bigg)=1.$$ Let $$b_i=\frac{a_{i}}{b}\in\mathbb{Q}^+,i=1,2,3,$$ we get $$b_{1}b_{2}b_{3}(b_{1}+b_{2}+b_{3})=1.$$ It’s easy to see that $(a_{1},a_{2},a_{3})=(1,2,24)$ satisfies (3.1), leading to $$(b_{1},b_{2},b_{3})=\bigg(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{3},4\bigg).$$ Then $$\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
&b_{1}b_{2}b_{3}=\frac{2}{9},\\
&b_{1}+b_{2}+b_{3}=\frac{9}{2}.
\end{split}
\end{cases}$$
Next, we consider $b_i$ be unknowns, and will prove that there are infinitely many positive rational numbers satisfying (3.2). Eliminating $b_3$ of $(3.2)$, we get $$18b_{1}^2b_{2}+18b_{1}b_{2}^2-81b_{1}b_{2}+4=0,$$ leading to $$18\frac{b_{2}}{b_{1}}+18\bigg(\frac{b_{2}}{b_{1}}\bigg)^2-81\frac{b_{2}}{b_{1}}\frac{1}{b_{1}}+4\bigg(\frac{1}{b_{1}}\bigg)^3=0.$$ Taking $$u=\frac{b_{2}}{b_{1}},~v=\frac{1}{b_{1}},$$we have $$18u^2+18u-81uv+4v^3=0.$$ Let $$y=384u-864v+192,~x=-32v+243,$$ we get $$E:~~y^2=x^3-166779x+26215254.$$
By Lemma 2.1, to prove that there are infinitely many rational points on $E$, it is enough to find a rational point on $E$ with $x$-coordinate not in $\mathbb{Z}$. Using the package Magma \[6\], we can get the point $(30507/121,-584592/1331)$ with $x$-coordinate not in $\mathbb{Z}$, then there are infinitely many rational points on $E$.
From the above transformations, we have $$\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
&b_{1}=\frac{32}{243-x},\\
&b_{2}=\frac{-y+27x-6369}{12(243-x)},\\
&b_{3}=\frac{y+27x-6369}{243-x}.
\end{split}
\end{cases}$$ Then $$\begin{cases}
\begin{split}
&a_{1}=\frac{32}{243-x}b,\\
&a_{2}=\frac{y-27x+6369}{12(243-x)}b,\\
&a_{3}=\frac{-y-27x+6369}{243-x}b
\end{split}
\end{cases}$$ is a solution of (3.1).
To prove $b_i>0$, we get the equivalent condition $$x<243,~|y|<27x-6369.$$ In virtue of Lemma 2.2, the elliptic curve has infinitely many rational points in every neighborhood of any one of them. We should find a point satisfy the above equivalent condition. It’s easy to see that the point $P=(235,8)$ satisfies it, then there are infinitely many rational points satisfying$$x<243,~|y|<27x-6369.$$ Therefore, we can find infinitely many solutions in rational numbers $b_i>0,~i=1,2,3$ satisfying $(3.2),$ leading to integer numbers $a_i>0,~i=1,2,3,$ by multiply the least common denominator of $b_i>0,~i=1,2,3$. This proves that $(1.2)$ has infinitely many positive integer solutions for $s=4$. $\oblong$\
Example, for $s=4$ the points $$(x,y)=(235,8),\bigg(\frac{60266587}{257049},\frac{3852230624}{130323843}\bigg)$$ on the elliptic curve $y^2=x^3-166779x+26215254$, leading to $$(a_1,a_2,a_3)=(1,2,24),(781943058,138991832,18609625).$$
[***Proof of Theorem 1.3.***]{} For $s\geq 5$, (1.2) is $$\begin{cases}
n=a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1},\\
a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{s-1}(a_{1}+a_{2}+\cdots+a_{s-1})=b^{s},
\end{cases}$$ from the second equation of (2.3), we have $$\frac{a_{1}}{b}\frac{a_{2}}{b}\cdots \frac{a_{s-1}}{b}\bigg(\frac{a_{1}}{b}+\frac{a_{2}}{b}+\cdots+\frac{a_{s-1}}{b}\bigg)=1.$$ Let $$b_i=\frac{a_{i}}{b}\in\mathbb{Q}^+,i=1,\cdots,s-1,$$ we get $$b_{1}b_{2}\cdots b_{s-1}(b_{1}+b_{2}+\cdots+b_{s-1})=1.$$
For convenience, put $x=b_1,y=b_2,z=b_3$ and $$u=b_{4}\cdots b_{s-1},v=b_{4}+\cdots+b_{s-1},$$ then we have$$xyzu(x+y+z+v)=1.$$
Let $z=ty$ in the above equation, we get $$tuy^2x^2+ut(yt+y+v)y^2x-1=0,$$ consider it as a quadratic equation of $x$, if it has rational solutions, the discriminant $$\Delta(y)=u^2t^2(t+1)^2y^4+2u^2v(t+1)t^2y^3+u^2v^2t^2y^2+4tu$$ should be a square. To prove Theorem 1.3, it is enough to show that the set of $x\in \mathbb{Q}(t)$, such that (3.3) has a solution in $\mathbb{Q}(t)$, is infinite. Then we need to show that there are infinitely many $x\in \mathbb{Q}(t)$ such that the discriminant $\Delta(y)$ should be a square in $\mathbb{Q}(t)$, which leads to find infinitely many rational parametric solutions in $\mathbb{Q}(t)$ on the following curve $$C:~w^2=u^2t^2(t+1)^2y^4+2u^2v(t+1)t^2y^3+u^2v^2t^2y^2+4tu.$$
The discriminant of $C$ is $$\Delta(t)=256(t+1)^4(64t^2+(128+v^4u)t+64)u^9t^9$$ and is non-zero as an element of $\mathbb{Q}(t)$ as $u,v\in \mathbb{Q}^+$. Then $C$ is smooth.
By the Proposition 7.2.1 in \[2\], we can transform the curve $C$ into a family of elliptic curves $$E:~Y^2=X(X^2+u^2v^2t^2X-16u^3t^3(t+1)^2),$$ by the inverse birational map $\phi:~(y,w)\longrightarrow(X,Y)$ with $$y=\frac{Y-uvtX}{2ut(t+1)X},w=\frac{Y^2-u^2v^2t^2X^2-2X^3}{4ut(t+1)X^2},$$ and $$\begin{split}
X=&2ut(t+1)(ut(t+1)y^2+uvty-w),\\
Y=&2u^2t^2(t+1)^2(ut(t+1)y^2+uvty-w)(2(t+1)y+v).
\end{split}$$
To get the suitable points on $E$ such that we have infinitely many rational solutions $y$, take $t=ut_0^2$ in the equation of $E$, we get $$E':~Y^2=X(X^2+u^4v^2t_0^4X-16u^6t_0^6(ut_0^2+1)^2).$$
Note that the point $$P=(4u^3t_0^3(ut_0^2+1),4vu^5t_0^5(ut_0^2+1))$$lies on $E'$. Using the group law on the elliptic curve, we obtain the point $$[2]P=\bigg(\frac{16u^2t_0^2(ut_0^2+1)^2}{v^2},-\frac{64u^3t_0^3(ut_0^2+1)^3}{v^3}\bigg),$$ and the point $[4]P=p(t_0),q(t_0))$, where $$\begin{split}p(t_0)=&\frac{u^2t_0^2(16u^2t_0^4+(32u+v^4u^2)t_0^2+16)^2}{64v^2(ut_0^2+1)^2},\\
q(t_0)=&-(u^3t_0^3(16u^2t_0^4+(32u+v^4u^2)t_0^2+16)(256u^4t_0^8\\
&+(1024u^3-64u^4v^4)t_0^6+(-u^4v^8-128u^3v^4+1536u^2)t_0^4\\
&+(-64v^4u^2+1024u)t_0^2+256))/(512v^3(ut_0^2+1)^3).\end{split}$$
Let us recall that on the elliptic curve $y^2=x^3+a(t)x^2+b(t)x+c(t)$, where $a(t),b(t),c(t)\in
\mathbb{Z}[t]$, the points of finite order have coordinates in $\mathbb{Z}[t]$. Therefore, to prove that the group $E'(\mathbb{Q}(t_0))$ is infinite, it is enough to find a point with coordinates not in $\mathbb{Z}[t]$.
Note that the $X$-coordinate of $[4]P$ is $$\frac{u^2t_0^2(16u^2t_0^4+(32u+v^4u^2)t_0^2+16)^2}{64v^2(ut_0^2+1)^2},$$ when the numerator of the $X-$coordinate of it is divided by the denominator, the remainder equals $$r=u^3v^8(3ut_0^2+2).$$ For $u>0,v>0$, $r$ is not zero in $\mathbb{Q}(t_0)$, then the $X-$coordinate of $[4]P$ is not a polynomial. Therefore, $[4]P$ is a point of infinite order on $E'$. Hence, the group $E'(\mathbb{Q}(t_0))$ is infinite.
Next, we will determine the positive polynomial solutions of (1.2). From the birational map and the point $-[2]P$, i.e., the reflected point of $[2]P$, we get $$x=\frac{uv^3t_0}{2(4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4)},y=\frac{4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4}{2uvt_0(ut_0^2+1)},z=\frac{(4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4)t_0}{2v(ut_0^2+1)}.$$
To get $x>0,y>0,z>0$, from $u>0,v>0$, we need $$4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4>0,$$ the discriminant of it is $\delta=u(uv^4-64).$ If $\delta<0,$ then for any $t_0\in \mathbb{Q}$, we have $$4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4>0.$$If $\delta>0,$ then for any $$t_0\in
\bigg(0,\frac{uv^2-\sqrt{u^2v^4-64u}}{8u},\bigg),\bigg(\frac{uv^2+\sqrt{u^2v^4-64u}}{8u},\infty
\bigg),$$ we have $$4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4>0.$$ Therefore, for any $u>0,v>0,$ we can find infinitely many positive rational numbers $t_0$ such that $x>0,y>0,z>0.$
Note that $x=b_1,y=b_2,z=b_3,$ $$u=b_{4}\cdots b_{s-1},v=b_{4}+\cdots+b_{s-1},$$and $$b_i=\frac{a_{i}}{b}\in\mathbb{Q}^+,i=1,\ldots,s-1,$$ let $$t_1=t_0b',t_2=b_4b',t_3=b_5b',\ldots,t_{s-3}=b_{s-1}b',$$where $b'$ is the least common multiple of the denominator of $b_i,i=1,\ldots,s-1$, then $$a_i\in \mathbb{Z}[t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_{s-3}],i=1,\ldots,s-1$$and $a_i$ have positive value, where $t_1=t_0b'$ is a positive parameter satisfying the condition $4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4>0.$.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.3. $\oblong$\
Example, for $s=5$, we have $$\begin{split}&x=\frac{uv^3t_0}{2(4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4)},y=\frac{4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4}{2uvt_0(ut_0^2+1)},\\
&z=\frac{(4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4)t_0}{2v(ut_0^2+1)},u=v=b_4,\end{split}$$ let $t_1=t_0,t_2=b_4,$ take $$b=2uvt_0(ut_0^2+1)(4ut_0^2-uv^2t_0+4),$$ then $$\begin{split}
&a_1=t_1^2t_2^6(t_1^2t_2+1),a_2=(4t_1^2t_2-t_1t_2^3+4)^2,\\
&a_3=t_1^2t_2(4t_1^2t_2-t_1t_2^3+4)^2,a_4=2t_1t_2^3(t_1^2t_2+1)(4t_1^2t_2-t_1t_2^3+4).\end{split}$$ Let $t_1=1,t_2=1,$ we have $$128=2+49+49+28,~2\cdot49\cdot49\cdot28\cdot(2+49+49+28)=28^5.$$ Let $t_1=2,t_2=1,$ we have $$2000=20+324+1296+360,~20\cdot324\cdot1296\cdot360\cdot(20+324+1296+360)=360^5,$$which can reduce to $$500=5+81+324+90,~5\cdot81\cdot324\cdot90\cdot(5+81+324+90)=90^5.$$
Some numerical solutions for $s=5,6$
====================================
As we see in the above examples, the values of them are large, here we list some smaller solutions in the following table for $s=5,6$ of (1.2).
[10]{} T. Cai, D. Chen, A new variant of the Hilbert-Waring Problem, Math. Comp., **82** (2013), 2333–2341.
H. Cohen, Number Theory Volume I: Elementary and Algebraic Methods for Diophantine Equations, Springer, 2007.
N. Elkies, On $A^4+B^4+C^4=D^4$, Math. Comp., 51 (1988), 825–835.
R. K. Guy, Unsolved Problems in Number Theory, 3rd edition, Springer, 2004.
L. J. Lander and T. R. Parkin, Counterexample to Euler’s conjecture on sums of like powers, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 72 (1966), 1079.
Magma: The Magma computational algebra system for algebra, number theory and geometry, http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/.
J. H. Silverman and J. Tate, Rational points on elliptic curves, Springer, 1992.
T. Skolem, Diophantische Gleichungen, Chelsea, 1950.
[^1]: Project supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China(\#10871169).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'One of the major developments of twentieth century physics has been the gradual recognition that a common feature of the known fundamental interactions is their gauge structure. In this talk the early history of gauge theory is reviewed, emphasizing especially Weyl’s seminal contributions of 1918 and 1929.'
author:
- |
Norbert Straumann\
Institute for Theoretical Physics\
University of Zürich, Switzerland
date: 'August, 2005'
title: 'Gauge Principle and QED[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The organizers of this conference asked me to review the early history of gauge theories. Because of space and time limitations I shall concentrate on Weyl’s seminal papers of 1918 and 1929. Important contributions by Fock, Klein and others, based on Kaluza’s five-dimensional unification attempt, will not be discussed. (For this I refer to [@RS] and [@JO].)
The history of gauge theories begins with GR, which can be regarded as a non-Abelian gauge theory of a special type. To a large extent the other gauge theories emerged in a slow and complicated process gradually from GR. Their common geometrical structure – best expressed in terms of connections of fiber bundles – is now widely recognized.
It all began with H. Weyl [@Wey2] who made in 1918 the first attempt to extend GR in order to describe gravitation and electromagnetism within a unifying geometrical framework. This brilliant proposal contains the germs of all mathematical aspects of non-Abelian gauge theory. The word ‘gauge’ (german: ‘Eich-’) transformation appeared for the first time in this paper, but in the everyday meaning of change of length or change of calibration.
Einstein admired Weyl’s theory as “a coup of genius of the first rate”, but immediately realized that it was physically untenable. After a long discussion Weyl finally admitted that his attempt was a failure as a physical theory. (For a discussion of the intense Einstein-Weyl correspondence, see Ref. [@NS1].) It paved, however, the way for the correct understanding of gauge invariance. Weyl himself reinterpreted in 1929 his original theory after the advent of quantum theory in a grand paper [@Wey3]. Weyl’s reinterpretation of his earlier speculative proposal had actually been suggested before by London [@Lon]. Fock [@Fo], Klein [@Kl1], and others arrived at the principle of gauge invariance in the framework of wave mechanics along a completely different line. It was, however, Weyl who emphasized the role of gauge invariance as a *constructive principle* from which electromagnetism can be derived. This point of view became very fruitful for our present understanding of fundamental interactions. We[^2] have described this more extensively in [@RS].
These works underlie the diagram in Fig. \[fig1\].
\[fig1\]
Weyl’s Attempt to Unify Gravitation and Electromagnetism
========================================================
On the 1$^{st}$ of March 1918 Weyl writes in a letter to Einstein ([@CPA], Vol. 8B, Doc.472): “These days I succeeded, as I believe, to derive electricity and gravitation from a common source …”. Einstein’s prompt reaction by postcard indicates already a physical objection which he explained in detail shortly afterwards. Before we come to this we have to describe Weyl’s theory of 1918.
Weyl’s Generalization of Riemannian Geometry
--------------------------------------------
Weyl’s starting point was purely mathematical. He felt a certain uneasiness about Riemannian geometry, as is clearly expressed by the following sentences early in his paper:
> [*But in Riemannian geometry described above there is contained a last element of geometry “at a distance” (ferngeometrisches Element) — with no good reason, as far as I can see; it is due only to the accidental development of Riemannian geometry from Euclidean geometry. The metric allows the two magnitudes of two vectors to be compared, not only at the same point, but at any arbitrarily separated points.*]{} [*A true infinitesimal geometry should, however, recognize only a principle for transferring the magnitude of a vector to an infinitesimally close point*]{} [*and then, on transfer to an arbitrary distant point, the integrability of the magnitude of a vector is no more to be expected that the integrability of its direction.*]{}
After these remarks Weyl turns to physical speculation and continues as follows:
> [*On the removal of this inconsistency there appears a geometry that, surprisingly, when applied to the world,*]{} [*explains not only the gravitational phenomena but also the electrical.*]{} [*According to the resultant theory both spring from the same source, indeed*]{} [*in general one cannot separate gravitation and electromagnetism in a unique manner*]{}. [*In this theory*]{} [*all physical quantities have a world geometrical meaning; the action appears from the beginning as a pure number. It leads to an essentially unique universal law; it even allows us to understand in a certain sense why the world is four-dimensional*]{}.
In brief, Weyl’s geometry can be described as follows (see also ref. [@AGS]). First, the spacetime manifold $M$ is equipped with a conformal structure, i.e., with a class $[g]$ of conformally equivalent Lorentz metrics $g$ (and not a definite metric as in GR). This corresponds to the requirement that it should only be possible to compare lengths at one and the same world point. Second, it is assumed, as in Riemannian geometry, that there is an affine (linear) torsion-free connection which defines a covariant derivative $\nabla$, and respects the conformal structure. Differentially this means that for any $g\in[g]$ the covariant derivative $\nabla g$ should be proportional to $g$: $$\label{2.1}
\nabla g =-2A\otimes g ~~~~~ (\nabla_{\lambda}g_{\mu\nu}=-2A_{\lambda}g_{\mu\nu}),$$ where $A=A_{\mu}dx^{\mu}$ is a differential 1-form.
Consider now a curve $\gamma: [0,1]\rightarrow M$ and a parallel-transported vector field $X$ along $\gamma$. If $l$ is the length of $X$, measured with a representative $g\in[g]$, we obtain from (\[2.1\]) the following relation between $l(p)$ for the initial point $p=\gamma(0)$ and $l(q)$ for the end point $q=\gamma(1)$: $$\label{2.2}
l(q)=\exp\left(-\int_{\gamma}A\right)\ l(p).$$ Thus, the ratio of lengths in $q$ and $p$ (measured with $g\in[g]$) [*depends in general on the connecting path $\gamma$*]{} (see Fig.2). The length is only independent of $\gamma$ if the curl of $A$, $$\label{2.3} F=dA ~~~~~(F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-
\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}),$$ vanishes.
\[fig2\]
The compatibility requirement (\[2.1\]) leads to the following expression for the Christoffel symbols in Weyl’s geometry: $$\label{2.4}
\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\sigma}(
g_{\lambda\sigma,\nu}+g_{\sigma\nu,\lambda}-g_{\nu\lambda,\sigma})
+g^{\mu\sigma}(g_{\lambda\sigma}A_{\nu}+g_{\sigma\nu}A_{\lambda}-
g_{\nu\lambda}A_{\sigma}).$$ The second $A$-dependent term is a characteristic new piece in Weyl’s geometry which has to be added to the Christoffel symbols of Riemannian geometry.
Until now we have chosen a fixed, but arbitrary metric in the conformal class $[g]$. This corresponds to a choice of calibration (or gauge). Passing to another calibration with metric $\bar{g}$, related to $g$ by $$\label{2.5}
\bar{g}=e^{2\lambda}g,$$ the potential $A$ in (\[2.1\]) will also change to $\bar{A}$, say. Since the covariant derivative has an absolute meaning, $\bar{A}$ can easily be worked out: On the one hand we have by definition $$%\label{2.6}
\nabla \bar{g} =-2\bar{A}\otimes\bar{g},$$ and on the other hand we find for the left side with (\[2.1\]) $$%\label{2.7}
\nabla\bar{g}=\nabla(e^{2\lambda}g)= 2d\lambda\otimes\bar{g}+e^{2\lambda}\nabla g=
2d\lambda\otimes\bar{g}-2A\otimes\bar{g}.$$ Thus $$\label{2.6} \bar{A}=A- d\lambda
~~~(\bar{A}_{\mu}=A_{\mu}-\partial_{\mu}\lambda).$$ This shows that a change of calibration of the metric induces a [*“gauge transformation”*]{} for $A$: $$\label{2.7}
g\rightarrow e^{2\lambda}g,~~~A\rightarrow A-d\lambda.$$ Only gauge classes have an absolute meaning. (The Weyl connection is, however, gauge-invariant. This is conceptually clear, but can also be verified by direct calculation from expression Eq.(\[2.4\]).)
Electromagnetism and Gravitation
--------------------------------
Turning to physics, Weyl assumes that his “purely infinitesimal geometry” describes the structure of spacetime and consequently he requires that physical laws should satisfy a double-invariance: 1. They must be invariant with respect to arbitrary smooth coordinate transformations. 2. They must be [*gauge invariant*]{}, i.e., invariant with respect to substitutions (\[2.7\]) for an arbitrary smooth function $\lambda$.
Nothing is more natural to Weyl, than identifying $A_{\mu}$ with the vector potential and $F_{\mu\nu}$ in eq. (\[2.3\]) with the field strength of electromagnetism. In the absence of electromagnetic fields ($F_{\mu\nu}=0$) the scale factor $\exp(-\int_{\gamma}A)$ in (\[2.2\]) for length transport becomes path independent (integrable) and one can find a gauge such that $A_{\mu}$ vanishes for simply connected spacetime regions. In this special case one is in the same situation as in GR.
Weyl proceeds to find an action which is generally invariant as well as gauge invariant and which would give the coupled field equations for $g$ and $A$. We do not want to enter into this, except for the following remark. In his first paper [@Wey2] Weyl proposes what we call nowadays the Yang-Mills action $$\label{2.8}
S(g,A)=-\frac{1}{4}\int Tr(\Omega\wedge\ast\Omega).$$ Here $\Omega$ denotes the curvature form and $\ast\Omega$ its Hodge dual[^3]. Note that the latter is gauge invariant, i.e., independent of the choice of $g\in[g]$. In Weyl’s geometry the curvature form splits as $\Omega=\hat{\Omega}+F$, where $\hat{\Omega}$ is the metric piece [@AGS]. Correspondingly, the action also splits, $$\label{2.9}
Tr(\Omega\wedge\ast\Omega) = Tr (\hat{\Omega}\wedge\ast\hat{\Omega}) +F\wedge\ast F.$$ The second term is just the Maxwell action. Weyl’s theory thus contains formally all aspects of a non-Abelian gauge theory.
Weyl emphasizes, of course, that the Einstein-Hilbert action is not gauge invariant. Later work by Pauli [@P2] and by Weyl himself [@Wey1; @Wey2] led soon to the conclusion that the action (\[2.8\]) could not be the correct one, and other possibilities were investigated (see the later editions of Weyl’s classic treatise [@Wey1]).
Independent of the precise form of the action Weyl shows that in his theory gauge invariance implies the [*conservation of electric charge*]{} in much the same way as general coordinate invariance leads to the conservation of energy and momentum[^4]. This beautiful connection pleased him particularly: “…\[it\] seems to me to be the strongest general argument in favour of the present theory — insofar as it is permissible to talk of justification in the context of pure speculation.” The invariance principles imply five ‘Bianchi type’ identities. Correspondingly, the five conservation laws follow in two independent ways from the coupled field equations and may be “termed the eliminants” of the latter. These structural connections hold also in modern gauge theories.
Einstein’s Objection and Reactions of Other Physicists
------------------------------------------------------
After this sketch of Weyl’s theory we come to Einstein’s striking counterargument which he first communicated to Weyl by postcard (see Fig. 3). The problem is that if the idea of a nonintegrable length connection (scale factor) is correct, then the behavior of clocks would depend on their history. Consider two identical atomic clocks in adjacent world points and bring them along different world trajectories which meet again in adjacent world points. According to (\[2.2\]) their frequencies would then generally differ. This is in clear contradiction with empirical evidence, in particular with the existence of stable atomic spectra. Einstein therefore concludes (see [@CPA], Vol. 8B, Doc. 507):
> [*…(if) one drops the connection of the $ds$ to the measurement of distance and time, then relativity looses all its empirical basis.*]{}
\[fig3\]
Nernst shared Einstein’s objection and demanded on behalf of the Berlin Academy that it should be printed in a short amendment to Weyl’s article. Weyl had to accept this. One of us has described the intense and instructive subsequent correspondence between Weyl and Einstein elsewhere [@NS1] (see also Vol. 8B of [@CPA]). As an example, let us quote from one of the last letters of Weyl to Einstein ([@CPA], Vol. 8B, Doc. 669):
> [*This \[insistence\] irritates me of course, because experience has proven that one can rely on your intuition; so unconvincing as your counterarguments seem to me, as I have to admit …*]{}
> [*By the way, you should not believe that I was driven to introduce the linear differential form in addition to the quadratic one by physical reasons. I wanted, just to the contrary, to get rid of this ‘methodological inconsistency [*(Inkonsequenz)*]{}’ which has been a bone of contention to me already much earlier. And then, to my surprise, I realized that it looked as if it might explain electricity. You clap your hands above your head and shout: But physics is not made this way ! (Weyl to Einstein 10.12.1918).*]{}
Weyl’s reply to Einstein’s criticism was, generally speaking, this: The real behavior of measuring rods and clocks (atoms and atomic systems) in arbitrary electromagnetic and gravitational fields can be deduced only from a dynamical theory of matter.
Not all leading physicists reacted negatively. Einstein transmitted a very positive first reaction by Planck, and Sommerfeld wrote enthusiastically to Weyl that there was “…hardly doubt, that you are on the correct path and not on the wrong one.”
In his encyclopedia article on relativity [@P3] Pauli gave a lucid and precise presentation of Weyl’s theory, but commented on Weyl’s point of view very critically. At the end he states:
> [*…In summary one may say that Weyl’s theory has not yet contributed to getting closer to the solution of the problem of matter.*]{}
Also Eddington’s reaction was at first very positive but he soon changed his mind and denied the physical relevance of Weyl’s geometry.
The situation was later appropriately summarized by F. London in his 1927 paper [@Lon] as follows:
> [*In the face of such elementary experimental evidence, it must have been an unusually strong metaphysical conviction that prevented Weyl from abandoning the idea that Nature would have to make use of the beautiful geometrical possibility that was offered. He stuck to his conviction and evaded discussion of the above-mentioned contradictions through a rather unclear re-interpretation of the concept of “real state”, which, however, robbed his theory of its immediate physical meaning and attraction.*]{}
In this remarkable paper, London suggested a reinterpretation of Weyl’s principle of gauge invariance within the new quantum mechanics: The role of the metric is taken over by the wave function, and the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced by a phase change of the wave function.
In this context an astonishing early paper by Schrödinger [@Sch1] has to be mentioned, which also used Weyl’s “World Geometry” and is related to Schrödinger’s later invention of wave mechanics. This relation was discovered by V. Raman and P. Forman [@RF]. (See also the discussion by C.N. Yang in [@Sch2].)
Even earlier than London, V. Fock [@Fo] arrived along a completely different line at the principle of gauge invariance in the framework of wave mechanics. His approach was similar to the one by O. Klein [@Kl1].
The contributions by Schrödinger [@Sch1], London [@Lon] and Fock [@Fo] are commented in [@LO1], where also English translations of the original papers can be found. Here, we concentrate on Weyl’s seminal paper “Electron and Gravitation”.
Weyl’s 1929 Classic: “Electron and Gravitation”
===============================================
Shortly before his death late in 1955, Weyl wrote for his [*Selecta*]{} [@Wey4] a postscript to his early attempt in 1918 to construct a ‘unified field theory’. There he expressed his deep attachment to the gauge idea and adds (p.192):
> [*Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrödinger-Dirac potential $\psi$ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally-based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the $\psi$ with the electromagnetic potentials $A_\mu$ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials $g_{\mu\nu}$ with the $A_{\mu}$, and measured the $A_{\mu}$ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units. I have no doubt but that the correct context for the principle of gauge-invariance is here and not, as I believed in 1918, in the intertwining of electromagnetism and gravity.*]{}
This re-interpretation was developed by Weyl in one of the great papers of this century [@Wey3]. Weyl’s classic does not only give a very clear formulation of the gauge principle, but contains, in addition, several other important concepts and results — in particular his two-component spinor theory.
The modern version of the gauge principle is already spelled out in the introduction:
> [*The Dirac field-equations for $\psi$ together with the Maxwell equations for the four potentials $f_{p}$ of the electromagnetic field have an invariance property which is formally similar to the one which I called gauge-invariance in my 1918 theory of gravitation and electromagnetism; the equations remain invariant when one makes the simultaneous substitutions $$\psi\ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ \ e^{i\lambda}\psi\ \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \
> f_{p}\ \ \ {\rm by}\ \ \ f_{p}-\frac{\partial\lambda}{\partial x^{p}},$$ where $\lambda$ is understood to be an arbitrary function of position in four-space. Here the factor $\frac{e}{ch}$, where $-e$ is the charge of the electron, $c$ is the speed of light, and $\frac{h}{2\pi}$ is the quantum of action, has been absorbed in $f_{p}$. The connection of this “gauge invariance” to the conservation of electric charge remains untouched. But a fundamental difference, which is important to obtain agreement with observation, is that the exponent of the factor multiplying $\psi$ is not real but pure imaginary. $\psi$ now plays the role that Einstein’s $ds$ played before. It seems to me that this new principle of gauge-invariance, which follows not from speculation but from experiment, tells us that the electromagnetic field is a necessary accompanying phenomenon, not of gravitation, but of the material wave-field represented by $\psi$. Since gauge-invariance involves an arbitrary function $\lambda$ it has the character of “general” relativity and can naturally only be understood in that context.*]{}
We shall soon enter into Weyl’s justification which is, not surprisingly, strongly associated with general relativity. Before this we have to describe his incorporation of the Dirac theory into GR which he achieved with the help of the tetrad formalism.
One of the reasons for adapting the Dirac theory of the spinning electron to gravitation had to do with Einstein’s recent unified theory which invoked a distant parallelism with torsion. E.Wigner [@Wig] and others had noticed a connection between this theory and the spin theory of the electron. Weyl did not like this and wanted to dispense with teleparallelism. In the introduction he says:
> [*I prefer not to believe in distant parallelism for a number of reasons. First my mathematical intuition objects to accepting such an artificial geometry; I find it difficult to understand the force that would keep the local tetrads at different points and in rotated positions in a rigid relationship. There are, I believe, two important physical reasons as well. The loosening of the rigid relationship between the tetrads at different points converts the gauge-factor $e^{i\lambda}$, which remains arbitrary with respect to $\psi$, from a constant to an arbitrary function of space-time. In other words, only through the loosening the rigidity does the established gauge-invariance become understandable.* ]{}
This thought is carried out in detail after Weyl has set up his two-component theory in special relativity, including a discussion of $P$ and $T$ invariance. He emphasizes thereby that the two-component theory excludes a linear implementation of parity and remarks: “It is only the fact that the left-right symmetry actually appears in Nature that forces us to introduce a second pair of $\psi$-components.” To Weyl the mass-problem is thus not relevant for this[^5]. Indeed he says: “Mass, however, is a gravitational effect; thus there is hope of finding a substitute in the theory of gravitation that would produce the required corrections.”
Tetrad Formalism
----------------
In order to incorporate his two-component spinors into GR, Weyl was forced to make use of local tetrads (Vierbeine). In section 2 of his paper he develops the tetrad formalism in a systematic manner. This was presumably independent work, since he does not give any reference to other authors. It was, however, mainly E. Cartan who demonstrated with his work [@Car] the usefulness of locally defined orthonormal bases –also called moving frames– for the study of Riemannian geometry.
In the tetrad formalism the metric is described by an arbitrary basis of orthonormal vector fields $\{e_{\alpha}(x);\alpha=0,1,2,3\}$. If $\{e^{\alpha}(x)\}$ denotes the dual basis of 1-forms, the metric is given by $$\label{3.1}
g=\eta_{\mu\nu}e^{\mu}(x)\otimes e^{\nu}(x),\ \ \ \ (\eta_{\mu\nu})=diag(1,-1,-1,-1).$$ Weyl emphasizes, of course, that only a class of such local tetrads is determined by the metric: the metric is not changed if the tetrad fields are subject to spacetime-dependent Lorentz transformations:
$$\label{3.2}
e^{\alpha}(x)\rightarrow\Lambda^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}(x)e^{\beta}(x).$$
With respect to a tetrad, the connection forms $\omega=(\omega^{\alpha}_{\ \beta})$ have values in the Lie algebra of the homogeneous Lorentz group: $$\label{3.3}
\omega_{\alpha\beta}+\omega_{\beta\alpha}=0.$$ (Indices are raised and lowered with $\eta^{\alpha\beta}$ and $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$, respectively.) They are determined (in terms of the tetrad) by the first structure equation of Cartan: $$\label{3.4}
de^{\alpha}+\omega^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}\wedge e^{\beta}=0.$$ (For a textbook derivation see, e.g., [@NS2], especially Sects. 2.6 and 8.5.) Under local Lorentz transformations (\[3.2\]) the connection forms transform in the same way as the gauge potential of a non-Abelian gauge theory: $$\label{3.5}
\omega(x)\rightarrow \Lambda(x)\omega(x)\Lambda^{-1}(x)- d\Lambda(x)\Lambda^{-1}(x).$$ The curvature forms $\Omega=(\Omega^{\mu}_{\ \nu})$ are obtained from $\omega$ in exactly the same way as the Yang-Mills field strength from the gauge potential: $$\label{3.6}
\Omega=d\omega+\omega\wedge\omega$$ (second structure equation).
For a vector field $V$, with components $V^{\alpha}$ relative to $\{e_{\alpha}\}$, the covariant derivative $DV$ is given by $$\label{3.7}
DV^{\alpha}=dV^{\alpha}+\omega^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}V^{\beta}.$$ Weyl generalizes this in a unique manner to spinor fields $\psi$: $$\label{3.8}
D\psi=d\psi+\frac{1}{4}\omega_{\alpha\beta}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}\psi.$$ Here, the $\sigma^{\alpha\beta}$ describe infinitesimal Lorentz transformations (in the representation of $\psi$). For a Dirac field these are the familiar matrices $$\label{3.9}
\sigma^{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma^{\alpha},\gamma^{\beta}].$$ (For 2-component Weyl fields one has similar expressions in terms of the Pauli matrices.)
With these tools the action principle for the coupled Einstein-Dirac system can be set up. In the massless case the Lagrangian is $$\label{3.10}
{\cal L}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}R-i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi,$$ where the first term is just the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian (which is linear in $\Omega$). Weyl discusses, of course, immediately the consequences of the following two symmetries:
\(i) local Lorentz invariance,
\(ii) general coordinate invariance.
The New Form of the Gauge-Principle
-----------------------------------
All this is a kind of a preparation for the final section of Weyl’s paper, which has the title “electric field”. Weyl says:
> [*We come now to the critical part of the theory. In my opinion the origin and necessity for the electromagnetic field is in the following. The components $\psi_{1}$ $\psi_{2}$ are, in fact, not uniquely determined by the tetrad but only to the extent that they can still be multiplied by an arbitrary “gauge-factor” $e^{i\lambda}$. The transformation of the $\psi$ induced by a rotation of the tetrad is determined only up to such a factor. In special relativity one must regard this gauge-factor as a constant because here we have only a single point-independent tetrad. Not so in general relativity; every point has its own tetrad and hence its own arbitrary gauge-factor; because by the removal of the rigid connection between tetrads at different points the gauge-factor necessarily becomes an arbitrary function of position.*]{}
In this manner Weyl arrives at the gauge-principle in its modern form and emphasizes: “From the arbitrariness of the gauge-factor in $\psi$ appears the necessity of introducing the electromagnetic potential.” The first term $d\psi$ in (\[3.8\]) has now to be replaced by the covariant gauge derivative $(d-ieA)\psi$ and the nonintegrable scale factor (\[2.1\]) of the old theory is now replaced by a phase factor: $$\exp\left(-\int_{\gamma}A\right)\rightarrow \exp\left(-i\int_{\gamma}A\right),$$ which corresponds to the replacement of the original gauge group $\mathbb{R}$ by the compact group $U(1)$. Accordingly, the original Gedankenexperiment of Einstein translates now to the Aharonov-Bohm effect, as was first pointed out by C.N. Yang in [@Yan1]. The close connection between gauge invariance and conservation of charge is again uncovered. The current conservation follows, as in the original theory, in two independent ways: On the one hand it is a consequence of the field equations for matter plus gauge invariance, at the same time, however, also of the field equations for the electromagnetic field plus gauge invariance. This corresponds to an identity in the coupled system of field equations which has to exist as a result of gauge invariance. All this is nowadays familiar to students of physics and does not need to be explained in more detail.
Much of Weyl’s paper penetrated also into his classic book “The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics” [@Wey5]. There he mentions also the transformation of his early gauge-theoretic ideas: “This principle of gauge invariance is quite analogous to that previously set up by the author, on speculative grounds, in order to arrive at a unified theory of gravitation and electricity. But I now believe that this gauge invariance does not tie together electricity and gravitation, but rather electricity and matter.”
When Pauli saw the full version of Weyl’s paper he became more friendly and wrote [@PW]:
> [*In contrast to the nasty things I said, the essential part of my last letter has since been overtaken, particularly by your paper in Z. f. Physik. For this reason I have afterward even regretted that I wrote to you. After studying your paper I believe that I have really understood what you wanted to do (this was not the case in respect of the little note in the Proc.Nat.Acad.). First let me emphasize that side of the matter concerning which I am in full agreement with you: your incorporation of spinor theory into gravitational theory. I am as dissatisfied as you are with distant parallelism and your proposal to let the tetrads rotate independently at different space-points is a true solution.*]{}
In brackets Pauli adds:
> [*Here I must admit your ability in Physics. Your earlier theory with $g'_{ik}=\lambda
> g_{ik}$ was pure mathematics and unphysical. Einstein was justified in criticizing and scolding. Now the hour of your revenge has arrived.*]{}
Then he remarks in connection with the mass-problem:
> [*Your method is valid even for the massive [\[Dirac\]]{} case. I thereby come to the other side of the matter, namely the unsolved difficulties of the Dirac theory (two signs of $m_{0}$) and the question of the 2-component theory. In my opinion these problems will not be solved by gravitation …the gravitational effects will always be much too small.*]{}
Many years later, Weyl summarized this early tortuous history of gauge theory in an instructive letter [@See] to the Swiss writer and Einstein biographer C.Seelig, which we reproduce in an English translation.
> [*The first attempt to develop a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism dates to my first attempt in 1918, in which I added the principle of gauge-invariance to that of coordinate invariance. I myself have long since abandoned this theory in favour of its correct interpretation: gauge-invariance as a principle that connects electromagnetism not with gravitation but with the wave-field of the electron. —Einstein was against it*]{} \[the original theory\] [*from the beginning, and this led to many discussions. I thought that I could answer his concrete objections. In the end he said “Well, Weyl, let us leave it at that! In such a speculative manner, without any guiding physical principle, one cannot make Physics.” Today one could say that in this respect we have exchanged our points of view. Einstein believes that in this field*]{} \[Gravitation and Electromagnetism\] [*the gap between ideas and experience is so wide that only the path of mathematical speculation, whose consequences must, of course, be developed and confronted with experiment, has a chance of success. Meanwhile my own confidence in pure speculation has diminished, and I see a need for a closer connection with quantum-physics experiments, since in my opinion it is not sufficient to unify Electromagnetism and Gravity. The wave-fields of the electron and whatever other irreducible elementary particles may appear must also be included.* ]{}
>
> Independently of Weyl, V. Fock [@Fo2] also incorporated the Dirac equation into GR by using the same method. On the other hand, H. Tetrode [@Tet], E. Schrödinger [@Sch3] and V. Bargmann [@Bar] reached this goal by starting with space-time dependent $\gamma$-matrices, satisfying $\left\lbrace\gamma^{\mu},\,\gamma^{\nu}\right\rbrace=2\,g^{\mu\nu}$. A somewhat later work by L. Infeld and B.L. van der Waerden [@Wae] is based on spinor analysis.
Concluding Remarks
==================
Gauge invariance became a serious problem when Heisenberg and Pauli began to work on a relativistically invariant QED that eventually resulted in two important papers “On the Quantum Dynamics of Wave Fields” [@HP1], [@HP2]. Straightforward application of the canonical formalism led, already for the free electromagnetic field, to nonsensical results. Jordan and Pauli on the other hand, proceeded to show how to quantize the theory of the *free field* case by dealing only with the field strengths $F_{\mu\nu}(x)$. For these they found commutation relations at different space-time points in terms of the now famous invariant Jordan-Pauli distribution that are manifestly Lorentz invariant.
The difficulties concerned with applying the canonical formalism to the electromagnetic field continued to plaque Heisenberg and Pauli for quite some time. By mid-1928 both were very pessimistic, and Heisenberg began to work on ferromagnetism[^6]. In fall of 1928 Heisenberg discovered a way to bypass the difficulties. He added the term $-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2$ to the Lagrangian, in which case the component $\pi_0$ of the canonical momenta $$\pi_\mu=\frac{\partial L}{\partial_0A_\mu}$$ does no more vanish identically ($\pi_0=-\varepsilon \partial_\mu A^\mu$). The standard canonical quantization scheme can then be applied. At the end of all calculations one could then take the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$.
In their second paper, Heisenberg and Pauli stressed that the Lorentz condition cannot be imposed as an operator identity but only as a supplementary condition selecting admissible states. This discussion was strongly influenced by a paper of Fermi from May 1929.
For this and the further main developments during the early period of quantum field theory, we refer to chapter 1 of [@SS].
As in Weyl’s work GR also played a crucial role in Pauli’s discovery of non-Abelian gauge theories. (See Pauli’s letters to Pais and Yang in Vol. 4 of [@P1]). He arrived at all basic equations through dimensional reduction of a generalization of Kaluza-Klein theory, in which the internal space becomes a two-sphere. (For a description in modern language, see [@RS]).
In contrast, in the work of Yang and Mills GR played no role. In an interview Yang said on this in 1991:
> “*It happened that one semester \[around 1970\] I was teaching GR, and I noticed that the formula in gauge theory for the field strength and the formula in Riemannian geometry for the Riemann tensor are not just similar – they are, in fact, the same if one makes the right identification of symbols! It is hard to describe the thrill I felt at understanding this point.*”
The developments after 1958 consisted in the gradual recognition that—contrary to phenomenological appearances—Yang-Mills gauge theory could describe weak and strong interactions. This important step was again very difficult, with many hurdles to overcome.
[99]{}
H. Weyl, [*Space $\cdot$ Time $\cdot$ Matter.*]{} Translated from the 4th German Edition. London: Methuen 1922. [*Raum $\cdot$ Zeit $\cdot$ Materie*]{}, 8. Auflage, Springer-Verlag (1993).
H. Weyl, [*Gravitation und Elektrizität.*]{} Sitzungsber. Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin, 465-480 (1918). Siehe auch die [*Gesammelten Abhandlungen.*]{} 6 Vols. Ed. K. Chadrasekharan, Springer-Verlag (an English translation is given in [@LO1]).
*The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein*, Vols. 1-9 (Princeton University Press, 1987). See also: \[http:www. einstein.caltech.edu/\].
N. Straumann, [*Zum Ursprung der Eichtheorien bei Hermann Weyl.*]{} Physikalische Blätter [**43**]{} (11), 414-421 (1987).
H. Weyl, [*Elektron und Gravitation. I.*]{} Z. Phys. [**56**]{}, 330 (1929).
W. Pauli, *Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a.* Vol.1-4, edited by K. von Meyenn (Springer-Verlag, New York).
L. O’Raifeartaigh, [*The Dawning of Gauge Theory.*]{} Princeton University Press.
J. Audretsch, F. Gähler and N. Straumann, [*Comm.Math.Phys.*]{} [**95**]{}, 41 (1984).
W. Pauli, [*Zur Theorie der Gravitation und der Elektrizität von H. Weyl.*]{} Physikalische Zeitschrift [**20**]{}, 457-467 (1919).
W. Pauli, [*Relativitätstheorie.*]{} Encyklopädie der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 5.3, Leipzig: Teubner, 539-775 (1921). W. Pauli, [*Theory of Relativity.*]{} Pergamon Press, New York (1958).
F. London, [*Quantenmechanische Deutung der Theorie von Weyl.*]{} Z. Phys. [**42**]{}, 375 (1927).
E. Schrödinger, Z. Phys. [**12**]{}, 13 (1922).
V. Raman and P. Forman, Hist. Studies. Phys. Sci. [**1**]{}, 291 (1969).
E. Schrödinger, [*Centenary Celebration of a Polymath*]{}, ed. C. Kilmister, Cambridge Univ. Press (1987).
V. Fock, Z. Phys. [**39**]{}, 226 (1926).
H. Weyl, [*Selecta.*]{} Birkhäuser-Verlag 1956.
E. Wigner Z. Phys. [**53**]{}, 592 (1929).
C.M. Case, Phys. Rev. [**107**]{}, 307 (1957).
E. Cartan, Leçons sur la G$\acute{\rm e}$om$\acute{\rm e}$trie des Espaces de Riemann, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1928; 2nd edn., 1946.
N. Straumann, [*General Relativity, With Applications to Astrophysics*]{}, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer Verlag, 2004.
C.N. Yang, [*Hermann Weyl’s Contribution to Physics.*]{} In: [*Hermann Weyl*]{}, Edited by K. Chandrasekharan, Springer-Verlag 1980.
H. Weyl, [*Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik.*]{} Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1981 (Nachdruck der 2. Aufl., Leipzig 1931). Engl. translation: “Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics”, Dover, New York, 1950.
[@P1], p. 518.
In Carl Seelig: [*Albert Einstein*]{}. Europa Verlag Zürich 1960, p. 274.
V. Fock, Z. Phys. [**57**]{}, 261 (1929).
H. Tetrode, Z. Phys. [**50**]{}, 336 (1928).
E. Schrödinger, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., [**105**]{} (1932).
V. Bargmann, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., [**346**]{} (1932).
L. Infeld and B.L. van der Waerden, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., [**380**]{} and [**474**]{} (1932).
L. O‘Raifeartaigh and N. Straumann, *Gauge Theory: Historical Origins and Some Modern Developments.* Rev. Mod. Phys. **72**, 1-23 (2000).
J.D. Jackson and L.B. Okun, *Historical Roots of Gauge Invariance*. Rev. Mod. Phys. **73** 663-680 (2001).
W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli. *Zur Quantenelektrodynamik der Wellenfelder. I*. Zeitschrift für Physik, **56**, 1- 61 (1929). W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli. Z*ur Quantenelektrodynamik der Wellenfelder. II*. Zeitschrift für Physik, **59**, 168- 190 (1930).
S.S. Schweber, S.S. (1994). *QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga*. Princeton Univ. Press (1994), Princeton, N.J. .
O. Klein , [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{}, 895 (1926); for an English translation see [@LO1].
[^1]: Invited talk at PHOTON2005, *The Photon: Its First Hundred Years and the Future*, 31.8-04.09, 2005, Warsaw.
[^2]: Soon after our joint paper appeared in print Lochlain O‘Raifeartaigh died suddenly, to the great sorrow and surprise of his family and numerous friends. I would like to dedicate this contribution to the memory of Lochlain.
[^3]: The integrand in (\[2.8\]) is in local coordinates indeed just the expression $R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} R^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \sqrt{-g}dx^{0}\wedge\ldots\wedge
dx^{3}$ which is used by Weyl ($R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$= the curvature tensor of the Weyl connection).
[^4]: We adopt here the somewhat naive interpretation of energy-momentum conservation for generally invariant theories of the older literature.
[^5]: At the time it was thought by Weyl, and indeed by all physicists, that the 2-component theory requires a zero mass. In 1957, after the discovery of parity nonconservation, it was found that the 2-component theory could be consistent with a finite mass. See K.M. Case, [@Case].
[^6]: Pauli turned to literature. In a letter of 18 February 1929 he wrote from Zürich to Oskar Klein: “For my proper amusement I then made a short sketch of a utopian novel which was supposed to have the title ‘Gulivers journey to Urania’ and was intended as a political satire in the style of Swift against present-day democracy. \[...\] Caught in such dreams, suddenly in January, news from Heisenberg reached me that he is able, with the aid of a trick ... to get rid of the formal difficulties that stood against the execution of our quantum electrodynamics.” [@P1]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension three. We prove that there exists a projective manifold $Y$ such that $\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(Y)$. We also prove the bimeromorphic existence of algebraic approximations for compact Kähler manifolds of algebraic dimension $\dim X-1$. Together with the work of Graf and the third author, this settles in particular the bimeromorphic Kodaira problem for compact Kähler threefolds.'
address:
- 'Benoît Claudon, Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, B.P. 70239, 54506 Vand[œ]{}uvre-lès-Nancy Cedex, France'
- 'Andreas Höring, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, LJAD, France'
- 'Hsueh-Yung Lin'
author:
- Benoît Claudon
- Andreas Höring
- 'Hsueh-Yung Lin'
title: The fundamental group of compact Kähler threefolds
---
Introduction
============
Main result
-----------
Compact Kähler manifolds arise naturally as generalisations of complex projective manifolds, and Kodaira’s problem asked if every compact Kähler manifold is deformation equivalent to a projective manifold. A positive answer to this problem trivially implies that the larger class of Kähler manifolds realises the same topological invariants. The classification of analytic surfaces [@Kod] implies a positive answer to Kodaira’s problem in this case (cf. also [@Buc08] for a different approach). However, Voisin’s counterexamples [@Voi04; @Voi07] show that there exist compact Kähler manifolds of dimension at least four that do not deform to projective ones. Nevertheless it is interesting to study Kodaira’s problem at the level of some specific topological invariants, like the fundamental group:
\[conjecturegroups\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold. Then the fundamental group $\pi_1(X)$ is projective, i.e. there exists a projective manifold $M$ such that $\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(M)$.
Note that unlike other problems on fundamental groups, this conjecture does not reduce to the case of surfaces: while, by the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem, the fundamental group of any projective manifold is realised by a projective surface, it is a priori not clear if the same holds in the Kähler category. Several partial results on Conjecture \[conjecturegroups\] have been obtained in the last years (cf. [@CCE1], [@CCE2 Théorème 0.2], and [@Cla16 Corollary 1.3]). In this paper we give a complete answer in dimension three:
\[theorempione\] Let $X$ be a smooth compact Kähler threefold. Then $\pi_1(X)$ is projective.
The proof of the result comes in several steps: if $X$ is covered by rational curves, then its MRC-fibration $X \dashrightarrow Z$ induces an isomorphism $\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(Z)$ [@Kol93 Theorem 5.2] [@BC15 Corollary 1], so we are done. If $X$ is not covered by rational curves, we make a case distinction based on the algebraic dimension, i.e. the transcendence degree of the field of meromorphic functions on $X$. The case $a(X)=0$ has been solved in [@CC14] (see also [@Gra16 Corollary 1.8]), and for the case $a(X)=1$ we can describe in detail the structure of the fundamental group using the algebraic reduction $X {\dashrightarrow}C$ dominating a curve[^1]. The most difficult case is when $a(X)=2$, where the resolution of the algebraic reduction defines an elliptic fibration $X' \rightarrow S$ over a surface. Here the structure of the fundamental group is not known, even for a projective threefold. The main contribution of this paper is to use the theory of elliptic fibrations developed by Nakayama [@NakW; @Nak02c; @NakLocal] to show the existence of a smooth bimeromorphic model $X'$ of $X$ which admits algebraic approximations. The arguments work in fact without the assumption that $\dim X = 3$. We will then derive the projectivity of Kähler groups in this case as a corollary.
Algebraic approximation
-----------------------
Voisin’s examples [@Voi07] show that there exist compact Kähler manifolds of dimension at least eight such that none of their [*smooth*]{} bimeromorphic models deform to a projective manifold. Her examples are uniruled and up to now, no non-uniruled manifold has been discovered which satisfies the same property. In higher dimension, mild singularities occur naturally in the bimeromorphic models considered by the minimal model program. In this spirit, Peternell and independently Campana proposed a more flexible, bimeromorphic version of Kodaira’s problem:
\[conjectureapproximation\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold that is not uniruled. Then there exists a bimeromorphic map $X \dashrightarrow X'$ to a normal compact Kähler space $X'$ with terminal singularities that admits an algebraic approximation (cf. Definition \[definitionapproximation\]).
Algebraic approximation provides an explicit way to prove that a Kähler group is projective: since $X'$ has terminal singularities, the fundamental group is invariant under the bimeromorphic map $X \dashrightarrow X'$ [@Tak03]. If we can always choose the algebraic approximation $\mathcal X \rightarrow \Delta$ to be a locally trivial deformation in the sense of [@FK87 p.627] [@Ser06], then Conjecture \[conjectureapproximation\] implies Conjecture \[conjecturegroups\].
Very recently Graf [@Gra16] and the third author [@Lin16; @Lin17a; @Lin17b] have made progress on the Kodaira problem, by proving the existence of algebraic approximations for all smooth compact Kähler threefolds of Kodaira dimension ${\kappa}$ at most one (including the case ${\kappa}= -\infty$, namely uniruled threefolds [@a21 Cor.1.4]). We prove Conjecture \[conjectureapproximation\] for manifolds of the highest algebraic dimension:
\[theoremapproximation\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold of algebraic dimension $a(X)= \dim X - 1$. Then there exists a bimeromorphic map $X' \dashrightarrow X$ such that $X'$ is a compact Kähler manifold admitting an algebraic approximation.
As $\kappa(X) \le a(X)$, the conclusion of Theorem \[theoremapproximation\] holds in particular when $\kappa(X) = \dim X-1$. Thus Theorem \[theoremapproximation\] together with [@Gra16; @Lin16; @Lin17b] establish Conjecture \[conjectureapproximation\] for all compact Kähler threefolds. As far as we can see, our techniques do not imply the existence of algebraic approximations for threefolds whose algebraic reduction $X' \rightarrow S$ is over a surface. In fact while resolving the bimeromorphic map $X' \dashrightarrow X$ appearing in our statement, one might blow up some curves that are not contracted by $X' \rightarrow S$. In this case it is difficult to relate the deformation theories of $X$ and $X' \rightarrow S$. Thus the biregular Kodaira problem is still open for threefolds with $a(X) = 2$.
Finally as we already mentioned above, Theorem \[theoremapproximation\] has the following immediate corollary on the projectivity of Kähler fundamental groups.
\[theoremmain\] Let $X$ be a smooth compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$ and algebraic dimension $a(X)=n-1$. Then $\pi_1(X)$ is projective.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We would like to thank J. Cao, A. Dimca, P. Graf, J. Kollár, and N. Nakayama for very helpful communications on the various technical problems related to this project. This work was partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche grant project Foliage (ANR-16-CE40-0008) and Hodgefun (ANR-16-CE40-0011-02).
Notation and basic definitions
==============================
All complex spaces are supposed to be of finite dimension, a complex manifold is a smooth Hausdorff irreducible complex space. A fibration is a proper surjective morphism with connected fibres between complex spaces. A fibration $\varphi: X \rightarrow Y$ is locally projective if there exists an open covering $U_i \subset Y$ such that ${\ensuremath{\varphi^{-1} (U_i)}} \rightarrow U_i$ is projective, i.e. admits a relatively ample line bundle.
We refer to [@Gra62; @Fujiki78; @Dem85] for basic definitions about $(p,q)$-forms and Kähler forms in the singular case.
\[definitionkaehlermorphism\] Let ${\ensuremath{\varphi:X \rightarrow Y}}$ be a fibration. A relative Kähler form is a [*smooth*]{} real closed $(1,1)$-form $\omega$ such that for every $\varphi$-fibre $F$, the restriction $\omega|_F$ is a Kähler form. We say that $\varphi$ is a Kähler fibration if such a relative Kähler form exists.
\[remarkrelplusbase\] If $\varphi$ is a Kähler fibration over a Kähler base $Y$, then $X_U := {\ensuremath{\varphi^{-1} (U)}} $ is Kähler for every relatively compact open set $U \subset Y$. In fact if $\omega_X$ is a relative Kähler form on $X$ and $\omega_Y$ is a Kähler form on $Y$, then for all $m \gg 0$ the form $\omega_X + m \varphi^* \omega_Y$ is Kähler [@Bin83 Proposition 4.6 (2)], [@Fujiki78].
\[definitionapproximation\] Let $X$ be a normal compact Kähler space. We say that $X$ admits an algebraic approximation if there exist a flat morphism $\pi: \mathcal X \rightarrow \Delta$ and a sequence $(t_n)_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ in $\Delta$ converging to $0$ such that ${\ensuremath{\pi^{-1} (0)}}$ is isomorphic to $X$ and ${\ensuremath{\pi^{-1} (t_n)}}$ is a projective variety for all $n$.
In general a flat deformation does not preserve the fundamental group, this holds however for deformations that are locally trivial in the sense of [@FK87 p.627]. For the case of fibrations we will work with an even more restricted class of deformations:
\[definitionlocallytrivial\] Let ${\ensuremath{\varphi:X \rightarrow S}}$ be a fibration between normal compact complex spaces. A locally trivial deformation of $(X, \varphi)$ is a pair of fibrations $$\pi: \mathcal X \rightarrow \Delta, \qquad \Phi: \mathcal X \rightarrow S \times \Delta$$ such that $\pi = p_S \circ \Phi$, where ${\ensuremath{p_S:S \times \Delta \rightarrow \Delta}}$ is the projection onto the first factor and the following holds:
- $X \simeq {\ensuremath{\pi^{-1} (0)}}$ and $\varphi = \Phi|_{{\ensuremath{\pi^{-1} (0)}}}$;
- There exists an open cover $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ of $S$ such that (up to replacing $\Delta$ by a smaller polydisc containing $0$) we have $${\ensuremath{\Phi^{-1} (U_i \times \Delta)}} \simeq {\ensuremath{\varphi^{-1} (U_i)}} \times \Delta$$ for all $i \in I$.
Let us recall some basic definitions on geometric orbifolds introduced in [@Cam04]. They are pairs $(X,\Delta)$ where $X$ is a complex manifold and $\Delta$ a Weil ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$-divisor; they appear naturally as bases of fibrations to describe their multiple fibres: let [$\varphi:X \rightarrow Y$]{} be a fibration between compact Kähler manifolds and consider $\vert\Delta\vert\subset Y$ the union of the codimension one components of the $\varphi$-singular locus. If $D\subset\vert\Delta\vert$, we can write $$\varphi^*(D)=\sum_j m_jD_j+R,$$ where $D_j$ is mapped onto $D$ and $\varphi(R)$ has codimension at least 2 in $Y$.
The integer $m(\varphi,D)=\mathrm{gcd}_j(m_j)$ is called the classical multiplicity of $\varphi$ above $D$ and we can consider the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$-divisor $$\label{orbifoldbase}
\Delta=\sum_{D\subset \vert\Delta\vert}(1-\frac{1}{m(\varphi,D)})D.$$ The pair $(Y,\Delta)$ is called the *orbifold base* of $\varphi$.
\[remarkmultiplicitieselliptic\] In Campana’s work [@Cam04] both the classical and the non-classical multiplicities $\mathrm{inf}_j(m_j)$ play an important role. Let us note that for elliptic fibrations, these multiplicities coincide: the problem is local on the base, moreover we can reduce to the case of a relatively minimal elliptic fibration. Then it is sufficient to observe that in Kodaira’s classification of singular fibres which are not multiple [@Kod60], [@BHPV04 Chapter V, Table 3], there is always at least one irreducible component of multiplicity one.
Let us recall what smoothness means for a geometric orbifold.
A geometric orbifold $(X/\Delta)$ is said to be smooth if the underlying variety $X$ is a smooth manifold and if the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$-divisor $\Delta$ has only normal crossings. If in a coordinate patch, the support of $\Delta$ can be defined by an equation $$\prod_{j=1}^r z_j=0,$$ we will say that these coordinates are adapted to $\Delta$.
In the category of smooth orbifolds, there is a good notion of fundamental group. It is defined in the following way : if $\Delta=\sum_{j\in J}(1-\frac{1}{m_j})\Delta_j$, choose a small loop $\gamma_j$ around each component $\Delta_j$ of the support of $\Delta$. Consider now the fundamental group of $X^\star=X\backslash \textrm{Supp}(\Delta)$ and its normal subgroup generated by the loops $\gamma_j^{m_j}$: $$\langle\!\langle \gamma_j^{m_j},\,j\in J \rangle\!\rangle \leq \pi_1(X^\star).$$
\[defipi1orbifold\] The fundamental group of $(X/\Delta)$ is defined to be: $$\pi_1(X/\Delta):=\pi_1(X^\star)/\langle\!\langle \gamma_j^{m_j},\,j\in J \rangle\!\rangle.$$
\[remarkp1orbifold\] By definition the loops $\gamma_j$ define torsion elements in $\pi_1(X/\Delta)$. Thus we see that if $\pi_1(X/\Delta)$ is torsion-free, the natural surjection $ \pi_1(X/\Delta) \twoheadrightarrow \pi_1(X)$ is an isomorphism.
Elliptic fibrations
===================
The structure of elliptic fibrations and their deformation theory has been described in detail in the landmark paper of Kodaira [@Kod60] for surfaces and its generalisation to higher dimension by Nakayama [@NakLocal; @Nak02c]. For the convenience of the reader we review this theory and explain some additional properties that will be important in the proof of Theorem \[theoremapproximation\].
Smooth fibrations and their deformations {#subsectiondeformations}
----------------------------------------
Let $S^\star$ be a complex manifold, and let ${\ensuremath{f^\star:X^\star \rightarrow S^\star}}$ be a smooth elliptic fibration. We associate a variation of Hodge structures $H$ (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> for short in the sequel) of weight 1 over $S^\star$, the underlying local system being given by the first cohomology group of the fibers $H^1(X_s,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})\simeq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$. A rank 2 and weight 1 <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> over $S^\star$ is equivalent to the following data: a holomorphic function to the upper half plane $$\tau_H:\widetilde{S^\star}\to \mathbb{H}$$ defined on the universal cover $\widetilde{S^\star} \rightarrow S^\star$ which is equivariant under a representation $$\rho_H:\pi_1(S^\star){\longrightarrow}\mathrm{SL}_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}).$$ Now if $\gamma\in\pi_1(S^\star)$, let us write $$\rho_H(\gamma)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_\gamma & b_\gamma \\ c_\gamma & d_\gamma
\end{array}\right)$$ the image of $\gamma$ under $\rho_H$. It is then straightforward to check that the following formula $$((m,n),\gamma)\cdot (x,z)=\left(\gamma(x),\frac{z+m\tau_H(x)+n}{c_\gamma\tau_H(x)+d_\gamma}\right)$$ defines an action of the semi-direct product ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^2\rtimes \pi_1(S^\star)$ on $\tilde{S^\star}\times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ which is fixed point free and properly discontinuous. We can then form the quotient to get a smooth elliptic fibration $$p:\mathbf{J}(H){\longrightarrow}S^\star$$ which is endowed with a canonical section $\sigma:S^\star\to \mathbf{J}(H)$. Following the terminology of [@Kod; @Nak02c] we call $p$ the *basic elliptic fibration* (associated to $H$). Note that $f^\star$ and $p$ are locally isomorphic over $S^\star$, but their global structure can be quite different.
Since $p$ has a global section, its sheaf of holomorphic sections $\mathcal{J}(H)$ is a well-defined sheaf of abelian groups and we have an exact sequence of sheaves $$\label{eq:exp sequence smooth}
0{\longrightarrow}H{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{L}_H{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{J}(H){\longrightarrow}0$$ where $$\mathcal{L}_H := R^1p_*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{J}(H)} \simeq R^1f^\star_* \mathcal{O}_{X^\star}.$$ Let us note that $\mathcal{L}_H$ can also be interpreted as the zeroth graded piece ${\mathcal{H}}/F^1{\mathcal{H}}$ of the Hodge filtration on ${\mathcal{H}}{\mathrel{:=}}H \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{S^\star}$ and thus depends only on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> $H$. Since $f^\star$ is smooth, it has local sections over every point of $S^\star$ and the difference of two such sections on the intersection of their sets of definition can be seen as a section of $\mathcal{J}(H)$. In this way we have just associated a cohomology class $$\eta(f^\star)\in H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{J}(H))$$ to $f^\star$, which is independent of the choices of local sections. The class $\eta(f^\star)$ can be also constructed in a more conceptual way. Pushing forward the exponential sequence on $X^\star$ by $f^\star$ yields a long exact sequence on $S^\star$: $$\label{eq:push forward exp sequence}
0{\longrightarrow}R^1f^\star_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X{\longrightarrow}R^1f^\star_*\mathcal{O}_X{\longrightarrow}R^1f^\star_*\mathcal{O}^*_X
{\longrightarrow}R^2f^\star_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X\simeq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{S^\star} {\longrightarrow}0$$ Recall that $\mathcal{J}(H) =R^1f^\star_*\mathcal{O}_X/R^1f^\star_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X$, the class $\eta(f^\star)$ is the image of $1\in H^0(S^\star,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{S^\star})$ under the connecting morphism $$\delta :H^0(S^\star,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_{S^\star}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{J}(H)).$$ The map $\eta$ is in fact a bijection.
\[theoremsmoothtorsor\] [@Kod Theorem 10.1, Theorem 11.5] [@NakLocal Proposition 1.3.1, Proposition 1.3.3] Let $S^\star$ be a complex manifold, and let $H$ be a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> of rank 2 and weight 1 over $S^\star$.
(a) The map $f^\star \mapsto \eta(f^\star)$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between the isomorphism classes of smooth elliptic fibrations over $S^\star$ inducing $H$ and the elements of the cohomology group $H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{J}(H))$.
(b) A smooth elliptic fibration $f^\star:X^\star\to S^\star$ is a projective morphism if and only if $\eta(f^\star)$ is a torsion class.
The short exact sequence induces an exact sequence $$\label{eq:def space H^1}
H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{L}_H)\stackrel{\mathrm{exp}}{{\longrightarrow}}H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{J}(H))\stackrel{\mathtt{c}}{{\longrightarrow}} H^2(S^\star,H).$$ The vector space $V {\mathrel{:=}}H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{L}_H)$ appears as a deformation space of smooth elliptic fibrations over $S^\star$. More precisely, given an elliptic fibration $f^\star:X^\star\to S^\star$ inducing $H$, there exists a family of elliptic fibrations $\Pi : {\mathcal{X}}\to S^\star \times V$ over $S^\star$ parameterized by $V$ such that the fiber over $t\in H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{L}_H)$ is an elliptic fibration whose associated element in $H^1(S^\star,\mathcal{J}(H))$ is $\exp(t) + \eta(f^\star)$. Viewing $\Pi$ as a smooth elliptic fibration, the cohomology class $\eta(\Pi) \in H^1(S^\star \times V,\mathcal{J}({\mathrm{pr}}^*H))$ associated to $\Pi$ is equal to $\exp(\xi) + {\mathrm{pr}}^*\eta(f^\star)$, where ${\mathrm{pr}}: S^\star \times V \to S^\star$ denotes the projection onto the first factor and $$\xi \in H^1(S^\star ,\mathcal{L}_{H}) \otimes H^0(V,\mathcal{O}_{V}) \subset H^1(S^\star \times V,\mathcal{L}_{{\mathrm{pr}}^*H})$$ the element which corresponds to the identity map $V \to H^1(S^\star ,\mathcal{L}_{H})$.
\[theoremsmoothdeformation\] [@Cla16 Proposition 2.4 and 2.5]
(a) Let ${\ensuremath{f_1^\star:X_1^\star \rightarrow S^\star}}$ and ${\ensuremath{f_2^\star:X_2^\star \rightarrow S^\star}}$ be two smooth elliptic fibrations over $S^\star$ inducing $H$. Then $f_1^\star$ can be deformed into $f_2^\star$ in the family described above if and only if $\mathtt{c}(\eta(f_1^\star))=\mathtt{c}(\eta(f_2^\star))$
(b) Let $f^\star:X^\star\to S^\star$ be a smooth elliptic fibration such that $X^\star$ is Kähler. Then $\mathtt{c}(\eta(f^\star))$ is torsion and $f^\star$ can be deformed to a projective fibration.
Local structures and Weierstra[ß]{} models {#subs:local_structure}
------------------------------------------
\[definitionelliptic\] An elliptic fibration ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ is a fibration whose general fibre $X_s$ is isomorphic to an elliptic curve. The elliptic fibration $f$ is relatively minimal if $K_X$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}$-Cartier and there exists a line bundle $L$ on $S$ such that $$m K_X \simeq f^* L$$ for some $m \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^*$.
We say that $f$ has a meromorphic section in a point $s \in S$ if there exists an analytic neighbourhood $s \in U \subset S$ and a meromorphic map ${\ensuremath{s:U \dashrightarrow X}}$ such that $f \circ s$ is the inclusion $U {\hookrightarrow}S$.
Apart from smooth elliptic fibrations discussed in the last section, the second simplest examples of elliptic fibrations are Weierstraß fibrations. These fibrations turn out to be crucial in the study of elliptic fibrations.
\[definitionweierstrass\] Let $S$ be a complex manifold.
(a) A Weierstraß fibration over $S$ consists of a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $S$ and two sections $\alpha\in H^0(S,\mathcal{L}^{(-4)})$ and $\beta\in H^0(S,\mathcal{L}^{(-6)})$ such that $4\alpha^3+27\beta^2$ is a non zero section of $H^0(S,\mathcal{L}^{(-12)})$. With these data, we can associate a projective family of elliptic curves: $$\mathbb{W}:=\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{L},\alpha,\beta)={\left\{Y^2Z=X^3+\alpha XZ^2+\beta Z^3\right\}}
\subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}$$ where $${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}:={\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(\mathcal{O}_S\oplus \mathcal{L}^2\oplus \mathcal{L}^3)$$ and $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ are canonical sections of $\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(1)\otimes \mathcal{L}^{(-2)}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(1)\otimes \mathcal{L}^{(-3)}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}(1)$ respectively. The restriction of the natural projection ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}\to S$ to $\mathbb{W}$ gives rise to a flat morphism $p_\mathbb{W}:\mathbb{W}\to S$ whose fibres are irreducible cubic plane curves. This elliptic fibration is endowed with a distinguished section ${\left\{X=Z=0\right\}}$.
(b) A Weierstra[ß]{} fibration $\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{L},\alpha,\beta)$ is said to be minimal if there is no prime divisor ${\Delta}\subset S$ such that $\mathrm{div}(\alpha) \ge 4 {\Delta}$ and $\mathrm{div}(\beta) \ge 6 {\Delta}$.
(c) A (minimal) locally Weierstraß fibration is an elliptic fibration ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ such that there exists an open covering $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ of $S$ such that the restriction of $f$ to $X_i:={\ensuremath{f^{-1} (U_i)}}$ is a (minimal) Weierstraß fibration.
\[remarkpropertiesweierstrass\] Since the total space of the Weierstraß fibration $p_\mathbb{W}:\mathbb{W}\to S$ is by definition a hypersurface in a manifold, the complex space $\mathbb{W}$ is Gorenstein, so the canonical sheaf is locally free. In the case where $\mathbb{W}(\mathcal{L},\alpha,\beta)$ is minimal and the discriminant divisor $\mathrm{div}(4\alpha^3+27\beta^2)$ has normal crossings, we know by [@NakW Corollary 2.4] that $\mathbb{W}$ has rational, hence canonical, singularities (and it holds of course for the total space of a locally Weierstraß fibration). Since $p_\mathbb{W}$ is flat and the restriction of $K_{\mathbb{W}}$ to every fibre is trivial, we have $K_{\mathbb{W}} \simeq p^*_\mathbb{W} L$ for some line bundle $L$ on $S$. Thus a locally Weierstraß fibration is relatively minimal.
It is well-known that smooth elliptic fibrations with a section are always Weierstraß:
\[th:rep weierstrass smooth\] [@Kod] [@NakLocal Proposition 1.2.4] Let $S$ be a complex manifold, and let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be a smooth elliptic fibration admitting a section ${\ensuremath{s:S \rightarrow X}}$. Then there exists a canonically defined isomorphism $X \rightarrow \mathbb{W}$ over $S$ to some Weierstraß fibration $\mathbb{W} \rightarrow S$ sending $s$ onto the distinguished section.
For non-smooth fibrations we can only hope to work with bimeromorphic models:
\[definitiongenweierstrassmodel\] Let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be an elliptic fibration and let ${\ensuremath{f^\star:X^\star \rightarrow S^\star}}$ denote the restriction to a non-empty Zariski open subset $S^\star \subset S$ such that $f$ is smooth. A (locally) Weierstraß model of $f$ is a (locally) Weierstraß fibration $p : \mathbb{W} \rightarrow S$ such that $X^\star$ is isomorphic to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\star {\mathrel{:=}}p^{-1}(S^\star)$ over $S$.
The existence of meromorphic sections is an obvious necessary condition for the existence of a Weierstraß model. When the base $S$ is smooth, it is also sufficient:
\[theoremlocalproperties\] [@NakW Theorem 2.5] Let $S$ be a complex manifold, and let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be an elliptic fibration. If $f$ admits a meromorphic section, then $f$ has a unique minimal Weierstraß model.
For a similar statement concerning locally Weierstraß model, we refer to Remark \[rem-locW\].
The following vanishing result will be useful.
\[thm-van\] [@NakLocal Theorem 3.2.3] Let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be an elliptic fibration such that both $X$ and $S$ are smooth and that $f$ is smooth over the complement of a normal crossing divisor in $S$. Then we have $$R^j f_* {{\mathcal O}}_X = 0 \qquad \forall \ j \geq 2.$$
The following example explains the importance of the normal crossing condition for the theory of elliptic fibrations:
Let $S$ be a smooth non-algebraic compact Kähler surface that admits an elliptic fibration ${\ensuremath{g:S \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1}}$. Let $\mathbb F_1 \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1$ be the first Hirzebruch surface, and set $X:= \mathbb F_1 \times_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1} S$. Then $X$ is a smooth compact Kähler threefold, and we denote by $f: X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^2$ the composition of the elliptic fibration $X \rightarrow \mathbb F_1$ with the blowdown $\mathbb F_1 \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^2$.
Then $f$ is not locally projective since it has a two-dimensional fibre isomorphic to the non-projective surface $S$. Note however that $g$ has at least $3$ singular fibres ([@Bea81 Proposition 1], cf. Proposition \[propositionbeauvillekaehler\] for a detailed proof in the Kähler case). Thus the discriminant locus of $f$ consists of at least $3$ lines meeting in one point. In particular it is not a normal crossing divisor and it is quite easy to see that $R^2f_*{{\mathcal O}}_X\neq0$ in this case.
A general elliptic fibration does not admit local meromorphic sections at every point, a fact that is the starting point of Nakayama’s global theory of elliptic fibration using the $\partial$-étale cohomology. For our needs we can use the strategy of Kodaira [@Kod] to reduce to this case via base change:
\[prop:local meromorphic section\] Let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be an elliptic fibration such that both $X$ and $S$ are smooth and that $f$ is smooth over the complement of a normal crossing divisor in $S$. Suppose that $f$ is locally projective (e.g. when $X$ is a Kähler manifold [@NakLocal Theorem 3.3.3]) and $S$ is projective, then there exists a finite Galois cover $\tilde S \rightarrow S$ by some projective manifold $\tilde S$ such that $$X \times_S \tilde S \rightarrow \tilde S$$ has local meromorphic sections over every point of $\tilde{S}$. The elliptic fibration $X \times_S \tilde S \rightarrow \tilde S$ is smooth over the complement of a normal crossing divisor in $\tilde S$.
This statement is a variant of [@NakLocal Corollary 4.3.3]: in our case $S$ is projective, but we lose the control over the branch locus.
For every irreducible component $D_i$ of $D$ we denote by $m_i \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ the multiplicity of the generic fibre over $D_i$. By [@Laz04a Proposition 4.1.12] we can choose a covering $\tilde S \rightarrow S$ ramifying with multiplicity exactly $m_i$ over $D_i$ and the ramification divisor has normal crossings. By construction the elliptic fibration $X \times_S \tilde S \rightarrow \tilde S$ has no multiple fibre in codimension one. Up to taking another finite cover and the Galois closure we can suppose that $\tilde S \rightarrow S$ is Galois and the local monodromies are unipotent. Since the elliptic fibration is locally projective, we can now apply [@NakLocal Theorem 4.3.1 and 4.3.2] to conclude that it has local meromorphic sections over every point of $\tilde S$.
Elliptic fibrations with local meromorphic sections
---------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we always work under the following
\[assume\] Let $S$ be a complex manifold, and let ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ be an elliptic fibration having local meromorphic sections over every point of $S$. We denote by $j: S^\star \subset S$ a Zariski open subset such that $X^\star := {\ensuremath{f^{-1} (S^\star)}}
\rightarrow S^\star$ is smooth and assume that the complement $S \setminus S^\star$ is a normal crossing divisor.
Denote by $H$ the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> on $S^\star$ induced by the smooth elliptic fibration $X^\star \rightarrow S^\star$. We set $$\mathcal{L} := \mathcal{L}_{H/S} := R^1 f_* {{\mathcal O}}_X.$$
Let $p : \mathbf J(H) \rightarrow S^\star$ be the basic elliptic fibration associated with $H$. By Theorem \[theoremlocalproperties\], we can extend $p$ to a Weierstraß model $$p_{\mathbb W}: \mathbb W \rightarrow S.$$ We also denote by $p: \mathbf B(H) \rightarrow S$ the composition of $p_{\mathbb W}$ with a desingularisation $\mathbf B(H) \rightarrow \mathbb W$. Since $p_{\mathbb W}$ has a canonical section, the elliptic fibration $p$ has a global meromorphic section. We call $p$ a basic elliptic fibration associated to $H$ [@Nak02c p.549].
By [@NakLocal Lemma 3.2.3], $\mathcal{L}_{H/S}$ is isomorphic to the zeroth graded piece of the Hodge filtration of the lower canonical extension of ${\mathcal{H}}= H \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{S^\star}$ to $S$. This induces a natural map $j_* H \rightarrow \mathcal L_{H/S}$, which is injective by [@NakLocal Lemma 3.1.3]. Let $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$ denote the quotient $\mathcal L_{H/S} / j_* H$. The exact sequence $$\label{exseq-JW}
0 \rightarrow j_* H \rightarrow \mathcal L_{H/S} \rightarrow \mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}
\rightarrow 0$$ extends the exact sequence defined on $S^\star \subset S$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\# \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ denote the Zariski open of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ consisting of points $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ where $p : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ is smooth. The variety ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$ is a complex analytic group variety over $S$, where over a point $t \in S$ which parameterises a nodal (resp. cuspidal) rational curve in $p: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$, the fiber is the multiplicative group ${{\mathbb C}}^\times$ (resp. additive group ${{\mathbb C}}$). If we denote by ${\ensuremath{\nu:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1 = {{\mathbb C}}\cup \{\infty\} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_t}}$ the normalisation so that $\infty$ maps to the unique singular point, the multiplication by $m \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$ on the smooth part of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_t$ is induced by $x \mapsto x^m$ (if ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_t$ is nodal) or $x \mapsto mx$ (if ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_t$ is cuspidal). In both cases a neighbourhood of $\infty$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1$ is mapped to a neighbourhood of $\infty$.
The action of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$ on itself extends to an action on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ [@Nak02c Lemma 5.1.1 (7)], but the group variety structure does not extend to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$. However, the multiplication by $m$ extends to the whole ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$.
\[lem-multm\] Given a non-zero integer $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{ 0 \}$, the multiplication-by-$m$ map ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\# \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$ extends to a finite holomorphic map ${\mathbf{m}}: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$.
Fix a point $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}{\backslash}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$. Locally around the fiber $p^{-1}(p(x))$, there exists a polydisc $U \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ containing $x$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ is a hypersurface of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^2 \times U$ and that each fiber of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{U} {\mathrel{:=}}p^{-1}(U) \to U$ is a cubic curve in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^2$. The description of the multiplication given above shows that the closure in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{U}$ of the image of a neighborhood of $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}{\backslash}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#) \cap {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{U}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{U}$ is still a neighborhood of $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}{\backslash}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#) \cap {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{U}$. As ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ is normal, we can thus apply the Riemann extension theorem [@GR84 p. 144] to conclude that the multiplication-by-$m$ map ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\# \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$ extends to a holomorphic map $m : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$. As $m_{|{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#}$ preserves fibers of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\# \to S$ and is finite, the extension $m : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ is finite.
In [@Nak02c p. 550], the sheaf $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$ is first *defined* to be the germs of holomorphic sections of $p : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$, then one proves that $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$ sits inside the exact sequence . However with this definition of $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$, the exactness of fails as it follows from the false claim that local sections of $p$ are contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$. Indeed, the Weierstra[ß]{} fibration parameterized by ${\alpha}\in {{\mathbb C}}$ defined by $Y^2Z = X^3 + {\alpha}X$ has a section ${\alpha}\mapsto (X({\alpha}) = 0, Y({\alpha}) = 0)$ which passes through the cusp of the singular central fiber.
In order to keep the sequence exact, the correct definition of $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$ should be the sheaf of germs of holomorphic sections of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ whose image is *contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$*. In this way, as already mentioned in [@Nak02c p. 550] since ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#$ acts on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ by translations [@Nak02c Lemma 5.1.1 (7)], a local section of $\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$ gives rise to a local automorphism of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$.
We can associate an elliptic fibration to a cohomology class $\eta\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ [@Nak02c p.550]:
\[constructelliptic\] Fix an open cover $(U_j)_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ of $S$ such that the class $\eta$ is represented by a cocycle $(\eta_{ij})_{i<j}$ where $\eta_{ij}\in H^0(U_i \cap U_j,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$. By the remark above, with the choice of a zero-section $U_i \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#|_{U_i}$ for each $i$, we can identify the $\eta_{ij}$ to automorphisms of $\mathbb {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} {\mathrel{:=}}\mathbb {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}|_{U_i \cap U_j}$ over $S$. The cocycle condition assures that the condition of the gluing lemma [@Har77 Chapter II, Exercise 2.12] is satisfied in our situation, so we can glue the elliptic fibrations $\mathbb {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{i} {\mathrel{:=}}\mathbb{W}_{|U_i} \rightarrow U_i$ to an elliptic fibration $p^\eta: \mathbb{W}^\eta \rightarrow S$. Since the gluing morphisms are translations so act as the identity on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span>, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> induced by $p^\eta$ on $S^\star$ is $H$. This construction is independent of the choices of $(U_i)$ and the zero-sections $U_i \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#|_{U_i}$
According to the above construction, given $p^\eta: \mathbb{W}^\eta \rightarrow S$ and an open cover $(U_i)$ of $S$ as above, the multiplication-by-$m$’s on $ {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}|_{U_i} \to U_i$ defined in Lemma \[lem-multm\] glue together to a global morphism ${\mathbf{m}}: \mathbb{W}^\eta \to \mathbb{W}^{m\eta}$ over $S$, which up to isomorphisms is independent of the choices of $(U_i)$ and the zero-sections $U_i \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\#|_{U_i}$.
Now given a locally Weierstrass fibration $f : X \to S$ constructed by \[constructelliptic\], we shall explain how to find $\eta$ to which $f$ associates. Consider the long exact sequence $$\label{sel}
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 4, column sep = 20]
\cdots \arrow[r] & R^1f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X \arrow[r] & R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X \arrow[r] & R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X^* \arrow[r] & R^2f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X \arrow[r] & \cdots. \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ Since $X \to S$ is obtained by gluing the pieces $\mathbb{W}_i \rightarrow U_i$ by translation maps $\tau_{ij} : \mathbb{W}_{ij} \to \mathbb{W}_{ij}$, which act trivially on $H^1(\mathbb{W}_{ij}, {{\mathbb Z}})$, we have $R^1f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X = R^1p_*{{\mathbb Z}}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\simeq j_*H$. The translations $\tau_{ij}$ act also trivially on $H^1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_s, {\mathcal{O}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_s})$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_s {\mathrel{:=}}p^{-1}(s)$ for any $s \in U_i \cap U_j$. As $p : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ is flat and $ H^1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_s, {\mathcal{O}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_s}) \simeq{{\mathbb C}}$, by Grauert’s base change theorem we deduce that $R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X = R^1p_*{\mathcal{O}}_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$, which is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{L}}_{H/S}$. Therefore $R^1f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X \to R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X$ is identical to the morphism $j_*H \to {\mathcal{L}}_{H/S}$ in . Finally since the fibers of $f$ are of dimension 1, we have $R^2f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X = 0$. Thus becomes $$\label{ex-long}
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 4, column sep = 20]
j_*H \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{L}}_{H/S} \arrow[r] &R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X^* \arrow[r] & R^2f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X \arrow[r] & 0. \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ Recall that $j_*H \to {\mathcal{L}}_{H/S}$ is injective and ${\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ sits inside the short exact sequence $$\label{ex-1}
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 4, column sep = 20]
0 \arrow[r] & j_*H \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{L}}_{H/S} \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\arrow[r] & 0. \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ As a fiber $F$ of $f$ is either an elliptic curve, a nodal rational curve, or a rational curve with a cusp, we have $H^2(F,{{\mathbb Z}}) = {{\mathbb Z}}$. Since $p$ is proper, by [@Ive Theorem 6.2] $R^2f_*{{\mathbb Z}}_X \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_S$. Hence we have a second short exact sequence $$\label{ex-2}
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 4, column sep = 20]
0 \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\arrow[r] & R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X^* \arrow[r] & {{\mathbb Z}}_S \arrow[r] & 0. \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ If $\eta \in H^1(S, {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$ denotes the element which defines , then $f$ will be the elliptic fibration associated to $\eta$.
For classes in $H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ the deformation theory is analogous to the smooth case:
\[prop:deformation loc trivial\] Assuming \[assume\]. Given $\eta \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$, there exists a locally trivial (cf. Definition \[definitionlocallytrivial\]) family of elliptic fibrations $\pi:{{\mathcal X}}{\longrightarrow}S\times V$ over $S$ parameterised by $V {\mathrel{:=}}H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ satisfies the following property: an elliptic fibration $X \to S$ is a member of $\pi$ if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to $W^\theta \to S$ over $S$ for some $\theta \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ such that $\mathtt{c}(\eta)=\mathtt{c}(\theta)$.
As in the smooth case, let $$\xi \in H^1(S ,\mathcal{L}) \otimes H^0(V,\mathcal{O}_{V}) \subset H^1(S \times V,\mathcal{L}_{{\mathrm{pr}}^*H/{S \times V}})$$ be the element which corresponding to the identity map $V \to H^1(S ,\mathcal{L}_{H/S})$ where ${\mathrm{pr}}: S \times V \to S$ denotes the projection onto the first factor. Let $\pi:{{\mathcal X}}\to S\times V$ be the elliptic fibration obtained by Construction \[constructelliptic\] from $\exp(\xi) + {\mathrm{pr}}^*\eta \in H^1(S \times V,\mathcal{J}({\mathrm{pr}}^*H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$. Then considering $\pi$ as a family of elliptic fibrations over $S$ parameterised by $V$, the fiber over $t\in H^1(S,\mathcal{L}_{H/S})$ is the elliptic fibration constructed by \[constructelliptic\] from $\exp(t) + \eta \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H))$. Thus $\pi$ satisfies the desiring property. As $V$ is contractible, in order to construct $\pi:{{\mathcal X}}\to S\times V$, it is possible to take the open cover of $S \times V$ in Construction \[constructelliptic\] to be $\{U_i \times V \}$ for some open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $S$. Thus $\pi:{{\mathcal X}}\to S\times V$ is locally trivial.
The cohomology group $H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ is a parameter set of elliptic fibrations over $S$ with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> $H$, but for classification purposes it is too small. We denote by $\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}$ the sheaf of [*meromorphic*]{} sections of a basic elliptic fibration $p: \mathbf{B}(H)\to S$. Since two basic elliptic fibrations are bimeromorphically equivalent the sheaf $\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}$ does not depend on the choice of the model. Moreover, since $p$ has a global meromorphic section, we see that $\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}$ has a group structure [@NakLocal p. 243-244]. There is a trivial inclusion of sheaves of abelian groups $$\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W} \subset \mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}$$ which is an isomorphism on $S^\star$: since $\mathbb W$ is smooth over $S^\star$ we have $\mathbf J(H) \simeq \mathbf B(H)|_{S^\star} \simeq \mathbb W|_{S^\star}$, moreover any meromorphic section is holomorphic over $S^\star$ [@NakLocal Lemma 1.3.5]. In particular the quotient sheaf $$\mathcal{Q}_H:=\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}/\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}$$ is supported on $D=S\setminus S^\star$. By [@Nak02c Theorem 5.4.9] we have a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:diagram}
\xymatrix{&&&0\ar[d]&&& \\
0\ar[r] & j_*H\ar[r] &\mathcal{L}_{H/S} \ar[r] & \mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}\ar[d]\ar[r]&0&&\\
&&0\ar[r] & \mathcal{J}(H)_{mer} \ar[r]^{\Psi_f}\ar[d] & R^1f_*\mathcal{O}^*_X/\mathcal{V}_X\ar[r]\ar[d] & {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_S\ar[r]\ar[d] & 0\\
&&0\ar[r] & \mathcal{Q}_H\ar[r]\ar[d] & R^2f_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X/\mathcal{V}_X\ar[r] & {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_S\ar[r] & 0\\
&&&0&&&
}$$ where $$\mathcal{V}_X:=\mathrm{Ker} \left( R^1f_*\mathcal{O}^*_X{\longrightarrow}j_*((R^1f_*\mathcal{O}^*_X)_{\mid S^\star})\right)$$ and $\Psi_f$ is constructed from the local meromorphic sections of $f$.
\[defi:eta class general\] We define $$\eta(f)\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$$ to be the image of $1\in H^0(S,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_S)$ under the connecting morphism of the long exact sequence associated to the second line of Diagram (\[eq:diagram\]).
By [@Nak02c Proposition 5.5.1] we have an injection $$\mathcal E_0(S, D, H) \hookrightarrow H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer}),$$ where $\mathcal E_0(S, D, H)$ is the set of bimeromorphic equivalence classes of elliptic fibrations $f : X \rightarrow S$ having meromorphic sections over every point of $S$ and such that $f^{-1}(S^\star) \to S^\star$ is bimeromorphic to a smooth elliptic fibration over $S^\star$ inducing the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> $H$. By Construction \[constructelliptic\] we have $$H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}) \rightarrow \mathcal E_0(S, D, H) \hookrightarrow H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$$ but contrary to the smooth case it is not clear if the images coincide. If $S$ is a curve, the skyscraper sheaf $\mathcal{Q}_H$ has no higher cohomology so the map $$H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$$ is surjective.
If $\eta(f) \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$ is the image of some $\eta \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$, then there is a morphism of short exact sequences $$\label{diag-p}
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 20, column sep = 20]
0 \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\arrow[r] \ar[d] & R^1p_*{\mathcal{O}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}}^* \arrow[r] \ar[d] & {{\mathbb Z}}_S \arrow[r] \arrow[d, "\wr"] & 0 \\
0 \arrow[r] & {\mathcal{J}}(H)_{mer} \arrow[r] & R^1f_*{\mathcal{O}}_X^*/{\mathcal{V}}_X \arrow[r] & {{\mathbb Z}}_S \arrow[r] & 0 \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ where the first row is the short exact sequence defined by $p^\eta : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\eta \to S$.
### The Kähler case
From now on we will focus on the case where the total space of the elliptic fibration $f$ is compact Kähler. In that case, the element $\eta(f)\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$ represented by $f$ lies in the image of $H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$, up to replacing $\eta(f)$ by a larger multiple (cf. [@Nak02c Proposition 7.4.2] for a more general statement).
\[lem:Kahler implies virtually weierstrass\] In the situation of Assumption \[assume\], suppose also that $X$ is bimeromorphic to a compact Kähler manifold. Then the image of the class $\eta(f)\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$ is torsion in $H^1(S,\mathcal{Q}_H)$. In particular there exists an integer $m \ge1$ such that $$m\cdot \eta(f)\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}).$$
Since the class $\eta(f)$ depends only on the bimeromorphic equivalence class of $X \rightarrow S$ we can suppose that $X$ is a compact Kähler manifold. Indeed, let $X' {\dashrightarrow}X$ be a bimeromorphic map from a compact Kähler manifold $X'$ and let $\tilde{X'} \to X$ be a resolution of $X' {\dashrightarrow}X$ by successively blowing-up $X'$ along smooth subvarieties. Then $\tilde{X'}$ is a Kähler manifold and $\tilde{X'} \to S$, which is the composition of $\tilde{X'} \to X$ with $X \rightarrow S$, is an elliptic fibration bimeromorphic to $X$. So we may replace $X$ by $\tilde{X'}$ for instance.
Let $\omega \in H^2(X,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ be a Kähler class on $X$. By density, there exists a class $\alpha\in H^2(X,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}})$ (in general not of type $(1,1)$) such that $\alpha\cdot F\neq 0$ where $F$ is a general $f$-fibre. The class $\alpha$ defines a global section of $R^2f_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}_X$ and we can cancel the denominators in such a way that $\alpha$ defines a section of $R^2f_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X$ and thus a non-zero element $\bar \alpha \in H^0(S, R^2f_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X/\mathcal{V}_X)$. The third line of induces an exact sequence $$H^0(S, R^2f_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_X/\mathcal{V}_X) \stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow} H^0(S, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_S) \stackrel{\delta}{\rightarrow} H^1(S,\mathcal{Q}_H)$$ and is straightforward to check that $\tau(\bar \alpha)=F\cdot \alpha$. It is then a positive multiple of the class $1\in H^0(S,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_S)$ and it follows that $\delta(1)$ is a torsion class in $H^1(S,\mathcal{Q}_H)$. A diagram chase in shows that $\delta(1)$ is the image of $\eta(f)$ in $H^1(S,\mathcal{Q}_H)$.
We can now generalise Theorem \[theoremsmoothdeformation\] (cf. also [@Nak02c Proposition 7.4.2]):
\[th:c torsion general\] In the situation of Assumption \[assume\], let us also assume that $X$ is bimeromorphic to a compact Kähler manifold. Suppose also that $\eta(f)$ is in the image of $H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$. Denote by $$\mathtt{c}: H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W}) \rightarrow H^2(S, j_* H)$$ the morphism defined by the first line of the exact sequence . Then the class $\mathtt{c}(\eta(f))$ is torsion in $H^2(S,j_*H)$.
Let $\eta \in H^1(S, {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$ be an element which maps to $\eta(f) \in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)_{mer})$ and let $p^\eta: W {\mathrel{:=}}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\eta \to S$ be the minimal locally Weierstrass fibration which represents $\eta \in H^1(S, {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$. By [@Lin16 Lemma 8.1], the following diagram commutes $$\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, row sep = 20, column sep = 20]
H^0(S,R^2p^\eta_*{{\mathbb Z}}) \simeq H^0(S,{{\mathbb Z}}) \arrow[r, "{\alpha}"] \arrow[bend left=10, rr, "d_2"] & H^1(S, {\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}) \arrow[r, "\mathtt{c}"] & H^2(S,R^1p^\eta_*{{\mathbb Z}}) \simeq H^2(S,j_*H) \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ where $\mathtt{c}$ and ${\alpha}$ are the connecting morphisms in the long exact sequences induced by and respectively. As ${\alpha}(1) = \eta$, it suffices to prove the following lemma, which implies that $d_2 \otimes {{\mathbb R}}= 0$.
$H^2(W, {{\mathbb R}}) \to H^0(S,R^2p^\eta_*{{\mathbb R}})$ is surjective.
Since $W$ is normal and has at worst rational singularities, by [@a21 Injection (3)] we have an injection $$H^{1,1}_{BC}(W) {\hookrightarrow}H^2(W,{{\mathbb R}}).$$ Assume to the contrary that $H^2(W, {{\mathbb R}}) \to H^0(S,R^2p^\eta_*{{\mathbb R}})$ is not surjective, so in particular its restriction to $H^{1,1}_{BC}(W)$ is not surjective. Let $\tau : \tilde{W} \to W$ be a Kähler desingularization of $W$. By the projection formula, given an element ${\omega}\in H^2(W, {{\mathbb R}})$, its image in $H^0(S,R^2p^\eta_*{{\mathbb R}}) \simeq H^0(S,{{\mathbb R}}) \simeq {{\mathbb R}}$ equals $\int_F \tau^*{\omega}$ where $F$ is a smooth fiber of $p^\eta \circ \tau: \tilde{W} \to S$. Let $n{\mathrel{:=}}\dim W$. The non-surjectivity assumption implies that $\tau^*H^{1,1}_{BC}(W) \subset [F]^\perp$ where the orthogonal is with respect to the Poincaré duality pairing $$H^{n-1, n-1}(\tilde{W})_{{\mathbb R}}\times H^{1,1}(\tilde{W})_{{\mathbb R}}\to H^{n,n}(\tilde{W})_{{\mathbb R}}\simeq {{\mathbb R}}.$$ However since $\ker(\tau_*)^\perp \subset \tau^*H^{1,1}_{BC}(W)$ by [@a21 Lemma 3.3], we deduce that $\tau_*[F] = 0$, which is not possible.
\[rem:Kodaira versus us\] The last result gives a direct proof of a phenomenon which was *observed* by Kodaira in the case $\dim S=1$: he first proved that the cohomology group $H^2(S,j_*H)$ is finite if the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> is not trivial. He then computed the first Betti number of an elliptic surface when $H$ is trivial and obtained in [@Kod Theorem 11.9] that this quantity is even if $\mathtt{c}(\eta(f)) = 0$ and odd otherwise. *A posteriori* we can conclude that an elliptic surface $f:X\to S$ (without multiple fibres) is Kähler if and only if $\mathtt{c}(\eta(f))$ is torsion in $H^2(S,j_*H)$. We will now prove that this equivalence also holds in our setting:
\[prop:criterion\_kaehler\_elliptic\] In the situation of Assumption \[assume\], suppose also that the base $S$ is a compact Kähler manifold. Assume that the Weierstra[ß]{} fibration ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ is minimal. Let $\eta\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ be a class such that $\mathtt{c}(\eta)$ is torsion in $H^2(S,j_*H)$. Then the total space $\mathbb{W}^\eta \rightarrow S$ is Kähler space.
Recall that the Weierstraß model $p_{\mathbb W}: \mathbb W \rightarrow S$ associated to $H$ is a projective morphism. Since $S$ is compact Kähler, the total space $\mathbb{W}$ is Kähler by Remark \[remarkrelplusbase\]. As in the case of smooth elliptic fibrations, the Weierstraß fibration comes equipped with a family of of elliptic fibrations (over $S$) $\mathcal{W}{\longrightarrow}S\times H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ parametrised by the vector space $H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ such that $$\eta(\mathcal{W}_t\to S)=\exp(t)\in H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$$ for any $t\in H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$. By Remark \[remarkpropertiesweierstrass\] the complex spaces $\mathbb{W}^\eta$ have at most canonical, hence rational, singularities. From [@Nam01 Proposition 5] we know that any small flat deformation of compact Kähler space having rational singularities remains Kähler. Thus $\mathbb{W}^{\exp(t)}$ is Kähler for $t$ in a neighborhood $U$ of $0\in H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$. Now if $t$ is given in $H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ let us consider a positive integer $m$ such $t/m\in U$. The multiplication-by-$m$ $${\mathbf{m}}: \mathbb{W}^{\exp(t/m)}{\longrightarrow}\mathbb{W}^{m\cdot \exp(t/m)}=\mathbb{W}^{\exp(t)}.$$ is a finite morphism by Lemma \[lem-multm\]. Since $\mathbb{W}^{\exp(t/m)}$ is Kähler, [@Var89 Cor.3.2.2] implies that $\mathbb{W}^{\exp(t)}$ is Kähler as well.
Since $\mathtt{c}(\eta)$ is torsion by assumption, there exists a positive integer $k$ and an element $t\in H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ such that $k\cdot \eta=\exp(t)$. As the multiplication-by-$k$ $$\mathbb{W}^\eta{\longrightarrow}\mathbb{W}^{k\cdot\eta}=\mathbb{W}^{\exp(t)}$$ is finite and the target is Kähler, we conclude that $\mathbb{W}^{\eta}$ is also Kähler (see for instance [@Var89 Proposition 1.3.1]).
### Hodge theory of Weierstraß models
The main purpose of this paragraph is to establish the following result.
\[th:hodge\_surjective\] In the situation of Assumption \[assume\], suppose that $S$ is a compact Kähler manifold. Then the canonical map $$\label{eq:Hodge_surjective}
H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$$ is surjective.
When $S^*=S$ this is a straightforward consequence of the existence of a pure Hodge structure of weight 2 on the lattice $H^1(S,H)$ as constructed by Deligne (see [@Zuc79 Theorem 2.9]).
Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\] will serve as a crucial ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[theoremapproximation\]. More precisely, it will be the following corollary that we use in the proof.
\[cor:densite points rationnels G\] In the situation of Assumption \[assume\], let $G$ be a finite group acting $f$-equivariantly on $X$ and on $S$. Then the image of $H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}})^G$ in $H^1(S,\mathcal{L})^G$ under the map $H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})^G{\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{L})^G$ is dense.
As $G$ is a finite group and since is surjective by Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\], its $G$-invariant part is also surjective. Corollary \[cor:densite points rationnels G\] thus follows from the density of $H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}})^G$ in $H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})^G$.
\[rem:surjectivity\_density\] Before giving the proof of Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\], let us remark that this statement has a geometric counterpart. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ be the minimal Weierstra[ß]{} fibration associated to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> $H$. As $S$ is assumed to be compact Kähler, by Remark \[remarkrelplusbase\], Theorem \[th:c torsion general\], and Proposition \[prop:criterion\_kaehler\_elliptic\] the total space ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ is Kähler. So each fiber of the tautological family $\mathcal{W}{\longrightarrow}S\times H^1(S,\mathcal{L}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$ containing ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to S$ as a fiber (i.e. the family constructed in Proposition \[prop:deformation loc trivial\] for $\eta = 0$) is also Kähler. Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\] is thus equivalent to the density of fibrations $\mathcal{W}_t\to S$ that are projective over $S$. Indeed such an elliptic fibration is projective over $S$ if and only if its cohomology class $\eta(\mathcal{W}_t\to S)$ is torsion in $H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$ (see [@Nak02c Theorem 6.3.8]). Using the first line of , the exact sequence $$H^1(S,j_*H){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{L}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{J}(H)^\mathbb{W})$$ shows that this happens exactly when $t$ lies in the range of the map $H^1(S,j_*H_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}){\longrightarrow}H^1(S,\mathcal{L})$. Now it is clear that density of projective elliptic fibrations is equivalent to surjectivity of the map (\[eq:Hodge\_surjective\]).
To prove Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\], we will establish the density of projective fibrations in the tautological family. The following criterion is reminiscent from Buchdahl’s works [@Buc06; @Buc08]:
\[lem:Buchdahl\_criterion\] Let $\pi:\mathcal{X}{\longrightarrow}B$ be a smooth family of compact Kähler manifolds, and let $\Phi: \mathcal{X}{\longrightarrow}S\times B{\longrightarrow}B$ be a fibration such that $\pi = pr_{B} \circ \Phi$. Consider the following <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> over $B$: $$\mathbb{V}:=R^2\pi_*{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}/H^2(S,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}).$$ Let $b \in B$ be a point, and $[\omega]$ a Kähler class defined on $X:=\mathcal{X}_b$. If the composition of the maps $$T_{B,b}\stackrel{\kappa\varsigma}{{\longrightarrow}} H^1(X,T_X)\stackrel{\bullet\wedge [\omega]}{{\longrightarrow}} H^2(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X){\longrightarrow}\mathbb{V}_b^{0,2}$$ is surjective, then the set of parameters $u\in B$ such that the morphism $\mathcal{X}_u\to S$ is projective is dense near $b$.
In the statement above, the first arrow is the Kodaira-Spencer map associated to $\pi$, and the second one is induced by the contraction with the class $\omega\in H^1(X,\Omega^1_X)$.
This is nothing but [@V02 Proposition 17.20, p.410] applied to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhs</span> $\mathbb{V}$.
The deformation families provided by Nakayama’s theory are not smooth, so in order to apply the relative Buchdahl criterion we have to pass to a smooth model. Kollár’s theory of strong resolutions [@Kol07 Chapter 3] gives a resolution in families:
\[lem:resolution\_family\] Let ${\ensuremath{p_0:\mathbb W_0 \rightarrow S}}$ be a fibration from a normal compact complex space onto a compact complex manifold $S$, and $p: {{\mathcal W}}\rightarrow S \times B$ be a locally trivial deformation of $(\mathbb W_0, p_0)$ (cf. Definition \[definitionlocallytrivial\]). Then (up to replacing $B$ by a smaller open set) there exists a resolution of singularities ${\ensuremath{\mu:{{\mathcal X}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal W}}}}$ such that the family $$\pi := pr_{B} \circ p \circ \mu : {{\mathcal X}}\rightarrow B$$ is a family of compact complex manifolds, and for every $b \in B$ the map ${\ensuremath{\mu_b:\mathcal X_b \rightarrow \mathbb W_b}}$ is a resolution of singularities that is functorial.
By [@Kol07 Theorem 3.35] (the analytic situation is dealt with in [@Wlo09]) there exists a functorial resolution ${\ensuremath{\mu:{{\mathcal X}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal W}}}}$. This resolution commutes with smooth maps, so if $(U_i)_{i \in I}$ is a finite open cover[^2] of $S$ such that ${\ensuremath{p^{-1} (U_i \times B)}} \simeq {\ensuremath{p_0^{-1} (U_i)}} \times B$, then the resolution is the product of the functorial resolution of ${\ensuremath{p_0^{-1} (U_i)}}$ times the identity.
We follow the convention of [@Ser06 Appendix B, p.287]: given a morphism ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ of normal varieties, we denote by $T_{X/S}$ the dual of the sheaf of Kähler differentials $\Omega_{X/S}$. In particular $T_{X/S}$ is always a reflexive sheaf.
Let [$p^\eta:\mathbb W^\eta \rightarrow S$]{} be a minimal local Weierstraß fibration over a smooth base $S$. Then we have $$\label{relativeT}
T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S} \simeq (p^\eta)^* {\mathcal{L}}.$$
Moreover, let ${\ensuremath{\mu:X \rightarrow \mathbb W^\eta}}$ be a functorial resolution of singularities and set $f:=p^\eta \circ \mu$. Then there exists a natural injection $\mu^* T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S} \rightarrow T_{X/S}$ inducing a map $$\label{pullH1}
H^1(\mathbb W^\eta, T_{\mathbb W^\eta/S})
\rightarrow
H^1(X, T_{X/S}).$$
All the fibres of $p^\eta$ are reduced plane cubics, so there exists a codimension two subset $Z \subset \mathbb W^\eta$ such that $p^\eta|_{\mathbb{W}^\eta \setminus Z}$ is a smooth fibration. On this smooth locus we have by construction $T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta \setminus Z/S} \simeq (p^\eta|_{\mathbb{W}^\eta \setminus Z})^* {\mathcal{L}}$. Since $T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S}$ and $p^* {\mathcal{L}}$ are both reflexive and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}^\eta$ is normal, the isomorphism extends to an isomorphism on $\mathbb W^\eta$. This shows , in particular $T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S}$ is locally free.
Since the resolution $\mu$ is functorial, the direct image sheaf $\mu_* (T_X) \subset T_{\mathbb W^\eta}$ is reflexive [@GKK10 Corollary 4.7]. Thus for any open subset $U \subset \mathbb W^\eta$, the restriction map $$\Gamma({\ensuremath{\mu^{-1} (U)}}, T_X) \rightarrow \Gamma({\ensuremath{\mu^{-1} (U)}} \setminus \mbox{Exc}(\mu), T_X)$$ is surjective. Using the exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow T_{X/S} \rightarrow T_X \rightarrow f^* T_S$$ and the fact that $f^* T_S$ is torsion-free, we obtain that $$\Gamma({\ensuremath{\mu^{-1} (U)}}, T_{X/S}) \rightarrow \Gamma({\ensuremath{\mu^{-1} (U)}} \setminus \mbox{Exc}(\mu), T_{X/S})$$ is surjective. Thus $\mu_* (T_{X/S})$ is reflexive, and the natural map $\mu_* (T_{X/S}) \rightarrow T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S}$ is an isomorphism. By applying the projection formula to the inverse $T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S} \rightarrow \mu_* (T_{X/S})$ we obtain an injective morphism $$\mu^* T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S} \rightarrow T_{X/S}.$$ Since $T_{\mathbb{W}^\eta/S}$ is locally free and $\mathbb{W}^\eta$ has rational singularities, we have an isomorphism $$H^1(\mathbb W^\eta, T_{\mathbb W^\eta/S}) \simeq H^1(X, \mu^* T_{\mathbb W^\eta/S})$$ given by $\mu^*$. The statement follows by composing this isomorphism with the map $H^1(X, \mu^* T_{\mathbb W^\eta/S}) \rightarrow H^1(X, T_{X/S})$.
Following [@Ser06 Chapter 3.4.2] (cf. [@FK87] for a presentation in the analytic setting) we consider the functor of locally trivial deformations of ${\ensuremath{f:X \rightarrow S}}$ with fixed target $S$. By [@Ser06 Lemma 3.4.7.b) and Theorem 3.4.8] we have an injection $$H^1(X, T_{X/S}) \hookrightarrow D_{X/S},$$ where $D_{X/S}$ is the tangent space of the semiuniversal deformation. Given a locally trivial deformation $$\xymatrix{
\mathcal{X} \ar[r]^\Phi \ar[rd]_\pi & S \times B \ar[d]^{pr_B}
\\
& B
}$$ parametrised by a smooth base $B$, we have for every $b \in B$ a Kodaira-Spencer map $$\kappa \varsigma_{\Phi}: T_{B,b} \rightarrow D_{X/S}$$ associating a tangent vector with the corresponding first-order deformation.
Let us first recall from Remark \[rem:surjectivity\_density\] that the surjectivity involved in the statement of Theorem \[th:hodge\_surjective\] is equivalent to the density of projective fibrations in the tautological Weierstraß family $${\ensuremath{p:{{\mathcal W}}\rightarrow S \times H^1(S, \mathcal L)}}.$$ Fix now $b \in H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$. By Lemma \[lem:resolution\_family\] there exists (up to replacing the base $H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$ by a neighbourhood of the point $b$) a simultaneous functorial resolution of the tautological family: $$\xymatrix{\mathcal{X} \ar[rr]^\mu \ar[rd]^\Phi \ar @/_/ [rdd]_\pi & &\mathcal{W}\ar[ld]_p \ar @/^/[ldd] \\
& S \times H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})\ar[d]&\\ & H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}}) &}$$ In order to simplify the notation, we replace ${\ensuremath{p_b:\mathbb{W}^{\exp(b)} \rightarrow S}}$ by ${\ensuremath{p_b:\mathbb{W}_b \rightarrow S}}$. We have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal X}}_b \ar[rr]^{\mu_b} \ar[rd]_{f_b} && \mathbb{W}_b \ar[ld]^{p_b} \\&S&
}$$ where $\mu_b$ is a functorial resolution of singularities of $\mathbb{W}_b$.
[*Step 1. The Kodaira-Spencer map $\kappa \varsigma_{\Phi,b}$ is given by $f_b^*$.*]{} Using one shows easily that the Kodaira-Spencer map $\kappa\varsigma_p$ for any point $b \in H^1(S, \mathcal L)$ identifies to the pull-back $$p_b^*: H^1(S, {{\mathcal L}}) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{W}_b, p_b^* {{\mathcal L}}) \simeq
H^1(\mathbb{W}_b, T_{\mathbb{W}_b/S}).$$ By functoriality of the Kodaira-Spencer map we have a factorisation $$\xymatrix{
H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})
\ar[r]^{\kappa\varsigma_{\Phi, b}}
\ar[rd]_{\kappa\varsigma_{p, b}}
& H^1({{\mathcal X}}_b ,T_{{{\mathcal X}}_b/S})
\ar[d]
\\
&
H^1(\mathbb{W}_b, T_{\mathbb{W}_b/S}).
}$$ By the right column has an inverse $H^1(\mathbb{W}_b, T_{\mathbb{W}_b/S}) \rightarrow H^1({{\mathcal X}}_b ,T_{{{\mathcal X}}_b/S})$ defined by $\mu_b^*$. Since $\kappa\varsigma_{p,b}$ identifies to the pull-back $p_b^*$ we obtain that $\kappa\varsigma_{\Phi,b}$ identifies to $$f_b^* : H^1(S, {{\mathcal L}}) \rightarrow H^1({{\mathcal X}}_B, (f_b)^* {{\mathcal L}}).$$
[*Step 2. Applying the relative Buchdahl criterion.*]{} We want to apply Lemma \[lem:Buchdahl\_criterion\] to the family ${{\mathcal X}}\to S\times H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})\to H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$. Fix a point $b \in H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$, and observe that $$\mathbb{V}_b^{0,2} = H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})/H^2(S,{{\mathcal O}}_S).$$ We have to check that the composed map $$\label{eq:composed_map}
H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})\stackrel{\kappa\varsigma_{\Phi,b}}{{\longrightarrow}}H^1({{\mathcal X}}_b,T_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})\stackrel{\bullet\wedge[\omega]}{{\longrightarrow}} H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b}){\longrightarrow}H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})/H^2(S,{{\mathcal O}}_S)$$ is surjective.
*Claim: the quotient $H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})/H^2(S,{{\mathcal O}}_S)$ is isomorphic to $H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$ and the projection $H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b}) {\longrightarrow}H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})$ is induced by $(f_b)_*$.*
By Theorem \[thm-van\] we have $R^1 (f_b)_* {{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b} \simeq {{\mathcal L}}$ and $R^2 (f_b)_* {{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b}=0$. Moreover, since ${{\mathcal X}}_b$ is compact Kähler, the natural map $H^2(S, {{\mathcal O}}_S) \rightarrow H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})$ is injective. Thus the Leray spectral sequence yields an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow H^2(S, {{\mathcal O}}_S) \rightarrow H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b}) \rightarrow H^1(S, R^1 (f_b)_* {{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b}) \simeq
H^1(S, {{\mathcal L}}) \rightarrow 0.$$ This shows the claim.
Combining Step 1 and the claim the composed map is given by: $$H^1(S,{{\mathcal L}})\stackrel{f_b^*}{{\longrightarrow}}H^1({{\mathcal X}}_b,T_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})\stackrel{\bullet\wedge[\omega]}{{\longrightarrow}} H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})
\stackrel{(f_b)_*}{{\longrightarrow}} H^2({{\mathcal X}}_b,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathcal X}}_b})/H^2(S,{{\mathcal O}}_S).$$ Using Dolbeault representatives we see that $$(f_b)_*(\omega \wedge f_b^*(\alpha))= c_\omega \alpha$$ where $c_\omega= \omega \cdot F$ with $F$ a general $f_b$-fibre. Thus (\[eq:composed\_map\]) is even an isomorphism.
Proofs of the main results
==========================
Proof of Theorem \[theoremapproximation\] and Corollary \[theoremmain\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since $a(X) = \dim X - 1$ and $X$ is Kähler, the algebraic reduction $X {\dashrightarrow}S$ of $X$ is an almost holomorphic map onto a projective variety $S$ whose general fiber is an elliptic curve. Up to replacing $X$ by a bimeromorphic model, we can assume that $X \to S$ is an elliptic fibration such that both $X$ and $S$ are smooth, $X$ is Kähler, $S$ is projective, and the discriminant locus ${\Delta}\subset S$ is a normal crossing divisor. By Proposition \[prop:local meromorphic section\], there exists a finite Galois cover $r : \tilde{S} \to S$ such that the elliptic fibration $\tilde{X} {\mathrel{:=}}X \times_S \tilde{S} \to \tilde{S}$ has local meromorphic sections at every point of $\tilde{S}$; let $G {\mathrel{:=}}{\operatorname{Gal}}(\tilde{S} / S)$.
Let $\eta \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})_{mer})$ be the element associated to $\tilde{X} \to \tilde{S}$ where $\tilde{H} {\mathrel{:=}}r^* H$ and let $V {\mathrel{:=}}H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{L}}_{\tilde{H}/\tilde{S}})$. The $G$-action on $\tilde{H}$ induces a $G$-action on $V$; let $V^G$ be the $G$-invariant part.
\[lem-loctriv\] There exist a family $\Pi : {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to \tilde{S} \times V^G $ of elliptic fibrations over $\tilde{S}$ parameterized by $V^G$ together with a $\Pi$-equivariant $G$-action on ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}$ such that
i) the elliptic fibration ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}_\phi \to \tilde{S}$ parameterized by $\phi \in V^G$ corresponds to $\exp{\phi} + \eta \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})_{mer})$;
ii) there exist a $G$-invariant open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $\tilde{S}$ and a minimal Weierstra[ß]{} fibration $\pi : W \to \tilde{S}$ together with a $\pi$-equivariant $G$-action such that $\Pi^{-1}(U_i \times V^G) \simeq W_i \times V^G $ over $U_i$ where $W_i {\mathrel{:=}}\pi^{-1}(U_i)$ (in particular $\Pi$ is locally trivial in the sense of Definition \[definitionlocallytrivial\]);
iii) moreover, for each $g \in G$ and each pair of indices $i$ and $j$ such that $g(U_i) = U_j$, the restriction $g : \Pi^{-1}(U_i \times V^G ) \xrightarrow{\sim} \Pi^{-1}(U_j \times V^G)$ of the $G$-action on ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}$ to $\Pi^{-1}(U_i \times V^G)$ is isomorphic to $(g_{|W_i} \times {\mathrm{Id}}) : W_i \times V^G \xrightarrow{\sim} W_j \times V^G$.
As an immediate consequence of ii) and iii), the quotient ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}/G \to S \times V^G$ of ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to \tilde{S} \times V^G$ is a locally trivial family of elliptic fibrations over $S$ parameterized by $V^G$.
The inclusion $V^G {\hookrightarrow}H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{L}}_{\tilde{H}/\tilde{S}})$ gives rise to an element $$\xi \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{L}}_{\tilde{H}/\tilde{S}}) \otimes H^0(V^G,{\mathcal{O}}_{V^G}) \subset H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{L}}_{p^*\tilde{H}/\tilde{S} \times V^G})$$ where $p : \tilde{S} \times V^G \to \tilde{S}$ denotes the projection onto the first factor. Since $\exp{\xi} $ is sent to $0$ in $H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{Q}}_{p^*\tilde{H}})$ and since the image of $\eta$ in $H^1(\tilde{S} ,{\mathcal{Q}}_{\tilde{H}})$ is torsion by Lemma \[lem:Kahler implies virtually weierstrass\] because $\tilde{X}$ is Kähler, the image of the element $$\eta_0 {\mathrel{:=}}\exp{\xi} + p^*\eta \in H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{J}}(p^*\tilde{H})_{mer})$$ in $H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{Q}}_{p^*\tilde{H}})$ is also torsion. So there exists $k \in {{\mathbb Z}}_{>0}$ such that $$k\eta_0 \in H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{J}}(p^*\tilde{H})^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}}).$$
Already by [@Nak02c Theorem 6.3.12], we know that $\eta_0$ corresponds to an elliptic fibration $\Pi : {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to V^G \times \tilde{S}$ and by construction, the elliptic fibration ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}_\phi \to \tilde{S}$ parameterized by $\phi \in V^G$ corresponds to $\exp{\phi} + \eta \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})_{mer})$. To show the existence of such a family which satisfies other properties listed in Lemma \[lem-loctriv\], let us recall how in our case $\Pi$ is constructed following the proof of [@Nak02c Theorem 6.3.12].
Let $\Pi' : {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}' \to \tilde{S} \times V^G$ be the minimal locally Weierstrass model which corresponds to $k\eta_0$. This is a subfamily of the one constructed in Proposition \[prop:deformation loc trivial\] for $k \eta \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}})$. By construction, there exists a $G$-invariant open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $\tilde{S}$ such that $\Pi'^{-1}(U_i \times V^G) \simeq \pi^{-1}(U_i) \times V^G$ over $V^G$ where $\pi : \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to \tilde{S}$ is the minimal Weierstrass model associated to $\tilde{H}$ together with a $\pi$-equivariant $G$-action. Furthermore, $\Pi'$ satisfies Property $iii)$, namely for each $g \in G$ and each pair of indices $i$ and $j$ such that $g(U_i) = U_j$, the restriction $g : \Pi'^{-1}( U_i \times V^G) \xrightarrow{\sim} \Pi'^{-1}(U_j \times V^G)$ of the $G$-action on ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}'$ to $\Pi'^{-1}(U_i \times V^G)$ is isomorphic to $(g_{|\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i} \times {\mathrm{Id}}) : \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i \times V^G \xrightarrow{\sim} \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_j \times V^G$ where $\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i {\mathrel{:=}}\pi^{-1}(U_i)$.
Let $(\eta_{ij})$ be a 1-cocycle representing $\eta_0$ with respect to the open cover $\{U_i \times V^G\}$, which induces bimeromorphic maps $\eta_{ij} : \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} \times V^G {\dashrightarrow}\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ji} \times V^G$ where $\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} {\mathrel{:=}}\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i \cap \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_j$. As $\eta_0$ lies in the $G$-invariant part of $H^1(\tilde{S} \times V^G,{\mathcal{J}}(p^*\tilde{H})_{mer})$, we can assume that $(\eta_{ij})$ is $G$-invariant. Let ${\mathbf{k}}: \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}\to \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}$ be the multiplication-by-$k$ map, which is finite by Lemma \[lem-multm\]. Let ${\mathbf{k}}_{ij} : \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} \to \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij}$ be the restriction of ${\mathbf{k}}$ to $\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij}$ and let $({\mathbf{k}}_{ij} \times {\mathrm{Id}}) : \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} \times V^G \to \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} \times V^G \subset {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}'_i$ be its product with ${\mathrm{Id}}: V^G \to V^G$. As $\tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_{ij} \times V^G$ is normal, $({\mathbf{k}}_{ij} \times {\mathrm{Id}}) = ({\mathbf{k}}_{ji} \times {\mathrm{Id}})\circ \eta_{ij}$, and ${\mathbf{k}}_{ij} \times {\mathrm{Id}}$ is finite, the map $\eta_{ij}$ is holomorphic. Using the cocycle of biholomorphic maps $(\eta_{ij})$, we can glue the $ \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i\times V^G$’s together to form an elliptic fibration $\Pi : {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to \tilde{S} \times V^G$ which represents $\eta$. By construction $\Pi^{-1}(U_i \times V^G) \simeq \tilde {\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}}_i \times V^G$ over $V^G$, which shows $ii)$. The $G$-invariance of $(\eta_{ij})$ gives rise to a $\Pi$-equivariant $G$-action on ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}$. Since $\Pi'$ satisfies Property $iii)$, it follows that $\Pi$ also satisfies $iii)$.
There is a dense subset ${\Sigma}_0$ of $V^G$ parameterizing fibers of ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to V^G$ which are algebraic. Indeed, by the long exact sequence coming from and Corollary \[cor:densite points rationnels G\], the pre-images of torsion points of $H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$ under the restriction of the exponential map $H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{L}}_{\tilde{H}/\tilde{S}})^G \to H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$ form a dense subset in $H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{L}}_{\tilde{H}/\tilde{S}})^G$. As $\tilde{X}$ is Kähler, by Lemma \[lem:Kahler implies virtually weierstrass\] there exists $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}_{>0}$ such that $m\eta \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$. By Theorem \[th:c torsion general\], we can further assume that up to replacing $m$ by a larger multiple, $m\eta = \exp(\phi_0)$ for some $\phi_0 \in V^G$. It follows that $${\Sigma}{\mathrel{:=}}\left\{ \phi \in V^G \mid \exp(\phi_0 + m\phi) \text{ is torsion} \right\} = \frac{1}{m}({\Sigma}_0 - \phi_0)$$ is a dense subset of $V^G$. Since $\phi \in {\Sigma}$ implies that $\eta + \exp(\phi) \in H^1(\tilde{S},{\mathcal{J}}(\tilde{H})_{mer})$ is torsion, fibers of ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}} \to V^G$ parameterized by ${\Sigma}$ are algebraic by [@Nak02c Proposition 5.5.4].
By Lemma \[lem-loctriv\], the quotient ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}/G \to S \times V^G$ is a locally trivial family of elliptic fibrations over $S$ parameterized by $V^G$. Let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the functorial desingularization of ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{X}}}/G$. The family ${\mathcal{X}}\to V^G$ is an algebraic approximation of the central fiber, which is smooth by Lemma \[lem:resolution\_family\], and is bimeromorphic to $X$.
\[rem-locW\] We notice that Lemma \[lem-loctriv\] (or more directly the same construction method of $\Pi$) implies in particular that if $f : X \to B$ is an elliptic fibration satisfying Assumption \[assume\] and whose total space $X$ is compact Kähler, then $f$ has a (unique) minimal locally Weierstra[ß]{} model. Note also that despite the fact that $f$ is bimeromorphic to a locally Weierstra[ß]{} fibration, in general only a multiple of $\eta(f)$ is in the image of $H^1(S,{\mathcal{J}}(H)^{\ensuremath{\mathbb{W}}})$.
By Theorem \[theoremapproximation\], $X$ is bimeromorphic to a compact Kähler manifold $X'$ which has an algebraic approximation. In particular, $\pi_1(X')$ is projective. Since the fundamental group of a compact Kähler manifold is invariant under bimeromorphic transformations, we have $\pi_1(X) = \pi_1(X')$.
Proof of Theorem \[theorempione\]
---------------------------------
Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold, and consider ${\ensuremath{g:X \rightarrow Y}}$ a fibration onto a compact Kähler manifold $Y$. If $F$ is a general fibre, denote by $\pi_1(F)_X$ the image of the morphism $\pi_1(F) \rightarrow \pi_1(X)$. Up to blowing up $X$ and $Y$ we can suppose that the fibration $g$ is neat in the sense of [@Cam04 Definition 1.2]. By [@Cam11 Corollary 11.9] we then have an exact sequence $$\label{sequencefibrations}
1 \rightarrow \pi_1(F)_X \rightarrow \pi_1(X) \rightarrow \pi_1(Y, \Delta) \rightarrow 1.$$ where $\Delta$ is the orbifold divisor defined in .
Let us also recall that by [@Cam94; @Kol93] every compact Kähler manifold $X$ admits a (unique up to bimeromorphic equivalence of fibrations) almost holomorphic fibration $${\ensuremath{g:X \rightarrow \Gamma(X)}}$$ with the following property: let $Z$ be a subspace with normalisation $Z' \rightarrow Z$ passing through a very general point $x\in X$. Then $Z$ is contained in the fibre through $x$ if and only if the natural map $\pi_1(Z') \rightarrow \pi_1(X)$ has finite image. This fibration is called the $\Gamma$-reduction of $X$ (Shafarevich map in the terminology of [@Kol93]). Up to replacing $\gamma$ by some neat holomorphic model we thus obtain a fibration such that $\pi_1(F)_X$ is finite and such that the dimension of the base is minimal among all fibrations with this property. We call $\gamma \dim(X) := \dim (\Gamma(X))$ the $\gamma$-dimension of $X$.
In geometric situations it is often necessary to replace $X$ by some étale cover. It is easily seen that the situation can be made equivariant under the Galois group of the cover.
\[lem:equivariance\_shafarevich\_map\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold acted upon by a finite group $G$. Then there exists a proper modification $\mu:\tilde{X}\to X$ and a holomorphic map $g:\tilde{X}\to Y$ such that:
1. $\tilde{X}$ and $Y$ are compact Kähler manifolds.
2. $G$ acts on $\tilde{X}$ and $Y$.
3. $\mu$ and $g$ are $G$-equivariant for these actions.
4. $g$ is a neat model [@Cam04 Definition 1.2] of the $\Gamma$-reduction of $X$.
Let us consider $S$ the (normalisation of the) irreducible component of the cycle space $\mathcal{C}(X)$ which parametrizes the fibres of the $\Gamma$-reduction. By uniqueness of the latter, the group $G$ acts on $S$ and the natural meromorphic map $X\dashrightarrow S$ is $G$-equivariant. Now it is enough to perform $G$-equivariant resolution of singularities for $S$ and $G$-equivariant blow-ups on $X$ in order to make the latter map holomorphic, neat and $G$-equivariant.
The following remark allows to control the extensions appearing in these covers.
\[rem:group\_extension\] Let $1\to K\to H \to G \to 1$ be an exact sequence of groups. It is well known that this extension determines a morphism $\varphi_H:G \to \mathrm{Out}(K)$ to the group of outer automorphisms of $K$ (induced by the conjugation in $H$). To recover the extension, it is needed to prescribe an additional information: the class $c_H\in H^2(G, Z(K))$ (see [@Br Chapter IV, §6] for details).
On the reverse direction, when $G$ is a finite group acting by homeomorphisms on a topological space $Z$, we also have an induced morphism $\varphi_Z:G\to \mathrm{Out}(\pi_1(Z))$. In this case, there is an extension $$1{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(Z){\longrightarrow}H{\longrightarrow}G{\longrightarrow}1$$ induced by the action of $G$ on $Z$. It can be explicitly constructed in the following way. By [@Ser58] there exists a projective simply connected manifold $P$ on which $G$ acts freely and we can look at the natural projection $Z\times P\to (Z\times P)/G$. This is a finite étale cover of Galois group $G$ and the homotopy exact sequence is: $$\label{eq:group action and extension}
1{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(Z)\simeq\pi_1(Z\times P){\longrightarrow}\pi_1((Z\times P)/G){\longrightarrow}G {\longrightarrow}1.$$ This is the sought exact sequence. It is stated in [@Cla16 Lemma 3.9] that the extension (\[eq:group action and extension\]) does not depend on $P$ and that this extension is the usual one if $G$ acts freely on $Z$ (*i.e.* the one corresponding to $Z\to Z/G$).
Using the construction above we obtain the following technical result.
\[lem:basic-lemma\] Let $H:=\pi_1(X)$ be a Kähler group and $K \triangleleft H$ be finite index normal subgroup with quotient $G:=H/K$. Let us denote by $\tilde{X}$ the corresponding étale cover of $X$. Assume now that there exists a continuous map $g:\tilde{X}\to Z$ to a projective manifold $Z$ which is $G$-equivariant (so that $G$ acts on $Z$) and which induces an isomorphism at the level of fundamental groups. Then $H$ is a projective group.
The $G$-equivariant map $$\tilde{X}\times P\stackrel{g}{{\longrightarrow}} Z\times P$$ induces an isomorphism on the fundamental group and, using Remark \[rem:group\_extension\], we infer that $$\pi_1(X)\simeq \pi_1((Z\times P)/G)$$ is a projective group.
Let us recall that a group $G$ is virtually torsion-free if there exist a subgroup $H \subset G$ of finite index that is torsion free.
\[lem:virtual torsion freeness\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold admitting a fibration onto a curve $f:X\to C$ such that the fundamental group $\pi_1(F)$ of a general fibre $F$ is abelian. Then the group $\pi_1(X)$ is virtually torsion-free.
Applying [@Cam98 Appendix C] we can take a finite étale cover such that $\pi_1(F)_X$ coincides with $K:=\ker(f_*:\pi_1(X)\to \pi_1(C))$ and the latter is thus finitely generated. If $C \simeq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1$ we obtain that $\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(F)_X$ is abelian, so virtually torsion-free. We can thus suppose that $g(C) \geq 1$. By [@Ara11 Theorem 5.1] the cohomology class $e\in H^2(\pi_1(C),K)$ corresponding to the extension $$1{\longrightarrow}K{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(X){\longrightarrow}\pi_1(C){\longrightarrow}1$$ is torsion. Then so is the class $e'\in H^2(\pi_1(C),K/K_{tor})$ corresponding to the extension $$1{\longrightarrow}K/K_{tor}{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(X)/K_{tor}{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(C){\longrightarrow}1.$$ Arguing as in [@CCE2 §2.1] we can assume that the latter cohomology class $e'$ vanishes (up to replacing $\pi_1(C)$ with a finite index subgroup). Using the following piece of long exact sequence of cohomology of $\pi_1(C)$-modules $$\cdots{\longrightarrow}H^2(\pi_1(C),K_{tor}){\longrightarrow}H^2(\pi_1(C),K){\longrightarrow}H^2(\pi_1(C),K/K_{tor}){\longrightarrow}\cdots$$ we see the cohomology class $e$ comes from $H^2(\pi_1(C),K_{tor})$. It is then easily observed[^3] that this class is annihilated when restricted to a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(C)$. This means that the following exact sequence of groups $$1{\longrightarrow}K_{tor}{\longrightarrow}\pi_1(X){\longrightarrow}\pi_1(X)/K_{tor}{\longrightarrow}1$$ splits when restricted to a finite index subgroup and it proves that $\pi_1(X)$ is virtually torsion-free since $\pi_1(X)/K_{tor}$ is.
Now we give some criteria to decide whether a Kähler group is projective.
\[lem:gdim=1\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold having $\gamma\dim(X)\le1$. Its fundamental group is then projective.
If $\gamma\dim(X)=0$ its fundamental group is finite so [@Ser58] applies. If $\gamma\dim(X)=1$ we know from [@Cla10 Théorème 1.2] (which is just a rephrase of [@Siu87]) that there exists a finite étale Galois cover $\pi:\tilde{X}\to X$ with group $G$ such that the $\Gamma$-reduction of $\tilde X$ is a fibration $\tilde g: \tilde{X} \to C$ onto a curve inducing an isomorphism $\pi_1(X) \simeq \pi_1(C)$. It is also $G$-equivariant according to Lemma \[lem:equivariance\_shafarevich\_map\]. We conclude by Lemma \[lem:basic-lemma\].
\[lem:gdim=2\] Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold such that $\gamma\dim(X) = 2$. If $\pi_1(X)$ is virtually torsion-free it is a projective group.
Let $K \triangleleft \pi_1(X)$ be a finite index subgroup which is normal and torsion-free, and set $G := \pi_1(X)/K$. Applying Lemma \[lem:equivariance\_shafarevich\_map\] to the finite étale cover corresponding to $G$, we know that we can find $\tilde{X}\to X$ which is a composition of a finite étale cover and a modification such that the $\gamma$-reduction $g:\tilde{X}\to Y$ is neat, $Y$ is smooth Kähler surface and $g$ is equivariant for the natural actions of $G$ on $\tilde{X}$ and $Y$. Consider now the exact sequence : the group $\pi_1(\tilde{X})$ is torsion-free and $\pi_1(F)_X$ is finite, so we have $\pi_1(F)_X=1$. Thus $\pi_1(\tilde{X})\simeq \pi_1(Y,\Delta^*(g))$ is torsion-free, by Remark \[remarkp1orbifold\] this implies that $$\pi_1(\tilde{X}) \simeq \pi_1(Y,\Delta^*(g)) \simeq \pi_1(Y).$$ We can now argue according to the algebraic dimension of $Y$.
1. If $a(Y)=0$ then by the classification of surfaces $\pi_1(Y)$ is abelian. Thus $\pi_1(X)$ is virtually abelian and [@BR11 Theorem 1.4] applies.
2. If $a(Y)=1$ then the algebraic reduction $Y \rightarrow C$ is an elliptic fibration over a curve $C$. Since the algebraic reduction is unique, it is $G$-equivariant. By [@Kod Theorems 14.1-3-5] we know that there exists a $G$-equivariant deformation of $Y$ to an algebraic elliptic surface, so we can again conclude by Lemma \[lem:basic-lemma\].
3. If $a(Y)=2$ the surface $Y$ is projective and Lemma \[lem:basic-lemma\] applies.
Although Lemma \[lem:gdim=1\] and \[lem:gdim=2\] are stated in a very similar manner, they are of different nature: the former is a group theoretic statement whereas the latter is not. Indeed as a consequence of [@Siu87] it is known that the property $\gamma d(X)=1$ is equivalent to having a fundamental group commensurable with the fundamental group of a curve; this property does thus depend only on the fundamental group. In general it is however possible to realize a given Kähler group as the fundamental group of several manifolds having different $\gamma$-dimensions.
We argue according to the algebraic dimension of $X$, the case $a(X)=3$ being trivial since a Kähler Moishezon manifold is projective.
1. If $a(X)=0$ then $X$ is special in the sense of Campana. Thus the fundamental group is virtually abelian [@CC14 Theorem 1.1] and thus projective [@BR11 Theorem 1.4].
2. If $a(X)=1$, we replace $X$ by some blowup such that the algebraic reduction is a holomorphic fibration $f: X \rightarrow C$ onto a curve. By [@CP00] the general fibre of $F$ is bimeromorphic to a K3 surface, torus or ruled surface over an elliptic curve, so its fundamental group is abelian. By Lemma \[lem:virtual torsion freeness\] the group $\pi_1(X)$ is virtually torsion free. If $\gamma \dim(X)\le 2$ we can thus apply Lemma \[lem:gdim=1\] and Lemma \[lem:gdim=2\]. If $\gamma \dim(X)=3$ it is shown in [@CZ Theorem 1] that up to bimeromorphic transformations and étale cover $f$ is a smooth morphism. Thus we can apply [@Cla16 Corollary 1.2].
3. If $a(X)=2$ the algebraic reduction makes $X$ into an elliptic fibre space over a projective surface and we can apply Corollary \[theoremmain\].
Elliptic surfaces
=================
\[propositionbeauvillekaehler\] Let $S$ be a non-algebraic compact Kähler surface that admits an elliptic fibration ${\ensuremath{f:S \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1}}$. Then $f$ has at least three singular fibres.
We can suppose without loss of generality that $f$ is relatively minimal. Thus we know by the canonical bundle formula [@Kod] that $$K_S \simeq f^* (K_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1} + M + \sum_{c \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1} m_c S_c)$$ where $M$ is the modular part defined by the $j$-function and $\sum_{c \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1} m_c S_c$ the discriminant divisor. Recall that any non-algebraic Kähler surface has a pseudoeffective canonical bundle, so $K_S$ is nef.
Suppose first that $f$ is isotrivial, i.e. we have $M \equiv 0$. Then [@BHPV04 Chapter V, Table 6] shows that the singular fibres are either multiples of smooth elliptic curves or of type $I_0^*$. For a multiple fibre we have $m_c \leq \frac{1}{2}$ and for a fibre of type $I_0^*$ we have $m_c = \frac{1}{2}$. Since $K_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1} \simeq {{\mathcal O}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1}(-2)$ we see that there are at least $4$ singular fibres.
Suppose now that $f$ is not isotrivial. Then we can use the argument from [@Bea81 Proposition 1]: let $C^\star \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1$ be the maximal open set over which $f$ is smooth. The $j$-function defines a non-constant holomorphic map $\tilde C^\star \rightarrow \mathbb H$ from the universal cover $\tilde C^\star \rightarrow C^\star$ to the upper half plane $\mathbb H$. In particular $\tilde C^\star$ is not ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1$, hence ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}}^1 \setminus C^\star$ has at least three points.
[BHPVdV04]{}
Donu Arapura. Homomorphisms between [K]{}ähler groups. In [*Topology of algebraic varieties and singularities*]{}, volume 538 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 95–111. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011.
Yohan Brunebarbe and Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana. Fundamental group and pluridifferentials on compact [K]{}[ä]{}hler manifolds. , 1510.07922, 2015.
Arnaud Beauville. Le nombre minimum de fibres singuli[è]{}res d’une courbe stable sur [$\mathbb P^1$]{}. In [*Séminaire sur les [P]{}inceaux de [C]{}ourbes de [G]{}enre au [M]{}oins [D]{}eux*]{}, volume 86 of [*Astérisque*]{}, pages 97–108. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1981.
Wolf P. Barth, Klaus Hulek, Chris A. M. Peters, and Antonius Van de Ven. , volume 4 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2004.
J[ü]{}rgen Bingener. On deformations of [K]{}ähler spaces. [I]{}. , 182(4):505–535, 1983.
Oliver Baues and Johannes Riesterer. Virtually abelian [K]{}ähler and projective groups. , 81(2):191–213, 2011.
Kenneth S. Brown. , volume 87 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.
Nicholas Buchdahl. Algebraic deformations of compact [K]{}ähler surfaces. , 253(3):453–459, 2006.
Nicholas Buchdahl. Algebraic deformations of compact [K]{}ähler surfaces. [II]{}. , 258(3):493–498, 2008.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana. Remarques sur le revêtement universel des variétés kählériennes compactes. , 122(2):255–284, 1994.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana. Negativity of compact curves in infinite covers of projective surfaces. , 7(4):673–693, 1998.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana. Orbifolds, special varieties and classification theory. , 54(3):499–630, 2004.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana. Orbifoldes géométriques spéciales et classification biméromorphe des variétés kählériennes compactes. , 10(4):809–934, 2011.
Fr[é]{}deric Campana and Beno[î]{}t Claudon. Abelianity conjecture for special compact [K]{}ähler 3-folds. , 57(1):55–78, 2014.
Fr[é]{}deric Campana, Beno[î]{}t Claudon, and Philippe Eyssidieux. Représentations linéaires des groups kählériens et de leurs analogues projectifs. , 1:331–342, 2014.
Fr[é]{}deric Campana, Beno[î]{}t Claudon, and Philippe Eyssidieux. Représentations linéaires des groupes kählériens : factorisations et conjecture de [S]{}hafarevich linéaire. , 151(2):351–376, 2015.
Beno[î]{}t Claudon. Invariance de la [$\Gamma$]{}-dimension pour certaines familles kählériennes de dimension 3. , 266(2):265–284, 2010.
Beno[î]{}t Claudon. Smooth families of tori and linear [K]{}[ä]{}hler groups. To appear in *Ann. Fac. Sc. Toulouse Math.*, arXiv:1604.03367, 2016.
Fr[é]{}d[é]{}ric Campana and Thomas Peternell. Complex threefolds with non-trivial holomorphic [$2$]{}-forms. , 9(2):223–264, 2000.
F. Campana and Q. Zhang. Compact [K]{}ähler threefolds of [$\pi_1$]{}-general type. In [*Recent progress in arithmetic and algebraic geometry*]{}, volume 386 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 1–12. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
Jean-Pierre Demailly. Mesures de [M]{}onge-[A]{}mpère et caractérisation géométrique des variétés algébriques affines. , 19:124, 1985.
Hubert Flenner and Siegmund Kosarew. On locally trivial deformations. , 23(4):627–665, 1987.
Akira Fujiki. Closedness of the [D]{}ouady spaces of compact [K]{}ähler spaces. , 14(1):1–52, 1978/79.
Daniel Greb, Stefan Kebekus, and Sándor J. Kovács. Extension theorems for differential forms and [B]{}ogomolov-[S]{}ommese vanishing on log canonical varieties. , 146(1):193–219, 2010.
Hans Grauert. Über [M]{}odifikationen und exzeptionelle analytische [M]{}engen. , 146:331–368, 1962.
Hans Grauer and Reinhold Remmert. Coherent analytic sheaves. , vol. 265, 1984.
Patrick Graf. Algebraic approximation of [K]{}[ä]{}hler threefolds of [K]{}odaira dimension zero. , 2016.
Robin Hartshorne. . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52.
Andreas Höring and Thomas Peternell. Minimal models for [K]{}ähler threefolds. , 203(1):217–264, 2016.
Birger Iversen. , Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1986.
K. Kodaira. On compact complex analytic surfaces. [I]{}. , 71:111–152, 1960.
K. Kodaira. On compact analytic surfaces. [II]{}, [III]{}. , 78:1–40, 1963.
J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r. Shafarevich maps and plurigenera of algebraic varieties. , 113(1):177–215, 1993.
János Kollár. , volume 166 of [ *Annals of Mathematics Studies*]{}. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007.
Robert Lazarsfeld. , volume 48 of [ *Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. Classical setting: line bundles and linear series.
Hsueh-Yung Lin. The bimeromorphic [K]{}odaira problem for compact [K]{}[ä]{}hler threefolds of [K]{}odaira dimension 1. , 1612.09271, 2016.
Hsueh-Yung Lin. Algebraic approximations of compact [K]{}[ä]{}hler threefolds of [K]{}odaira dimension 0 or 1. , 1704.08109, 2017.
Hsueh-Yung Lin. Algebraic approximations of uniruled compact [K]{}[ä]{}hler threefolds. , 1710.01083, 2017.
Noboru Nakayama. On [W]{}eierstrass models. In [*Algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, [V]{}ol. [II]{}*]{}, pages 405–431. Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 1988.
Noboru Nakayama. Global structure of an elliptic fibration. , 38(3):451–649, 2002.
Noboru Nakayama. Local structure of an elliptic fibration. In [*Higher dimensional birational geometry ([K]{}yoto, 1997)*]{}, volume 35 of [*Adv. Stud. Pure Math.*]{}, pages 185–295. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2002.
Yoshinori Namikawa. Extension of 2-forms and symplectic varieties. , 539:123–147, 2001.
Florian Schrack. Algebraic approximation of [K]{}ähler threefolds. , 285(11-12):1486–1499, 2012.
Jean-Pierre Serre. Sur la topologie des variétés algébriques en caractéristique [$p$]{}. In [*Symposium internacional de topología algebraica [I]{}nternational symposium on algebraic topology*]{}, pages 24–53. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and UNESCO, Mexico City, 1958.
Edoardo Sernesi. , volume 334 of [ *Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
Yum Tong Siu. Strong rigidity for [K]{}ähler manifolds and the construction of bounded holomorphic functions. In [*Discrete groups in geometry and analysis ([N]{}ew [H]{}aven, [C]{}onn., 1984)*]{}, volume 67 of [*Progr. Math.*]{}, pages 124–151. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1987.
Shigeharu Takayama. Local simple connectedness of resolutions of log-terminal singularities. , 14(8):825–836, 2003.
Jean Varouchas. Kähler spaces and proper open morphisms. , 283(1):13–52, 1989.
Claire Voisin. , volume 10 of [*Cours Spécialisés \[Specialized Courses\]*]{}. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 2002.
Claire Voisin. On the homotopy types of compact [K]{}ähler and complex projective manifolds. , 157(2):329–343, 2004.
Claire Voisin. On the homotopy types of [K]{}ähler manifolds and the birational [K]{}odaira problem. , 72(1):43–71, 2006.
Jaros[ł]{}aw W[ł]{}odarczyk. Resolution of singularities of analytic spaces. In [*Proceedings of [G]{}ökova [G]{}eometry-[T]{}opology [C]{}onference 2008*]{}, pages 31–63. Gökova Geometry/Topology Conference (GGT), Gökova, 2009.
Steven Zucker. Hodge theory with degenerating coefficients. [$L_{2}$]{} cohomology in the [P]{}oincaré metric. , 109(3):415–476, 1979.
[^1]: After the submission of the first version of this paper to the arxiv, the third author posted his preprint [@Lin16] on algebraic approximation which implies this case. Our proof is completely different and should be useful for generalisations to higher dimension.
[^2]: By Definition \[definitionlocallytrivial\] these covers exist up to replacing $B$ by a smaller open subset.
[^3]: If $A$ is any finite $\pi_1(C)$-module then there is a finite index subgroup $\pi_1(C')$ of $\pi_1(C)$ such that the whole of the cohomology group $H^2(\pi_1(C),A)$ vanishes when restricted to $\pi_1(C')$. This is a consequence of the fact that a curve of positive genus admits finite étale covers of any given degree.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The problem of infering the top component of a noisy sample covariance matrix with prior information about the distribution of its entries is considered, in the framework of the spiked covariance model. Using the replica method of statistical physics the computation of the overlap between the top components of the sample and population covariance matrices is formulated as an explicit optimization problem for any kind of entry-wise prior information. The approach is illustrated on the case of top components including large entries, and the corresponding phase diagram is shown. The calculation predicts that the maximal sampling noise level at which the recovery of the top population component remains possible is higher than its counterpart in the spiked covariance model with no prior information.'
author:
-
title: Inference of principal components of noisy correlation matrices with prior information
---
Random Matrix Theory, Spiked Covariance Model, Prior Information, Replica Method, Phase Transitions
Introduction
============
In the era of big data inferring features of complex systems, characterized by many degrees of freedom, is of crucial importance. The high-dimensional setting, where the number of features to extract is not small compared to the number of available data, makes this task statistically or computationally hard. One case of practical interest is the inference of the largest component (eigenvector) of correlation matrices. Consider $T$ independently drawn observations of $N$ interacting Gaussian variables, [*i.e.*]{} such that the population covariance matrix $C$ is not the identity matrix. If $T$ is much larger than $N$ the empirical covariance matrix $\hat C$ computed from the $T$ observations converges to $C$, and recovering the top eigenvector is easy. The case where both $N,T$ are large (sent to infinity at fixed ratio $r=N/T$) has received a lot of attention, both theoretically and practically [@hdi]. From a theoretical point of view, it has been shown, in the case of a covariance matrix $C$ with one (or few compared to $N$) eigenvalues larger than unity, say, $\gamma$, that recovery is possible if $r$ is smaller than the critical value $r_c=(\gamma-1)^2$ [@hoyle; @bbp]. For larger sampling noise ($r>r_c$), the top eigenvector of $\hat C$ is essentially orthogonal to the top component of $C$, and is therefore not informative. It is reasonable to expect that the situation will improve in the presence of additional, prior information about the structure of the top component to be recovered, and that recovery will be possible even when $r$ is (not too much) larger than $r_c$. That this is indeed the case has been rigorously shown when all entries are nonnegative [@montanari], and is supported by strong numerical evidence when the top component is known to have large entries (finite as $N\to\infty$) [@villamaina]. In the present work, using techniques from statistical physics we propose explicit conjectures about the critical noise level and its dependence on the signal eigenvalue ($\gamma$) and on prior knowledge. The framework is general and can be applied to any kind of entry-wise prior probability, [*i.e.*]{} factorized over the entries $\xi_i$ of the top component $\boldsymbol\xi$. We show how rigorous results in the nonnegative case of [@montanari] are recovered, and present new results for the large entry prior.
The motivation to consider the latter prior stems from computational biology, more precisely, from the study of coevolution between amino acids in protein families. Sequences of proteins diverged from a common ancestor widely differ across many organisms, while the protein structure and function are often very well conserved. The constraints induced by structural and functional conservation manifest themselves as correlations between amino acids (the $N$ variables, where $N$ is the protein length) across the different organisms (the $T$ observations). Recently, it was shown that the eigenmodes $\boldsymbol\xi$ of the amino-acid covariance matrix corresponding to [*low*]{} eigenvalues were informative about three-dimensional contacts on the protein structure [@cocco13]. These modes show large entries on the protein sites and amino-acid types in contact; as the other entries contain diffuse, non-structural signal [@lp], the components $\boldsymbol\xi$ cannot be thought of as being sparse. The presence of large entries in structurally-informative components was empirically assessed through the so-called inverse participation ratio, $\sum _i \xi_i^4$ (for normalized $\boldsymbol\xi$), a quantity that remains finite for components with (few) large entries and otherwise vanishes for $N\to\infty$. We hereafter use this quantity as a prior over the components to facilitate their recovery.
Probabilistic framework
=======================
Spiked covariance model
-----------------------
We consider the popular Spiked Covariance Model, in which the entries of $N$-dimensional vectors, ${\bf x}=(x_1,x_2,...,x_N)$, are Gaussian random variables with zero means and population covariance matrix $\bf C$. All eigenvalues of $\bf C$ but one are equal to unity, while the remaining eigenvalue is $\gamma\ne1$, with associated eigenvector $\bf u$. As usual we choose $\gamma>1$ but our results could be transposed to the case $\gamma<1$ with minor modifications. We draw $T$ independent samples ${\bf x}^{t}, t=1,2,...,T$, and define the sample covariance matrix $\hat{\bf C}$, with entries $\hat C_{ij}=\frac 1T \sum _t x_i^t x_j^t$. The top eigenvector of $\hat{\bf C}$ is denoted by $\boldsymbol\xi$. In the double limit $N,T\to \infty$ at fixed ratio $r=N/T$, there exists a phase transition at a critical value of the sampling noise $r_c = (\gamma-1)^2$ separating the [*high-noise regime*]{}, $r>r_c$, in which $\boldsymbol\xi$ and $\bf u$ have asymptotically zero squared dot product, and the [*low-noise regime*]{}, $r<r_c$, where the squared dot product between $\boldsymbol\xi$ and $\bf u$ is strictly positive with high probability [@hoyle; @bbp].
Likelihood of principal component $\boldsymbol \xi$
---------------------------------------------------
The sample covariance matrix $\hat {\bf C}$ obeys a Wishart distribution, determined by $\bf C$, $N$ and $T$. Using Bayes formula we may write the likelihood (density of probability) for the normalized top component $\boldsymbol\xi$ of $\hat{\bf C}$ as follows $$\rho (\boldsymbol\xi) \propto \exp\left( \frac{r\, \beta}2\, \sum_{i,j} \xi_i \, \hat C_{ij}\, \xi_j\right) \delta (\boldsymbol\xi^2-1)\ ,$$ up to a normalization coefficient. Parameter $\beta$ above is equal to $\beta_{Bayes}=1-\frac 1\gamma$. However, it is convenient to consider $\beta$ as a free parameter. The $\beta\to\infty$ limit corresponds to Maximum Likelihood inference, while working at low values of $\beta$ may be useful to ensure rapid mixing of Monte Carlo Markov Chain sampling of distribution $\rho$, especially in the presence of prior information, see below.
Prior information over $\boldsymbol \xi$
----------------------------------------
We now assume that prior information over the population eigenvector $\bf u$ is available under the form of a potential $V$ acting on the entries of $\boldsymbol\xi$. The posterior distribution over the top component now reads $$\label{rho2}
\rho (\boldsymbol\xi) \propto \exp\left( \frac{r\, \beta}2\, \sum_{i,j} \xi_i \, \hat C_{ij}\, \xi_j -\sum_i V(\xi_i)\right) \delta (\boldsymbol\xi^2-1)\ ,$$ up to a normalization coefficient. Three choices for the potential $V$ are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pot\]. Motivated by previous works on protein sequence analysis, see Introduction, we will hereafter mostly concentrate on $V(\xi)=-V_0\; \xi^4$, with $V_0\ge 0$ (Fig. \[fig\_pot\](a)). This potential favors the presence of large entries in the top component, but does not rule out the existence of many entries with small magnitude (typically, of the order of $N^{-1/2}$). It is therefore different from sparsity-enforcing potentials, such as $V(\xi)\propto |\xi|$ in Fig. \[fig\_pot\](b). Exact results for the location of the transition in the nonnegative case (Fig. \[fig\_pot\](c)) were recently derived [@montanari]. Our formalism finds back those results, and can be applied to any potential $V$ as shown below.
![Three potentials $V(\xi)$ corresponding to three prior information about the entries $\xi$ of the principal component: (a) large entries are present, (b) $L_1$ penalty favoring zero entries, (c) all entries are nonnegative. []{data-label="fig_pot"}](Figures/potentials.pdf){width="3.7in"}
Calculation of phase diagram
============================
General replica calculation
---------------------------
We assume that the logarithm, divided by $N$, of the normalization coefficient of $\rho$ in Eq. (\[rho2\]), $$Z(\hat{\bf C}) = \int_{ \boldsymbol\xi^2=1} d\boldsymbol\xi\; \exp\left( \frac{r\, \beta}2\, \sum_{i,j} \xi_i \, \hat C_{ij}\, \xi_j -\sum_i V(\xi_i)\right)$$ is concentrated around its expectation value $L\equiv \frac 1N E_{\hat {\bf C}}[\log Z]$ in the $N,T\to\infty$ limit, and compute the latter with the help of the replica method, a non rigorous technique commonly used in the statistical physics of disordered systems [@replicas], see [@ganguli; @obuchi; @krzakala] for recent applications to related high-dimensional inference problem. We obtain $$\label{logz}
\begin{split}
&L(r,\gamma,\beta) = \text{Extr} \bigg\{ -\frac 1{2r} \log\bigg(\frac 1\beta-q_0+q_1\bigg) -q_0\hat q_0 \\
&+ \frac{q_1}{2r(\frac 1\beta -q_0+q_1)} + \big(\hat q_0-\hat q_1 \big)\big(1+(\gamma-1) p^2\big) \\
& + \hat \mu + q_1\hat q_1 +p\hat p -\frac 12 \log \hat \mu + \frac {\hat q_1}{2\hat\mu} +\tilde L(\hat \mu,\hat p, {\bf u}) \bigg\} \ ,
\end{split}$$ where the Extremum is computed over the order parameters $p^2= \frac 1N E_{\hat{\bf C}} [\langle ( \sum_{i} u_i \xi_i)^2\rangle_{\hat{\bf C}}]$, $q_0=\frac 1N \sum_{i,j}C_{ij} E_{\hat {\bf C}}[\langle \xi_i \xi_j\rangle_{\hat{\bf C}}]$, $q_1=\frac 1N\sum_{i,j} C_{ij} E_{\hat{\bf C}} [\langle \xi_i \rangle_{\hat{\bf C}}\langle \xi_j\rangle_{\hat{\bf C}}]$, and the conjugated Lagrange multipliers $\hat q_0,\hat q_1,\hat \mu$. Here, $\langle\cdot\rangle_{\hat{\bf C}}$ denotes the expectation over the $\rho$ distribution over $\boldsymbol\xi$ in Eq. (\[rho2\]). The term $\tilde L$ in Eq. (\[logz\]) depends on the prior potential $V$ and on the structure of the normalized population top component ${\bf u}$, more precisely, on how its entries scale with $N$. We now consider two cases of interest.
Case of nonnegative entries
---------------------------
We assume first that the components of $\bf u$ scales as $\frac{\tilde u_i}{\sqrt N}$, with $\tilde u_i$ finite, and denote by $\varphi(\tilde u)$ the distribution of the $\tilde u_i$. We focus on the nonnegative entry prior, for which $V(\xi)=+\infty$ for $\xi<0$ and 0 for $\xi\ge0$. We obtain $$\label{logz2}
\begin{split}
&\tilde L= \frac{\hat p^2}{2\hat\mu} + \frac 1{2\hat \mu} \int d\tilde u\, \varphi(\tilde u)\bigg[\log \text{erfc}\left(\frac{-\hat p\, \tilde u -z \sqrt{2\hat q_1}}{2\sqrt{\hat \mu}}\right)\bigg]_z \ ,
\end{split}$$ where erfc is the complementary error function, and $[F(z)]_z$ denotes the average of $F(z)$ over the Gaussian measure, $e^{-z^2/2}/\sqrt{2\pi}$. After some elementary algebra, we obtain the expression for the overlap $$p = \frac{ [\tilde u (x\,\tilde u+z)]_z^+}{[(x\,\tilde u+z)^2]_z^+}\ \text{with}\
x=\frac{\hat p}{\sqrt{2\hat q_1}}=\frac{(\gamma-1)\, p}{\sqrt{r(1+(\gamma-1)p^2)}}$$ where $[F(z))]_z^+=[\max(F(z),0)]_z$. These equations correspond to Eqs. (7), (8), (9), (21) and (23) of [@montanari].
Case of large entries {#poiuy}
---------------------
We now assume that ${\bf u}$ has only $K$ ‘large’ entries, $u_1,...,u_K$, different from zero in the $N\to\infty$ limit (with finite $K$), and that the other entries decay fast enough with $N$, [*e.g.*]{} are of the order of $\frac 1{\sqrt N}$. Then $$\label{logz3}
\begin{split}
&\tilde L= -\sum_{i=1}^K \min_{-1\le\xi\le 1} \big\{ \hat \mu \,\xi^2 +\hat p\, u_i\, \xi +V(\xi)\big\}\ ,
\end{split}$$
While the above formula is valid for generic $V$ we restrict ourselves, in the remaining part of this article, to the potential $V(\xi)=-V_0\; \xi^4$. Furthermore, we assume that the $K$ finite entries of $\bf u$ are all equal to $u=\frac 1{\sqrt K}$; The calculation can be easily extended to $u<\frac 1{\sqrt K}$, or to the case of nonhomogeneous entries $u_i$. In addition we assume that (A1) all $\xi_i$s take identical values in Eq. (\[logz\]) (homogeneous regime); (A2) $\boldsymbol\xi$ has no large (finite when $N\to\infty$) entry $\xi_i$ on sites such that $u_i=0$. The validity of these assumptions will be discussed in the next Section.
After some elementary algebra the extremization conditions reduce to the following set of $K+1$ coupled equations over $\hat \mu$ and the first $K$ entries of $\boldsymbol\xi$: $$\label{ppo}
\begin{split}
& \xi_i -\frac{2\,V_0}{\hat\mu}\, \xi_i^3=\frac{(\gamma-1) p}{r\sqrt K\left(\frac{2\hat \mu}{\beta}-1\right)}\, \quad (i=1,...,K)\ ,\\
& \sum_{i=1}^K \xi_i^2 = 1-\frac{1}{2\hat \mu} - \frac{1+(\gamma-1) p^2 - \frac 1{2\hat\mu}}{r \left(\frac{2\hat \mu}{\beta}-1\right)^2}
\end{split}$$ where $$p=\frac 1{\sqrt K} \sum_{i=1}^K \xi_i \ .$$ Note that the $K$ variables $\xi_i$s obey the same cubic equation and, hence, can take at most three different values as $i$ varies.
The equations above admit the solution $p=\xi_i=0,\hat\mu=\frac 12$, corresponding to the ‘unaligned’ phase. In addition, in some well-defined regions of the four-dimensional control parameter space $(r,\gamma, \beta,V_0)$ solutions with $p\ne0$ may be found. We give in Section IV below results for three cases: (A) no prior ($V_0=0$); (B) weak exploitation of many data with prior information (small $\beta, r$ for finite $V_0$); (C) maximum [*a posteriori*]{} inference (finite $r$, and infinite $\beta$ and $V_0$ at fixed ratio $V_0/\beta$).
Results for ‘large entry’ prior
===============================
Warm-up: no prior
-----------------
We start with the case $V_0=0$. Extremization conditions over the parameters in Eq. (\[logz\]) give the value of the squared overlap $p^2$ between ${\bf u}$ and $\boldsymbol\xi$ for any $\beta$. We find: $p^2=0$ for $r> r_c=(1-\gamma)^2$ whatever the value of $\beta$, and, for $r<r_c$, $$p^2=\left(1-\frac{\beta(r)}{\beta}\right)\left( \frac{1-\frac{r}{r_c^2}}{1+\frac r{r_c}}\right)\text{if}\ \beta >\beta(r)\equiv \frac{r}{r+\gamma-1}.$$ Those expressions perfectly agree, in the $\beta\to\infty$ limit, with known results for the spiked covariance model [@hoyle; @bbp]. In addition our formalism gives access to the value of $p^2$ for finite $\beta$. Note that, for $r<r_c$, inference of the direction of ${\bf u}$ is possible, [*i.e.*]{} $p^2>0$, even for $\beta \le \beta_{Bayes}$ (but larger than $\beta(r)$). At the critical noise, $\beta(r_c)=\beta_{Bayes}$.
Inference at low $\beta$ with prior information
-----------------------------------------------
The above results imply that, in the absence of prior information ($V_0=0$), inference of the top component direction is possible at low $\beta\to 0$ provided the sampling noise $r$ is smaller than $\beta /(1-\gamma)$. In other words, when both $\beta$ and $r$ tend to zero with a fixed ratio $\tilde\beta=\beta/r$, the aligned and not-aligned phases correspond, respectively, to $\tilde \beta > \tilde\beta_c (0) = \frac 1{\gamma-1}$, and $\tilde \beta < \tilde \beta_c (0)$.
We expect the critical ratio $\tilde \beta_c(V_0)$ to be a drecreasing function of the prior strength $V_0$, as stronger prior should facilitate the recovery of the large-entry top component $\bf u$. Resolution of Eq. (\[ppo\]) gives the phase diagram shown in Fig. \[fig\_pd\]. Several regimes can be identified, depending on $V_0$:
- For $0<V_0\le \frac K4$, the critical ratio $\tilde \beta_c(V_0)$ remains unchanged, see Fig. \[fig\_pd\], and equal to $\frac 1{\gamma-1}$. As $\tilde \beta$ crosses this critical value the overlap $p$ continuously increases from 0 to a positive value, see Fig. \[fig\_p2\].
- For $\frac K4 < V_0\le K$, the aligned phase ($p\ne 0$) exist for $\tilde \beta > \tilde \beta_{c,1} = \frac{4 \sqrt{V_0/K}\big(1-\sqrt{V_0/K}\big)}{\gamma-1}$, see dashed line in Fig. \[fig\_pd\]. As $\tilde \beta$ crosses $\tilde \beta_{c,1} $ the squared overlap $p^2$ discontinuously jumps from 0 to $1-\frac 1{2\sqrt{V_0}}>0$, see Fig. \[fig\_p2\].
- For $\frac K4 < V_0\le V_0^+\times K$, the aligned phase ($p\ne 0$) is thermodynamically stable, meaning that the value $L_+$ of $L$ in Eq. (\[logz\]) attached to this phase is larger than the one of the nonligned phase ($p=0$), $L_0=\frac 12 (1+\tilde \beta)$, for $\tilde \beta > \tilde \beta_{c,2} $, see full line in Fig. \[fig\_pd\]. The value of $\tilde \beta_{c,2} $ and of the overlap $p_2$ at the phase transition are the roots of the two coupled equations $$\label{ppw}
\begin{split}
& 0= \frac{p_2^2}{1-p_2^2} + \frac 12 \log\big(1-p_2^2\big) -\frac{V_0}{K} \, p_2^4 \ , \\
& \tilde \beta_{c,2} = \frac 1{1-p_2^2} - 4 \frac{V_0}K\,p_2^2 \ ,
\end{split}$$ where the first equation actually implements the condition $L_+=L_0$. The phase transition is illustrated in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig\_p2\] for a specific value of $V_0$. The value of $V_0^+\simeq 1.227703...$ is defined from $$V_0^+ = \min \big\{ V_0 \ \text{s.t.} \max_{\xi \ne 0} \big( \log(1-\xi^2) +2V_0\, \xi^4\big) > 0\big\}$$
- For $V_0\ge V_0^+\times K$ the prior strength is so strong that the inferred component $\boldsymbol\xi$ has few large entries whatever the value of $\beta$. For $\beta>0$ it is aligned ($p\ne 0$) with $\bf u$ (Fig. \[fig\_p2\]), while for $\beta<0$, it is not, see Fig. \[fig\_pd\].
![Phase diagram of top component recovery in the ($\tilde \beta, V_0)$ plane; axis are rescaled by $(\gamma-1)$ and $\frac 1K$ factors, where $K$ is the number of nonzero components in ${\bf u}=\frac 1{\sqrt K}(1,1,...,1,0,0,...,0)$. Dots locate the points $(1,\frac 14)$, $(\frac 89,\frac 49)$ and $(0,1.228...)$, see text. Transitions between phases are shown by full lines. The dashed lines show the limit of existence of the Aligned phase, while the dot-dashed lines separate the regions with (above) and without (below line) homogeneity breaking among the $K$ large entries of $\boldsymbol\xi$.[]{data-label="fig_pd"}](Figures/phase_diagram.pdf "fig:"){width="3.3in"} -.3cm
Assumption (A1), see Section \[poiuy\], is trivially valid for $K=1$, but is not necessarily correct for $K\ge 2$ and strong prior strength, for which we expect that $\boldsymbol\xi$ will condensate and one component, say, $\xi_1$, will be larger than the other components, say, $\xi_i$, with $i=2,...,K$ (nonhomogeneous regime). The transition line between these two regimes is identified upon imposing that the cubic equation over $\xi_i$ in Eq. (\[logz\]) admits a two-fold degenerate solution $\xi$, that is, $6V_0\,\xi^2=\hat\mu$. The transition line is plotted in the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig\_pd\] (dot-dashed line), and ends up in the point of coordinate $(\frac 49,\frac 89)$ lying on the existence line (dashed line).
![Average squared overlap between top components of the population and sample covariance matrices, $p^2\equiv E_{\hat{\bf C}} [({\bf u}\cdot \boldsymbol\xi )^2]$, vs. control parameter $(\gamma-1)\tilde \beta$ for three prior strengths and $K=1$. []{data-label="fig_p2"}](Figures/squared_overlap_K1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.in"} -.5cm
Inference at high $\beta$ with strong prior information
-------------------------------------------------------
We now focus on MAP inference at finite sampling noise $r$, whereas $\beta$ and $V_0$ are both sent to infinity, with a fixed ratio $S=r\,V_0/(\beta)$. Parameter $S$, hereafter referred to as the slope, controls the relative magnitude of the $\hat C$-dependent and prior terms in $\rho$, see Eq. (\[rho2\]), while the multiplicative factor $r$ is introduced in the definition of $S$ to compensate for the explicit dependence upon $r$ in $\rho$. For simplicity we present results for $K=1$ only, the extension to larger $K$ being rather straightforward. Equations (\[ppo\]) admit the solution $p=0,\hat \mu=\frac 12$, and another solution, with $\hat\mu\to\infty $ as $\beta,V_0\to\infty$, with ratios $\beta/\hat\mu$, $V_0/\hat\mu$ having finite limits. After some simple algebra we obtain the following expresson for the slope as a function of the squared overlap for the latter solution: $$S(p^2)= \frac{\big(r-(\gamma-1) y\big)\big( 1+y\big)}{4\,p^2\, y}\ \text{with}\ y =\sqrt{\frac{r(1-p^2)}{1+(\gamma-1)p^2}}.$$ We show in Fig. \[fig\_S1\] the representative curve of $p^2$ vs. the slope $S$, for $r$ below and above the critical noise level, $r_c=(\gamma-1)^2$, in the absence of prior. For $r<r_c$ the squared overlap is an increasing function of $S$, starting from a non zero value for $S=0$: the population eigenvector direction can be estimated without prior at low sampling noise [@bbp], but the overlap is increased in the presence of prior. For $r > r_c$ a discontinuous jump is observed from $p=0$ to $p>0$ at a critical value of the slope, $$S_- = \min_{p^2>0} S(p^2) \qquad (r>r_c) \ ,$$ while the overlap further increases as $S$ exceeds $S_-$. Remarkably, even for large sampling noise values, the presence of a sufficiently strong prior allows us to infer ${\bf u}$. The value of $S_-$ as a function of the noise level $r$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_S2\]; for large noise levels we have $S_-=\frac r4+\frac 3{4^{4/3}} \,\gamma^{1/3}\, r^{2/3}+ O(r^{1/3})$.
![Average squared overlap between top components of the population and sample covariance matrices, $p^2$, vs. slope $S$ for sampling noises $r=0.2 $ (top) and 0.4 (bottom). Note the presence of the discontinuous transition at $S_-\simeq 2.19$ in the latter case. The randomly condensed solution appears for $S>S_+\simeq 3.68$. Here, $r_c=(\gamma-1)^2=0.25$.[]{data-label="fig_S1"}](Figures/slope1.pdf "fig:"){width="2.8in"} -.3cm
This aligned phase competes with a nonaligned, but condensed phase, in which assumption (A2), see Section \[poiuy\], is violated. In other words, for $S$ and $r$ sufficiently large, $\boldsymbol\xi$ has few large entries ($\xi_j^2>0$ in the $N\to\infty$ limit), but not along the directions $i$ corresponding to the large components of $\bf u$; hence, $p^2=0$. To describe this new phase we set $u_i$ to 0 in the expression for $\tilde L$ in Eq. (\[logz3\]). The corresponding optimization equations can be solved in the $\beta,V_0\to\infty $ limit, with the result that the nonaligned, condensed regime exists for $S$ larger than $$S_+ = \min_{0<b<\frac{\sqrt{r}}{1+\sqrt{r}}} \bigg[ \frac {r^2(1-b)^2}{4b\big( r(1-b)^2-b^2\big)}\bigg] \ .$$ The value of $S_+$ as a function of the noise level $r$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_S2\]. For small $r$ (slightly above $r_c$) we observe that $S_+$ is larger than $S_-$, as intuitively expected: it is favorable to condense $\boldsymbol\xi$ along the direction of $\bf u$ rather than any other direction. It can be checked that the value of $L$ in Eq. (\[logz\]) is higher for this phase than for the aligned condensed phase. Hence, as soon as $S$ exceeds $S_+$ the overlap $p$ vanishes.
![Behaviours of $S_-$ (full line) and $S_+$ (dashed line) as functions of the sampling noise $r$. Insert: $S_+-S_-$ vs. $r$. The difference vanishes in $r_d\simeq 6.54$. Here, $r_c=0.25$, [*i.e.*]{} $\gamma=1.5$.[]{data-label="fig_S2"}](Figures/slope2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.7in"} -2.6cm
For large noise levels, however, we have $S_+=\frac r4+\frac 3{4^{4/3}} r^{2/3}+ O(r^{1/3})$, which is asymptotically smaller than $S_-$, see insert of Fig. \[fig\_S2\]. Indeed, the threshold slopes $S_-$ and $S_+$ cross at a well-defined value of the noise, $r_d$, which depends on the top eigenvalue $\gamma$. We show in Fig. \[fig\_S3\] the behaviour of $r_d$ vs. $\gamma$, and compare it to the critical noise $r_c$ in the absence of prior. We observe the presence of a region in the $(\gamma,r)$ plane, above the critical line $r_c$, where the direction of $\bf u$ can be inferred thanks to the large-entry prior. Our replica symmetric theory predicts that the benefit of the prior does not extend to very large values of the signal eigenvalue $\gamma$ and of the noise $r$, see Fig. \[fig\_S3\].
![Replica-symmetric phase diagram of top component inference with large-entry prior in the $(\gamma, r)$ plane. The dashed line $r_c=(\gamma-1)^2$ divides the plane into the weak noise region (below line), where inference is possible withour prior, and the strong noise region (above line). The full line shows the value of $r_d$, at which $S_-=S_+$, as a function of $\gamma$. In between the dashed and full lines, inference of the top component is possible in the presence of a prior with appropriate strength. The two lines merge for $\gamma\simeq 5.3$, $r\simeq 18.5$. Here, $K=1$.[]{data-label="fig_S3"}](Figures/slope3.pdf "fig:"){width="3.4in"} -1.9cm
Conclusion
==========
The non rigorous calculations done in this paper suggest that inference of the top component of the population covariance matrix is possible in the presence of prior information, even above the critical noise level of the spiked covariance model, in agreement with rigorous results for the nonnegative case [@montanari] and numerical investigations for the large-entry case [@villamaina]. Many interesting questions have not been investigated in the present paper: how hard is the recovery problem from a computational point of view? Are there ‘dynamical’ phase transitions separating subregions in the aligned phase, where the top component can be recovered in polynomial time or not? If so how do these line compare to the ‘static’ critical lines derived in this paper? In addition it would be interesting to investigate the validity of the replica-symmetric hypothesis used to derive the results above [@replicas]. Though replica symmetry is generally expected to be correct for convex optimization problems what happens in nonconvex situations is not clear. For instance, inference of the top component with the nonnegative prior gives rise to a nonconvex optimization problem [@montanari], but all rigorous results are exactly found back within our replica symmetric approach, see Section III.B. From this perspective it would be useful to investigate whether the present results are robust against replica symmetry breaking.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I am grateful to M.R. McKay for the invitation to the Asilomar 2016 conference, and to S. Cocco and D. Villamaina for useful discussions. This work has benefited from the financial support of the CNRS Inphyniti Inferneuro project.
[1]{}
I.M. Johnstone, [*High dimensional statistical inference and random matrices*]{}, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Madrid, Spain, 307-333, 2006. D.C. Hoyle and M. Rattray, [*Principal-component-analysis eigenvalue spectra from data with symmetry breaking structure*]{}, Phys. Rev. E 69, 026124, 2004. J. Baik, G. Ben Arous G. and S. Péché, [*Phase transition of the largest eigenvalue for nonnull complex sample covariance matrices*]{}, Ann. Probab. 33, 1643-1697, 2005. A. Montanari and E. Richard, [*Non-negative Principal Component Analysis: Message Passing Algorithms and Sharp Asymptotics*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62, 1458-1484, 2016. D. Villamaina and R. Monasson, *Estimating the principal components of correlation matrices from all their empirical eigenvectors*, Europhys. Lett. 112, 50001, 2015. S. Cocco, R. Monasson and M. Weigt, *From principal component to direct coupling analysis of coevolution in proteins: Low–eigenvalue modes are needed for structure prediction*, PLoS Comp. Bio. 9, e:1003176, 2013. H. Jacquin, A. Gilson, E. Shakhnovich, S. Cocco, R. Monasson, [*Benchmarking inverse statistical approaches for protein structure and design with exactly solvable models*]{}, PLoS Comp. Bio. 12: e1004889, 2016. A. Engel and C.V. den Broeck, [*Statistical Mechanics of Learning*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2001. M. Advani and S. Ganguli, [*Statistical mechanics of optimal convex inference in high dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031034, 2016. Y. Nakanishi-Ohno, T. Obuchi, M. Okada, Y. Kabashima, [*Sparse approximation based on a random overcomplete basis*]{}, J. Stat. Mech. P063302, 1-30, 2016 F. Krzakala, M. Mézard, F. Sausset, Y. Sun, L. Zdeborova, [*Probabilistic reconstruction in compressed sensing: algorithms, phase diagrams, and threshold achieving matrices*]{}, J. Stat. Mech. P08009, 1-57, 2012.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Inspired by the recent measurements on two-body nonleptonic $J/{\psi}$ weak decay at BESIII, the charm-changing $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ weak decays are studied with perturbative QCD approach, where $V$ denotes ${\rho}$ and $K^{\ast}$ vector mesons. It is found that branching ratio for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay can reach up to ${\cal O}(10^{-9})$, which is within the potential measurement capability of the future high-luminosity experiments.'
author:
- Yueling Yang
- Junfeng Sun
- Jie Gao
- Qin Chang
- Jinshu Huang
- Gongru Lu
title: 'Study of $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ decays with perturbative QCD approach'
---
Introduction {#sec01}
============
The $J/{\psi}$ particle is bound state of $c\bar{c}$ pair with given quantum numbers $I^{G}J^{PC}$ $=$ $0^{-}1^{--}$ [@pdg]. Since its discovery in 1974 [@bnl; @slac], the $J/{\psi}$ meson is always a hot and active topic for particle physicists. The $c\bar{c}$ pair of the $J/{\psi}$ meson annihilate mainly into gluons, which provides a valuable resource to explore the properties of the quark-gluon coupling and the invisible gluons, to search for various glueballs and possible exotic hadrons. There are two hierarchies in the $J/{\psi}$ meson and other heavy quarkonium, one is dynamical energy scales responsible for production and decay interactions of particles, and the other is relative velocity of $c$ quark. The $J/{\psi}$ meson plays a prominent role in investigation of QCD dynamical.
A conspicuous property of the $J/{\psi}$ meson is its narrow decay width, only about 30 ppmof its mass. The $J/{\psi}$ meson lies below the kinematic $D\bar{D}$ threshold. Its hadronic decay into light hadrons violates the phenomenological Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka rules [@o; @z; @i]. Besides the decay dominated by the strong and electromagnetic interactions, the $J/{\psi}$ can also decay via the weak interaction within the standard model. In this paper, we will study the $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}{\rho}$, $D_{s,d}K^{\ast}$ weak decays with perturbative QCD (pQCD) approach [@pqcd1; @pqcd2; @pqcd3].
Experimentally, thanks to the good performance of CLEO-c, BES, LHCb, B-factories, and so on, plenty of $J/{\psi}$ data samples have been accumulated. Recently, the $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$, $D_{u}K^{\ast}$ weak decays have been searched for at BESIII using part of the available $J/{\psi}$ samples [@prd89.071101]. It is eagerly expected to have about $10^{10}$ $J/{\psi}$ samples at BESIII per year with the designed luminosity [@cpc36], and over $10^{10}$ prompt $J/{\psi}$ samples at LHCb per $fb^{-1}$ data [@epjc71], which offers opportunities to discover phenomena that have been previously overlooked because of statistical limitations. So a careful scrutiny of $J/{\psi}$ weak decays at high-luminosity dedicated experiments may be possible in the future. In particular, the “flavor tag” of a single charged $D$ meson from $J/{\psi}$ decay will precisely identify potential signal from massive background. In addition, an abnormal large production rate of single $D$ meson from $J/{\psi}$ decay would be a hint of new physics.
Theoretically, the $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{q}V$ decay is, in fact, induced by $c$ ${\to}$ $q$ $+$ $W^{+}$ transition at quark level, where $q$ $=$ $s$ and $d$, the virtual $W^{+}$ boson materializes into a pair of quarks which then hadronizes into a vector meson $V$ $=$ ${\rho}$ and $K^{\ast}$. As it is well known, there must be the participation of strong interaction in nonleptonic $J/{\psi}$ weak decay, and $c$ quark mass is between perturbative and nonperturbative domain. In recent years, some QCD-inspired methods, such as pQCD approach [@pqcd1; @pqcd2; @pqcd3], QCD factorization approach [@qcdf1; @qcdf2; @qcdf3], soft and collinear effective theory [@scet1; @scet2; @scet3; @scet4], have been fully formulated to explain nonleptonic $B$ decays. The $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{q}V$ decays have been investigated based on collinear approximation [@plb252; @ijmpa14; @ahep2013; @ijmpa30]. In this paper, the $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ decays will be restudied based on $k_{T}$ factorization. It is expected to glean new insights into factorization mechanism, nonperturbative dynamics, final state interactions, and so on, from nonleptonic $J/{\psi}$ weak decay.
This paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework and amplitudes for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ decays are given in section \[sec02\], followed by numerical results and discussion in section \[sec03\]. Finally, we summarize in the last section.
theoretical framework {#sec02}
=====================
The effective Hamiltonian {#sec0201}
-------------------------
Theoretically, one usually uses the effective Hamiltonian to describe hadron weak decay, where hard contributions can be decently factorized based on operator product expansion and the renormalization group (RG) method. The effective Hamiltonian responsible for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ decay could be written as [@9512380], $${\cal H}_{\rm eff}\ =\
\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\,
\sum\limits_{q_{1},q_{2}}
V_{cq_{1}}V_{uq_{2}}^{\ast}\,
\Big\{ C_{1}({\mu})\,Q_{1}({\mu})
+C_{2}({\mu})\,Q_{2}({\mu})
\Big\} + {\rm h.c.}
\label{hamilton},$$ where $G_{F}$ ${\simeq}$ $1.166{\times}10^{-5}\,\text{GeV}^{-2}$ [@pdg] is Fermi constant; $q_{1,2}$ $=$ $d$ and $s$.
The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) factors are written as $$\begin{array}{lcl}
V_{cs}V_{ud}^{\ast}\ =\
1-{\lambda}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}
+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}),
&~~&
\text{for}~J/{\psi} {\to} D_{s}{\rho}~\text{decay}
\\
V_{cs}V_{us}^{\ast}\ =\
{\lambda}-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{3}-\frac{1}{8}{\lambda}^{5}(1+4A^{2})
+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}),
&~~&
\text{for}~J/{\psi} {\to} D_{s}K^{\ast}~\text{decay}
\\
V_{cd}V_{ud}^{\ast}\ =\
-V_{cs}V_{us}^{\ast}-A^{2}{\lambda}^{5}({\varrho}+i{\eta})
+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}),
&~~&
\text{for}~J/{\psi} {\to} D_{d}{\rho}~\text{decay}
\\
V_{cd}V_{us}^{\ast}\ =\
-{\lambda}^{2}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}),
&~~&
\text{for}~J/{\psi} {\to} D_{d}K^{\ast}~\text{decay}
\end{array}
\label{eq:vckm}$$ where $A$, ${\lambda}$, ${\varrho}$, ${\eta}$ are the Wolfenstein parameters; ${\lambda}$ $=$ ${\sin}{\theta}_{c}$ ${\simeq}$ $0.2$ [@pdg] and ${\theta}_{c}$ is the Cabibbo angle. It is clearly seen that the $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay is favored by the CKM factor $V_{cs}V_{ud}^{\ast}$.
The Wilson coefficients $C_{1,2}(\mu)$ summarize the physical contributions above the scales of ${\mu}$. They are calculated at scale of the $W$ boson mass ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ ${\cal O}(m_{W})$ with perturbation theory, and then evolved to scale of the $c$ quark mass ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ ${\cal O}(m_{c})$ with RG evolution function, $$\vec{C}({\mu}) = U_{4}({\mu},m_{b})U_{5}(m_{b},m_{W})\vec{C}(m_{W})
\label{ci},$$ where $U_{f}({\mu}_{j},{\mu}_{i})$ is RG evolution matrix [@9512380]. The Wilson coefficients are independent of a particular process in the same role of universal gauge couplings. They have properly been evaluated to the next-to-leading order.
Generally, the penguin contributions induced by flavor changing neutral current transitions are proportional to small Wilson coefficients relative to tree contributions. Besides, for $c$ quark decay, the penguin contributions are also severely suppressed by the CKM factors $V_{cd}V_{ud}^{\ast}$ $+$ $V_{cs}V_{us}^{\ast}$ $=$ $-V_{cb}V_{ub}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\cal O}({\lambda}^{5})$. Hence, only the tree operators related to $W$ emission contributions are considered here. The expressions of tree operators are $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1} &=&
[ \bar{q}_{1,{\alpha}}{\gamma}_{\mu}(1-{\gamma}_{5})c_{\alpha} ]
[ \bar{u}_{\beta} {\gamma}^{\mu}(1-{\gamma}_{5})q_{2,{\beta}} ]
\label{q1}, \\
Q_{2} &=&
[ \bar{q}_{1,{\alpha}}{\gamma}_{\mu}(1-{\gamma}_{5})c_{\beta} ]
[ \bar{u}_{\beta} {\gamma}^{\mu}(1-{\gamma}_{5})q_{2,{\alpha}} ]
\label{q2},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$ are color indices.
The physical contributions below scales of ${\mu}$ are included in hadronic matrix elements (HME). Because of the participation of the strong interaction, the entanglement perturbative and nonperturbative effects, the inadequate comprehension of hadronization mechanism and low energy QCD behavior, HME is the most complicated and intractable part. To get the amplitude, one has to face directly the HME calculation.
Hadronic matrix elements {#sec0202}
------------------------
Phenomenologically, the simplest approximation is that HME is parameterized into the production of transition form factors and decay constant based on naive factorization (NF) scheme [@nf]. The NF treatment on HME deprives any physical mechanism that could illustrate strong phases and rescattering among participating hadrons, and loses the ${\mu}$ dependence of HME which must exist to cancel that of Wilson coefficients. So the Lepage-Brodsky hard scattering approach [@prd22] is usually used, and HME is generally expressed as the convolution of hard scattering kernel with distribution amplitudes (DAs), where DAs reflect nonperturbative contributions but are universal. The hard part is, in principle, perturbatively calculable as a power of series of coupling ${\alpha}_{s}$. To suppress the soft contributions and avoid the problem of the endpoint singularity from collinear assumption [@qcdf1; @qcdf2; @qcdf3], the transverse momentum of quarks are retained explicitly and the Sudakov factors are introduced for each of meson wave functions in evaluation of potentially infrared contributions with pQCD approach [@pqcd1; @pqcd2; @pqcd3]. Finally, a decay amplitude could be written as a convolution integral of three parts [@pqcd1; @pqcd2; @pqcd3]: the hard effects enclosed by the Wilson coefficients $C_{i}$, the rescattering kernel amplitudes ${\cal H}$, and process-independent wave functions ${\Phi}$, $${\int} dk\,
C_{i}(t)\,{\cal H}(t,k)\,{\Phi}(k)\,e^{-S}
\label{hadronic},$$ where $k$ is the momentum of valence quarks, $t$ is a typical scale and $e^{-S}$ is a Sudakov factor.
Kinematic variables {#sec0203}
-------------------
In the center-of-mass frame of $J/{\psi}$ meson, the light-cone kinematic variables are defined as follows. $$p_{J/{\psi}}\, =\, p_{1}\, =\, \frac{m_{1}}{\sqrt{2}}(1,1,0)
\label{kine-p1},$$ $$p_{D}\, =\, p_{2}\, =\, (p_{2}^{+},p_{2}^{-},0)
\label{kine-p2},$$ $$p_{V}\, =\, p_{3}\, =\, (p_{3}^{-},p_{3}^{+},0)
\label{kine-p3},$$ $$k_{i}\, =\, x_{i}\,p_{i}+(0,0,\vec{k}_{iT})
\label{kine-ki},$$ $${\epsilon}_{i}^{\parallel}\, =\,
\frac{p_{i}}{m_{i}}-\frac{m_{i}}{p_{i}{\cdot}n_{+}}n_{+}
\label{kine-longe},$$ $$n_{+}=(1,0,0)
\label{kine-null-plus},$$ $$n_{-}=(0,1,0)
\label{kine-null-minus},$$ $$p_{i}^{\pm}\, =\, (E_{i}\,{\pm}\,p)/\sqrt{2}
\label{kine-pipm},$$ $$s\, =\, 2\,p_{2}{\cdot}p_{3}
\label{kine-s},$$ $$t\, =\, 2\,p_{1}{\cdot}p_{2}\, =\ 2\,m_{1}\,E_{2}
\label{kine-t},$$ $$u\, =\, 2\,p_{1}{\cdot}p_{3}\, =\ 2\,m_{1}\,E_{3}
\label{kine-u},$$ $$p = \frac{\sqrt{ [m_{1}^{2}-(m_{2}+m_{3})^{2}]\,[m_{1}^{2}-(m_{2}-m_{3})^{2}] }}{2\,m_{1}}
\label{kine-pcm},$$ where the subscript $i$ $=$ $1$, $2$, $3$ on variables, including polarization vector ${\epsilon}_{i}$, four dimensional momentum $p_{i}$, energy $E_{i}$ and mass $m_{i}$, correspond to initial $J/{\psi}$ meson, recoiled $D$ meson, emitted vector meson $V$ $=$ ${\rho}$ and $K^{\ast}$, respectively; $x_{i}$ and $k_{i}$ ($\vec{k}_{iT}$) denote the longitudinal momentum fraction and (transverse) momentum of valence quarks, respectively; $n_{+}$ is the plus null vector; $s$, $t$ and $u$ are Lorentz transformation scalars; $p$ is the common momentum of final states. The kinematic variables are displayed in Fig.\[feynman\](a).
Wave functions {#sec0204}
--------------
Taking the convention of Ref. [@prd65; @jhep0703], HME of the diquark operators squeezed between the vacuum and meson state is defined as below. $${\langle}0{\vert}c_{i}(z)\bar{c}_{j}(0){\vert}
{\psi}(p_{1},{\epsilon}_{1}^{\parallel}){\rangle}\,
=\, \frac{f_{\psi}}{4}{\int}d^{4}k_{1}\,e^{-ik_{1}{\cdot}z}
\Big\{ \!\!\not{\epsilon}_{1}^{\parallel} \Big[
m_{1}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(k_{1})
-\!\!\not{p}_{1}\, {\phi}_{\psi}^{t}(k_{1})
\Big] \Big\}_{ji}
\label{wave-ccl},$$ $${\langle}0{\vert}c_{i}(z)\bar{c}_{j}(0){\vert}
{\psi}(p_{1},{\epsilon}_{1}^{\perp}){\rangle}\,
=\, \frac{f_{\psi}}{4}{\int}d^{4}k_{1}\,e^{-ik_{1}{\cdot}z}
\Big\{ \!\!\not{\epsilon}_{1}^{\perp} \Big[
m_{1}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(k_{1})
-\!\!\not{p}_{1}\, {\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(k_{1})
\Big] \Big\}_{ji}
\label{wave-cct},$$ $${\langle}D_{q}(p_{2}){\vert}\bar{q}_{i}(z)c_{j}(0){\vert}0{\rangle} =
\frac{if_{D_{q}}}{4}{\int}d^{4}k_{2}\,e^{ik_{2}{\cdot}z}\,
\Big\{ {\gamma}_{5}\Big[ \!\!\not{p}_{2}\,{\Phi}_{D}^{a}(k_{2})
+m_{2}\,{\Phi}_{D}^{p}(k_{2})\Big] \Big\}_{ji}
\label{wave-ds},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
{\langle}V(p_{3},{\epsilon}_{3}^{\parallel})
{\vert}u_{i}(z)\bar{q}_{j}(0){\vert}0{\rangle}
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{1}{4}{\int}_{0}^{1}dk_{3}\,e^{ik_{3}{\cdot}z}
\Big\{ \!\!\not{\epsilon}_{3}^{\parallel}\,
m_{3}\,{\Phi}_{V}^{v}(k_{3})
+\!\!\not{\epsilon}_{3}^{\parallel}
\!\!\not{p}_{3}\, {\Phi}_{V}^{t}(k_{3})
-m_{3}\,{\Phi}_{V}^{s}(k_{3}) \Big\}_{ji}
\label{wave-rhol},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
{\langle}V(p_{3},{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\perp}})
{\vert}u_{i}(z)\bar{q}_{j}(0){\vert}0{\rangle}\ =\
\frac{1}{4}{\int}_{0}^{1}dk_{3}\,e^{ik_{3}{\cdot}z}
\Big\{ \!\!\not{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\perp}}\,
m_{3}\,{\Phi}_{V}^{V}(k_{3})
\nonumber \\ & &
+\!\!\not{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\perp}}
\!\!\not{p}_{3}\, {\Phi}_{V}^{T}(k_{3})
+\frac{i\,m_{3}}{p_{3}{\cdot}n_{+}}
{\varepsilon}_{{\mu}{\nu}{\alpha}{\beta}}\,
{\gamma}_{5}\,{\gamma}^{\mu}\,{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\perp}{\nu}}\,
p_{3}^{\alpha}\,n_{+}^{\beta}\,
{\Phi}_{V}^{A}(k_{3}) \Big\}_{ji}
\label{wave-rhot},
\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\psi}$ and $f_{D_{q}}$ are decay constants; wave functions ${\Phi}_{{\psi},V}^{v,T}$ and ${\Phi}_{D}^{a}$ are twist-2; wave functions ${\Phi}_{{\psi},V}^{t,s,V,A}$ and ${\Phi}_{D}^{p}$ are twist-3. For wave functions of light vector meson, only ${\Phi}_{V}^{v}$ and ${\Phi}_{V}^{V,A}$ are involved in decay amplitudes (see Appendix \[blocks\]). Their expressions are [@prd65; @jhep0703]: $${\phi}_{V}^{v}(x) = 6\,x\,\bar{x}\, \Big\{ 1+
\sum\limits_{i=1} a_{i}^{V}\,C_{i}^{3/2}(t) \Big\}
\label{da-rhov},$$ $${\phi}_{V}^{V}(x) \, =\, \frac{3}{4}\, (1+t^{2})
\label{wave-rhoV},$$ $${\phi}_{V}^{A}(x) \, =\, \frac{3}{2}\, (-t)
\label{wave-rhoA}.$$ where $\bar{x}$ $=$ $1$ $-$ $x$ and $t$ $=$ $\bar{x}$ $-$ $x$; $a_{i}^{V}$ is nonperturbative Gegenbauer moment and corresponds to Gegenbauer polynomial $C_{i}^{3/2}(t)$. $$C_{1}^{3/2}(t) = 3\,t,
\quad
C_{2}^{3/2}(t) = \frac{3}{2}\,(5\,t^{2}-1),
\quad
{\cdots}
\label{polynomials}$$ With the relation of $m_{J/{\psi}}$ ${\simeq}$ $2m_{c}$ and $m_{D_{q}}$ ${\simeq}$ $m_{c}$ $+$ $m_{q}$, it is suspected that the motion of valence quarks in $J/{\psi}$ and $D_{q}$ mesons is nearly nonrelativistic. So their spectrum can be described with time-independent Schrödinger equation. Suppose the interaction between valence quarks is an isotropic harmonic oscillator potential, the ground state eigenfunction with quantum numbers $nL$ $=$ $1S$ is expressed as: $${\phi}_{1S}(\vec{k})\
{\sim}\ e^{-\vec{k}^{2}/2{\omega}^{2}}
\label{wave-k},$$ where parameter ${\omega}$ determines the average transverse momentum, ${\langle}1S{\vert}k^{2}_{T}{\vert}1S{\rangle}$ $=$ ${\omega}^{2}$. By using the transformation [@xiao], $$\vec{k}^{2}\ {\to}\ \frac{1}{4} \Big(
\frac{\vec{k}_{T}^{2}+m_{q_{1}}^{2}}{x_{1}}
+\frac{\vec{k}_{T}^{2}+m_{q_{2}}^{2}}{x_{2}} \Big)
\label{wave-kt},$$ then integrating out transverse momentum $k_{T}$ and combining with their asymptotic forms, finally, DAs for $J/{\psi}$ and $D$ mesons are written as $${\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(x) = {\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x) = A\, x\,\bar{x}\,
{\exp}\Big\{ -\frac{m_{c}^{2}}{8\,{\omega}_{1}^{2}\,x\,\bar{x}} \Big\}
\label{wave-clv},$$ $${\phi}_{\psi}^{t}(x) = B\, t^{2}\,
{\exp}\Big\{ -\frac{m_{c}^{2}}{8\,{\omega}_{1}^{2}\,x\,\bar{x}} \Big\}
\label{wave-clt},$$ $${\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x) = C\, (1+t^{2})\,
{\exp}\Big\{ -\frac{m_{c}^{2}}{8\,{\omega}_{1}^{2}\,x\,\bar{x}} \Big\}
\label{wave-ctv},$$ $${\phi}_{D}^{a}(x) = D\, x\,\bar{x}\, {\exp}\Big\{
-\frac{\bar{x}\,m_{q}^{2}+x\,m_{c}^{2}}
{8\,{\omega}_{2}^{2}\,x\,\bar{x}} \Big\}
\label{wave-dqa},$$ $${\phi}_{D}^{p}(x) = E\, {\exp}\Big\{
-\frac{\bar{x}\,m_{q}^{2}+x\,m_{c}^{2}}
{8\,{\omega}_{2}^{2}\,x\,\bar{x}} \Big\}
\label{wave-dqp},$$ where ${\omega}_{i}$ $=$ $m_{i}{\alpha}_{s}$ according to the NRQCD power counting rules [@prd46], coefficients of $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$ are determined by the normalization conditions, $${\int}_{0}^{1}dx\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{v,t,V,T}(x) =1
\label{normal-01},$$ $${\int}_{0}^{1}dx\,{\phi}_{D}^{a,p}(x)=1
\label{normal-02}.$$ Here, it should be pointed out that there are many wave function models for $D$ meson, for example, Eq.(30) in Ref. [@prd78lv]. The preferred one in Ref. [@prd78lv] is: $${\phi}_{D}(x,b) = 6\,x\bar{x}\,\Big\{1+C_{D}(1-2x)\Big\}
{\exp}\Big\{ -\frac{1}{2}w^{2}b^{2} \Big\}
\label{wave-dqw},$$ where $C_{D}$ $=$ $0.4$ and $w$ $=$ $0.2$ GeV for $D_{s}$ meson; $C_{D}$ $=$ $0.5$ and $w$ $=$ $0.1$ GeV for $D_{d}$ meson. In addition, the same form of Eq.(\[wave-dqw\]), without a distinction between twist-2 and twist-3, is used in many practical calculation.
![The shape lines of DAs for $J/{\psi}$ meson in (a) and $D_{d,s}$ mesons in (b), where ${\phi}_{\psi}^{v,t,V}(x)$, ${\phi}_{D}^{a,p}(x)$ and ${\phi}_{D}(x,b)$ correspond to Eqs.(\[wave-clv\],\[wave-clt\],\[wave-ctv\]), Eqs.(\[wave-dqa\],\[wave-dqp\]) and Eq.(\[wave-dqw\]), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:wave"}](da.ps){width="95.00000%"}
The shape lines of DAs for $J/{\psi}$ and $D_{s,d}$ mesons are displayed in Fig.\[fig:wave\]. It is clearly seen that (1) DAs for $J/{\psi}$ meson is symmetric versus $x$, and a broad peak of ${\phi}_{D}^{a,p}(x)$ appears at $x$ $<$ $0.5$ regions, which is basically in line with the picture that momentum fraction is proportional to valence quark mass. (2) under the influence of exponential functions, DAs of Eqs.(\[wave-clv\]—\[wave-dqp\]) fall quickly down to zero at endpoint $x$, $\bar{x}$ ${\to}$ $0$, which is bound to suppress soft contributions. (3) The flavor symmetry breaking effects between $D_{d}$ and $D_{s}$ mesons, and difference between twist-2 and twist-3 are obvious in Eqs.(\[wave-dqa\],\[wave-dqp\]) rather than Eq.(\[wave-dqw\]). In this paper, we will use DAs of Eqs.(\[wave-dqa\],\[wave-dqp\]) for $D$ meson.
Decay amplitudes {#sec0205}
----------------
The Feynman diagrams for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay are shown in Fig.\[feynman\], including factorizable emission topologies (a) and (b) where gluon connects $J/{\psi}$ with $D_{s}$ meson, and nonfactorizable emission topologies (c) and (d) where gluon couples the spectator quark with emitted ${\rho}$ meson.
![Feynman diagrams for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay, including factorizable diagrams (a) and (b), and nonfactorizable diagrams (c) and (d).[]{data-label="feynman"}](fey.ps){width="99.00000%"}
The amplitude for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{q}V$ decay is written as [@prd66] $${\cal A}(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{q}V) =
{\cal A}_{L}({\epsilon}_{1}^{{\parallel}},{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\parallel}})
+{\cal A}_{N}({\epsilon}_{1}^{{\perp}}{\cdot}{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\perp}})
+i\,{\cal A}_{T}\,{\varepsilon}_{{\mu}{\nu}{\alpha}{\beta}}\,
{\epsilon}_{1}^{{\mu}}\,{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\nu}}\,
p_{1}^{\alpha}\,p_{3}^{\beta}
\label{eq:amp01},$$ which is conventionally written as helicity amplitudes [@prd66], $${\cal A}_{0}\ =\ -{\cal F}\,\sum\limits_{i}
{\cal A}_{i,L}({\epsilon}_{1}^{{\parallel}},{\epsilon}_{3}^{{\parallel}})
\label{eq:amp02},$$ $${\cal A}_{\parallel}\ =\ \sqrt{2}\,{\cal F} \sum\limits_{i}
{\cal A}_{i,N}
\label{eq:amp03},$$ $${\cal A}_{\perp}\ =\ \sqrt{2}\,{\cal F}\,m_{1}\,p \sum\limits_{i}
{\cal A}_{i,T}
\label{eq:amp04},$$ $${\cal F}\ =\
i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\,
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}}\,
{\pi}\, f_{\psi}\,
f_{D_{q}}\, f_{V}\,
V_{cq_{1}} V_{uq_{2}}^{\ast}
\label{eq:amp05},$$ where the color number $N_{c}$ $=$ $3$ and color factor $C_{F}$ $=$ $(N_{c}^{2}-1)/2N_{c}$; the subscript $i$ on ${\cal A}_{i,j}$ corresponds to indices of Fig.\[feynman\]. The expressions of building blocks ${\cal A}_{i,j}$ can be found in Appendix \[blocks\]. Our results show that (1) factorizable contributions \[Fig.\[feynman\] (a) and (b)\] are color-favored, i.e., $a_{1}$-dominated; (2) nonfactorizable contributions \[Fig.\[feynman\] (c) and (d)\] are proportion to small Wilson coefficient $C_{2}$ and suppressed by color factor $1/N_{c}$.
Numerical results and discussion {#sec03}
================================
In the rest frame of $J/{\psi}$ meson, branching ratio is defined as $${\cal B}r\ = \frac{1}{12{\pi}}\,
\frac{p}{m_{\psi}^{2}{\Gamma}_{\psi}}\, \Big\{
{\vert}{\cal A}_{0}{\vert}^{2}
+{\vert}{\cal A}_{\parallel}{\vert}^{2}
+{\vert}{\cal A}_{\perp}{\vert}^{2} \Big\}
\label{br}.$$
[lll]{}\
\
\
$m_{\psi}$ $=$ $3096.916{\pm}0.011$ MeV [@pdg], & $m_{D_{s}}$ $=$ $1968.30{\pm}0.11$ MeV [@pdg], & $m_{D_{d}}$ $=$ $1869.61{\pm}0.10$ MeV [@pdg],\
$f_{\psi}$ $=$ $395.1{\pm}5.0$ MeV, & $f_{D_{s}}$ $=$ $257.5{\pm}4.6$ MeV [@pdg], & $f_{D_{d}}$ $=$ $204.6{\pm}5.0$ MeV [@pdg],\
$m_{K^{\ast}}$ $=$ $891.66{\pm}0.26$ MeV [@pdg], & $m_{\rho}$ $=$ $775.26{\pm}0.25$ MeV [@pdg], & $m_{c}$ $=$ $1.67{\pm}0.07$ GeV [@pdg],\
$f_{K^{\ast}}$ $=$ $220{\pm}5$ MeV [@jhep0703], & $f_{\rho}$ $=$ $216{\pm}3$ MeV [@jhep0703], & ${\Gamma}_{\psi}$ $=$ $92.9{\pm}2.8$ keV [@pdg],\
$m_{s}$ ${\approx}$ $510$ MeV [@uds], & $m_{d}$ ${\approx}$ $310$ MeV [@uds],\
\
[@ijmpa14] [@ahep2013] [@ijmpa30] [@epjc55] this work
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ----------- --------------------------------------------------------
$10^{9}{\times}{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}{\rho})$ $2.54$ $5.1$ $2.2$ $1.3$ $3.33^{+0.97+0.47+0.17+0.002}_{-0.42-0.51-0.17-0.002}$
$10^{10}{\times}{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}K^{\ast})$ $1.48$ $2.8$ $1.2$ $0.8$ $1.86^{+0.57+0.28+0.12+0.010}_{-0.24-0.35-0.12-0.010}$
$10^{10}{\times}{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}{\rho})$ $1.54$ $2.2$ $1.1$ $0.4$ $1.32^{+0.37+0.14+0.08+0.007}_{-0.16-0.19-0.08-0.007}$
$10^{11}{\times}{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}K^{\ast})$ ... $1.3$ $0.6$ ... $0.80^{+0.23+0.05+0.06+0.009}_{-0.10-0.12-0.06-0.009}$
: Branching ratios for $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $DV$ decays, where uncertainties of our results come from scale $(1{\pm}0.1)t_{i}$, quark mass $m_{c}$, hadronic parameters and CKM parameters, respectively.[]{data-label="tab:output"}
The values of input parameters are listed in Table \[tab:input\], where if it is not specified explicitly, their central values will be taken as the default inputs. Our numerical results are presented in Table \[tab:output\], where the first uncertainty comes from the choice of the typical scale $(1{\pm}0.1)t_{i}$, and expression of $t_{i}$ is given in Eq.(\[tab\]) and Eq.(\[tcd\]); the second uncertainty is from quark mass $m_{c}$; the third uncertainty is from hadronic parameters including decay constants and Gegenbauer moments; and the fourth uncertainty of branching ratio comes from CKM parameters. The following are some comments.
\(1) As it is aforementioned, the $J/{\psi}$ decay modes considered here are dominated by the color-favored factorizable contributions and insensitive to nonfactorizable contributions. So, generally, branching ratio for a given $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}V$ decay has the same order of magnitude even with different phenomenological models.
\(2) There is a clear hierarchical pattern among branching ratios, mainly resulting from the hierarchical structure of CKM factors in Eq.(\[eq:vckm\]), i.e., $${\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}{\rho})\, {\gg}\,
{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}K^{\ast})\, {\sim}\,
{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}{\rho})\, {\gg}\,
{\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}K^{\ast})
\label{eq:br-4}.$$ In addition, because nonfactorizable contributions are suppressed by both small $C_{2}$ and color factor $1/N_{c}$, there is an approximate relationship, $$\frac{ {\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}K^{\ast}) }
{ {\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}{\rho}) }
\ {\approx}\
\frac{ {\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}K^{\ast}) }
{ {\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{d}{\rho}) }
\ {\approx}\
{\lambda}^{2}\,
\frac{ f^{2}_{K^{\ast}} }
{ f^{2}_{\rho} }
\label{eq:rbr}.$$ Above all, the Cabibbo- and color-favored $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay has branching ratio ${\sim}$ ${\cal O}(10^{-9})$, which is well within the measurement capability of the future high-luminosity experiments, such as super tau-charm factory, LHC and SuperKEKB.
![Contributions to branching ratio ${\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}{\rho})$ versus ${\alpha}_{s}/{\pi}$, where the numbers over histogram denote the percentage of the corresponding contributions.[]{data-label="fig:as"}](as.ps){width="55.00000%"}
\(3) Here, one might question the practicability of pQCD approach and the feasibility of perturbative calculation because $c$ quark mass seems to be not large enough. To clear this issue up or to check what percentage of contributions come from perturbative domain, contributions to branching ratio ${\cal B}r(J/{\psi}{\to}D_{s}{\rho})$ from different ${\alpha}_{s}/{\pi}$ region are displayed in Fig.\[fig:as\]. It is easily seen that about 80% contributions come from ${\alpha}_{s}/{\pi}$ ${\le}$ 0.4 regions, which implies that the calculation with pQCD approach is valid. One of crucial reasons for the small percentage in the region ${\alpha}_{s}/{\pi}$ ${\le}$ $0.1$ is that the absolute values of Wilson coefficients $C_{1,2}$, $a_{1}$ and coupling ${\alpha}_{s}$ decrease along with the increase of renormalization scale ${\mu}$. Of course, a perturbative calculation with pQCD approach is influenced by many factors, such as Sudakov factors, the choice of scale $t$, models of wave functions, etc., which deserve much attention but beyond the scope of this paper.
\(4) There are many uncertainties on branching ratios. The first uncertainty from scale $t$ could be reduced by the inclusion of higher order corrections to HME and an improved control on nonperturbative contributions. The second uncertainty from wave function models or parameter $m_{c}$ will be greatly lessened with the relative rate of branching ratios, for example, Eq.(\[eq:rbr\]). The third uncertainty is dominated by decay constants whose effects will be weakened with the increasing precision of experimental measurements and/or theoretical calculation using nonperturbative methods (such as lattice QCD and so on). The uncertainty from CKM factor is small. Moreover, other factors, such as the final state interactions which is important and necessary for $c$ quark decay, are not properly considered here, but deserve massive dedicated study. Our results just provide an order of magnitude estimation on branching ratio.
Summary {#sec04}
=======
Within the standard model, the $J/{\psi}$ meson can decay via the weak interaction, besides the strong and electromagnetic interactions. With anticipation of copious $J/{\psi}$ data samples at the future high-luminosity experiments and gradual improvement of particle identification techniques, we investigated the charm-changing $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s,d}{\rho}$, $D_{s,d}K^{\ast}$ weak decays with pQCD approach. It is found that the estimated branching ratio for the color- and CKM-favored $J/{\psi}$ ${\to}$ $D_{s}{\rho}$ decay can be up to ${\cal O}(10^{-9})$, which is very likely to be measured in the future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Professor Dongsheng Du (IHEP@CAS) and Professor Yadong Yang (CCNU) for helpful discussion. The work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11547014, 11475055, 11275057 and U1332103).
Building blocks of decay amplitudes {#blocks}
===================================
The expressions of building blocks ${\cal A}_{i,j}$ are listed as follows, where subscript $i$ corresponds to indices of Fig.\[feynman\]; and $j$ corresponds to helicity amplitudes. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{a,L} &=&
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
{\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(x_{1})\,
E_{a}(t_{a})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
H_{a}({\alpha},{\beta}_{a},b_{1},b_{2})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{a})\, a_{1}(t_{a})\,
\Big\{ {\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\, m_{2}\,m_{c}\,u
\nonumber \\ & &
+ {\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\, \Big[ m_{1}^{2}\,s-
(4\,m_{1}^{2}\,p^{2}+m_{2}^{2}\,u)\,\bar{x}_{2}
\Big] \Big\}
\label{amp:al},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{a,N} &=&
m_{1}\, m_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
{\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
E_{a}(t_{a})\,
H_{a}({\alpha},{\beta}_{a},b_{1},b_{2})\,
\Big\{ -2\,m_{2}\,m_{c}\,{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})
\nonumber \\ & &
+ {\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\, \Big[
2\,m_{2}^{2}\,\bar{x}_{2} -t \Big]
\Big\}\, {\alpha}_{s}(t_{a})\, a_{1}(t_{a})
\label{amp:an},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{a,T} &=&
2\, m_{1}\,m_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
{\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,
E_{a}(t_{a})\,
H_{a}({\alpha},{\beta}_{a},b_{1},b_{2})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{a})\,a_{1}(t_{a})
\label{amp:at},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{b,L} &=&
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
H_{b}({\alpha},{\beta}_{b},b_{2},b_{1})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
E_{b}(t_{b})\,
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(x_{1})\,{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,
\Big[ m_{1}^{2}\, (s-4\,p^{2})\,\bar{x}_{1}-m_{2}^{2}\,u \Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+2\,m_{1}\,m_{2}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{t}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\, (s-u\,\bar{x}_{1}) \Big\}\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{b})\, a_{1}(t_{b})
\label{amp:bl},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{b,N} &=&
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
H_{b}({\alpha},{\beta}_{b},b_{2},b_{1})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
E_{b}(t_{b})\, {\alpha}_{s}(t_{b})\,
\Big\{ m_{1}\,m_{3}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,(2\,m_{2}^{2}-t\,\bar{x}_{1})
\nonumber \\ & &
+ 2\,m_{2}\,m_{3}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\, (2\,m_{1}^{2}\,\bar{x}_{1}-t)
\Big\}\, a_{1}(t_{b})
\label{amp:bn},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{b,T} &=& 2\, m_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{1}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}\,
H_{b}({\alpha}_{e},{\beta}_{b},b_{2},b_{1})\,
E_{b}(t_{b})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{b})\,a_{1}(t_{b})\,
\Big\{ 2\,m_{2}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})
-m_{1}\,{\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})\,{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\, \bar{x}_{1} \Big\}
\label{amp:bt},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{c,L} &=&
\frac{1}{N_{c}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\phi}_{\rho}^{v}(x_{3})\, E_{c}(t_{c})\,
H_{c}({\alpha},{\beta}_{c},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{c})\, {\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
C_{2}(t_{c})\,
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(x_{1})\,{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,u\,
\Big[ t\,(\bar{x}_{2}-\bar{x}_{1})+s\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{2})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+ {\phi}_{\psi}^{t}(x_{1})\, {\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,m_{1}\,m_{2}\,
\Big[ u\,(\bar{x}_{1}-x_{3})+s\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{2})\Big] \Big\}
\label{amp:cl},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{c,N} &=&
\frac{ m_{3} }{N_{c}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
E_{c}(t_{c})\,
H_{c}({\alpha},{\beta}_{c},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{c})\, C_{2}(t_{c})\,
{\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{V}(x_{3})\,2\,m_{1}\,
\Big[ s\,(\bar{x}_{2}-x_{3})+t\,(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{V}(x_{3})\,m_{2}\,
\Big[ u\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{1})+t\,(\bar{x}_{2}-\bar{x}_{1})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{A}(x_{3})\,2\,m_{1}\,m_{2}\,p\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{2}) \Big\}
\label{amp:cn},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{c,T} &=&
\frac{ 1 }{N_{c}}
\frac{ m_{3} }{m_{1}\,p}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
E_{c}(t_{c})\,
H_{c}({\alpha},{\beta}_{c},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{c})\, C_{2}(t_{c})\,
{\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\psi}^{V}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{A}(x_{3})\,2\,m_{1}\,
\Big[ s\,(\bar{x}_{2}-x_{3})+t\,(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{A}(x_{3})\,m_{2}\,
\Big[ u\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{1})+t\,(\bar{x}_{2}-\bar{x}_{1})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
{\phi}_{\rho}^{V}(x_{3})\,2\,m_{1}\,m_{2}\,p\,(x_{3}-\bar{x}_{2}) \Big\}
\label{amp:ct},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{d,L} &=&
\frac{1}{N_{c}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\phi}_{\rho}^{v}(x_{3})\, E_{d}(t_{d})\,
H_{d}({\alpha},{\beta}_{d},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{d})\,
{\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\psi}^{t}(x_{1})\,{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,m_{1}\,m_{2}\,
\Big[ u\,(x_{3}-x_{1})+s\,(x_{2}-x_{3})\Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+ {\phi}_{\psi}^{v}(x_{1})\, {\phi}_{D}^{a}(x_{2})\,4\,m_{1}^{2}\,p^{2}\,
(x_{3}-x_{2}) \Big\}\, C_{2}(t_{d})
\label{amp:dl},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{d,N} &=&
\frac{ m_{2}\,m_{3} }{N_{c}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
E_{d}(t_{d})\,
H_{d}({\alpha},{\beta}_{d},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{d})\, C_{2}(t_{d})\,
{\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\rho}^{V}(x_{3})\,
\Big[ 2\,m_{1}^{2}\,x_{1}-t\,x_{2} -u\,x_{3}\Big]
+ 2\,m_{1}\,p\,{\phi}_{\rho}^{A}(x_{3})\,(x_{2}-x_{3}) \Big\}
\label{amp:dn},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{d,T} &=&
\frac{ 1 }{N_{c}}\,
\frac{ m_{2}\,m_{3} }{m_{1}\,p }
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{1}dx_{3}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}db_{1}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{2}db_{2}
{\int}_{0}^{\infty}b_{3}db_{3}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
{\phi}_{\psi}^{T}(x_{1})\,
{\phi}_{D}^{p}(x_{2})\,
E_{d}(t_{d})\,
H_{d}({\alpha},{\beta}_{d},b_{2},b_{3})\,
{\alpha}_{s}(t_{d})\, C_{2}(t_{d})\,
{\delta}(b_{1}-b_{2})
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\phi}_{\rho}^{A}(x_{3})\,
\Big[ 2\,m_{1}^{2}\,x_{1}-t\,x_{2} -u\,x_{3}\Big]
+ 2\,m_{1}\,p\,{\phi}_{\rho}^{V}(x_{3})\,(x_{2}-x_{3}) \Big\}
\label{amp:dt},
\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{i}$ is the conjugate variable of the transverse momentum $k_{iT}$; ${\alpha}_{s}$ is the QCD running coupling; $a_{1}$ $=$ $C_{1}$ $+$ $C_{2}/N_{c}$; $C_{1,2}$ are the Wilson coefficients.
The hard scattering function $H_{i}$ and Sudakov factor $E_{i}$ are defined as follows. $$H_{a(b)}({\alpha},{\beta},b_{i},b_{j}) =
K_{0}(b_{i}\sqrt{-{\alpha}})
\Big\{ {\theta}(b_{i}-b_{j})
K_{0}(b_{i}\sqrt{-{\beta}})
I_{0}(b_{j}\sqrt{-{\beta}})
+ (b_{i}{\leftrightarrow}b_{j}) \Big\}
\label{hab},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_{c(d)}({\alpha},{\beta},b_{2},b_{3}) &=&
\Big\{ {\theta}(-{\beta}) K_{0}(b_{3}\sqrt{-{\beta}})
+\frac{{\pi}}{2} {\theta}({\beta}) \Big[
iJ_{0}(b_{3}\sqrt{{\beta}})
-Y_{0}(b_{3}\sqrt{{\beta}}) \Big] \Big\}
\nonumber \\ &{\times}&
\Big\{ {\theta}(b_{2}-b_{3})
K_{0}(b_{2}\sqrt{-{\alpha}})
I_{0}(b_{3}\sqrt{-{\alpha}})
+ (b_{2}{\leftrightarrow}b_{3}) \Big\}
\label{hcd},
\end{aligned}$$ $$E_{i}(t)\ =\ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\exp}\{ -S_{\psi}(t)-S_{D}(t) \}, & ~~\text{ for } i=a,b \\
{\exp}\{ -S_{\psi}(t)-S_{D}(t)-S_{V}(t) \}, & ~~\text{ for } i=c,d
\end{array} \right.
\label{sudakov}$$ $$S_{\psi}(t)\ =\
s(x_{1},p_{1}^{+},1/b_{1})
+2{\int}_{1/b_{1}}^{t}\frac{d{\mu}}{\mu}{\gamma}_{q}
\label{sudakov-cc},$$ $$S_{D}(t)\ =\
s(x_{2},p_{2}^{+},1/b_{2})
+2{\int}_{1/b_{2}}^{t}\frac{d{\mu}}{\mu}{\gamma}_{q}
\label{sudakov-cq},$$ $$S_{V}(t)\ =\
s(x_{3},p_{3}^{+},1/b_{3})
+s(\bar{x}_{3},p_{3}^{+},1/b_{3})
+2{\int}_{1/b_{3}}^{t}\frac{d{\mu}}{\mu}{\gamma}_{q}
\label{sudakov-ds},$$ where $I_{0}$, $J_{0}$, $K_{0}$, $Y_{0}$ are Bessel functions; the expression of $s(x,Q,1/b)$ can be found in Ref.[@pqcd1]; ${\gamma}_{q}$ $=$ $-{\alpha}_{s}/{\pi}$ is the quark anomalous dimension; ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}_{i}$ are gluon and quark virtuality, respectively, where subscript $i$ on ${\beta}_{i}$ corresponds to indices of Fig.\[feynman\]. $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha} &=& \bar{x}_{1}^{2}m_{1}^{2}
+ \bar{x}_{2}^{2}m_{2}^{2}
- \bar{x}_{1}\bar{x}_{2}t
\label{gluon-q2}, \\
{\beta}_{a} &=& m_{1}^{2} - m_{c}^{2}
+ \bar{x}_{2}^{2}m_{2}^{2}
- \bar{x}_{2}t
\label{beta-fa}, \\
{\beta}_{b} &=& m_{2}^{2}
+ \bar{x}_{1}^{2}m_{1}^{2}
- \bar{x}_{1}t
\label{beta-fb}, \\
{\beta}_{c} &=& \bar{x}_{1}^{2}m_{1}^{2}
+ \bar{x}_{2}^{2}m_{2}^{2}
+ x_{3}^{2}m_{3}^{2}
\nonumber \\ &-&
\bar{x}_{1}\bar{x}_{2}t
- \bar{x}_{1}x_{3}u
+ \bar{x}_{2}x_{3}s
\label{beta-fc}, \\
{\beta}_{d} &=& x_{1}^{2}m_{1}^{2}
+ x_{2}^{2}m_{2}^{2}
+ x_{3}^{2}m_{3}^{2}
\nonumber \\ &-&
x_{1}x_{2}t
- x_{1}x_{3}u
+ x_{2}x_{3}s
\label{beta-fd}, \\
t_{a(b)} &=& {\max}(\sqrt{-{\alpha}},\sqrt{-{\beta}_{a(b)}},1/b_{1},1/b_{2})
\label{tab}, \\
t_{c(d)} &=& {\max}(\sqrt{-{\alpha}},\sqrt{{\vert}{\beta}_{c(d)}{\vert}},1/b_{2},1/b_{3})
\label{tcd}.
\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} K. Olive [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 38, 090001 (2014). J. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1404 (1974). J. Augustin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1406 (1974). G. Lepage [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 46, 4052 (1992). G. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995). N. Brambilla [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1423 (2005). S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5, 165 (1963). G. Zweig, CERN-TH-401, 402, 412 (1964). J. Iizuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 37-38, 21 (1966). H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 52, 3958 (1995). C. Chang, H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5577 (1997). T. Yeh, H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1615 (1997). M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 89, 071101 (2014). H. Li, S. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 36, 932 (2012). R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} (LHCb Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1645 (2011). M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914 (1999). M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000). M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 245 (2001). C. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 63, 114020 (2001). C. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054022 (2002). C. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014017 (2002). M. Beneke [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B 643, 431 (2002). R. Verma, A. Kamal and A. Czarnecki, Phys. Lett. B 252, 690 (1990). K. Sharma and R. Verma, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 937 (1999). R. Dhir, R. Verma and A. Sharma, Adv. High Energy Phys, 2013, 706543 (2013). J. Sun [*et al.*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550094 (2015). G. Buchalla, A. Buras, M. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125, (1996). D. Fakirov and B. Stech, Nucl. Phys. B 133, 315 (1978). G. Lepage, S. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980). T. Kurimoto, H. Li, A. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 65, 014007 (2001). P. Ball and G. Jones, JHEP, 0703, 069, (2007).
B. Xiao, X. Qin, B. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A 15, 523 (2002). R. Li, C. Lü, H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014018 (2008). C. Chen, Y. Keum, H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 66, 054013 (2002) A. Kamal, Particle Physics, Springer, 2014, p. 298. Y. Wang [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 607 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The collapse of an inclined cohesive granular layer triggered by a certain perturbation can be a model for not only landslides on Earth but also relaxations of asteroidal surface terrains. To understand such terrain dynamics, we conduct a series of experiments of a solid-projectile impact onto an inclined wet granular layer with various water contents and inclination angles. As a result, we find two types of outcomes: “crater formation” and “collapse”. The “collapse” phase is observed when the inclination angle is close to the maximum stable angle and the impact-induced vibration at the bottom of wet granular layer is sufficiently strong. To explain the collapse condition, we propose a simple block model considering the maximum stable angle, inclination angle, and impact-induced vibrational acceleration. Additionally, the attenuating propagation of the impact-induced vibrational acceleration is estimated on the basis of three-dimensional numerical simulations with discrete element method using dry particles. By combining wet-granular experiments and dry-granular simulations, we find that the impact-induced acceleration attenuates anisotropically in space. With a help of this attenuation form, the physical conditions to induce the collapse can be estimated using the block model.'
address:
- 'Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi 464-8601, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematical and Life Science, Graduate school of Science, Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan'
- 'Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Niigata University, Niigata 950-2181, Japan'
author:
- Shinta Takizawa
- Hirofumi Niiya
- Takahiro Tanabe
- Hiraku Nishimori
- Hiroaki Katsuragi
title: 'Impact-induced collapse of an inclined wet granular layer'
---
wet granular matter ,impact ,collapse ,vibration propagation
Introduction
============
Landforms consisting of granular matter are ubiquitous in nature. Such granular terrains could be fluidized by heavy rainfalls and/or external perturbations such as earthquakes. If the perturbed granular terrains have slopes against the gravity, they could be relaxed by landslides. Snow avalanches are also known as a type of sudden collapse events which can be induced by a perturbation. Even on the surface of rocky astronomical objects, inclined terrains like crater walls can generally be found. Such inclined terrains are also subjected to the relaxation due to landslides triggered by meteor impacts. Due to the accumulation of impact-induced landslides, the shape of craters could be relaxed particularly on small asteroids [@J.E.; @Richardson; @Jr].
Recently, experimental studies using dry granular matter have been conducted to understand various granular phenomena [@Andreotti2013]. A dry sand pile starts to flow when the surface angle exceeds a critical angle named the maximum stable angle. In this case, the fluidization is usually localized only on the vicinity of surface of sand pile [@H.M.; @Jaeger; @J.J.; @Roering]. When the dry granular heap is strongly vibrated, the complete fluidization resulting in nonlinear relaxation is also found recently [@D.; @Tsuji]. However, most of the natural terrains are more or less wet on Earth. Thus, the cohesion between particles plays an important role in landsliding dynamics. Moreover, the effect of particle-particle cohesion becomes significant for the case of small asteroids covered with particles so-called regolith. On small asteroids, the gravitational acceleration is very small. In such situation, the relative importance of cohesive effect, which originates from electrostatic and/or van der Waals forces, increases. Therefore, the experiments using only dry (non-cohesive) granular particles are insufficient to fully understand the dynamics of collapse of sloping terrains.
In this study, we use wet granular matter, to model the impact-induced collapse of a slope consisting of cohesive particles. The dynamics of wet granular matter is significantly different from dry one. For instance, the water content in wet granular layer causes various complex interactions between particles: the increase in cohesion due to liquid bridges and the decrease in granular friction due to lubrication effect [@S.; @Herminghaus; @N.; @Mitarai]. As a result, a small amount of water content strengthens the wet granular layer although the strength approaches the asymptotic value when a sufficient amount of water is added [@H.; @Schubert; @M.; @Scheel]. In general, strong agitation is necessary to fluidize the wet granular layer by breaking particles cohesion [@M.; @Scheel2]. Thus, the collapse dynamics of inclined wet granular layer could be much more complex than that of dry granular layer.
Purpose of this study is revealing the collapse dynamics of inclined wet granular layer triggered by an external perturbation. Particularly, a solid-projectile impact is utilized for the perturbation. While this setup is a little tricky to mimic terrestrial landslide, it is relevant to impact-induced slope relaxation on small astronomical bodies and snow avalanches triggered by the fall of snow cornice. In addition to experiments on the vertical solid impact onto a dry granular layer [@A.M.; @Walsh; @Uehara2003; @Seguin2009; @H.; @Katsuragi] or cohesive granular layer [@H.; @Katsuragi2], cratering experiments of solid impact onto an inclined dry granular layer have been conducted to understand the effect of inclination angle and impact velocity on the crater shape and size [@K.; @Hayashi; @J.; @Aschauer]. Hayashi [*et al*]{}. [@K.; @Hayashi] and Aschauer [*et al*]{}. [@J.; @Aschauer] experimentally showed that an asymmetric crater is formed due to the collapse of crater rim following the approximately-symmetric transient crater formation. However, the catastrophic collapse induced by impact has not yet been investigated. In addition, impact experiments on a horizontal wet granular layer have also been carried out to study the effect of water content and impact conditions on the crater shape and size [@M.; @Manga; @J.O.; @Marston; @H.; @Takita]. However, these experiments have not simultaneously considered the effects of both the cohesion and inclination, and they have not measured the propagation of impact-induced vibration which could be a key factor to trigger the catastrophic collapse. In this study, we perform the experiment of a solid-projectile impact onto an inclined wet granular layer with various water contents and inclination angles. In the experiment, we observe the response of wet granular layer (crater formation and/or collapse) and measure the vibration generated by impact. Moreover, we carry out numerical simulations with discrete element method (DEM) to formulate the vibration propagation in dry granular matter and compare it with wet granular experiment. The elastic-wave propagation in granular matter has also been an important topic to characterize the physics of granular matter [@Liu1993; @Jia1999; @Jia2004; @Brunet2008; @Owens2011; @Guldemeister2017; @Bachelet2018]. Based on the experiments and simulations, we discuss the collapse condition of inclined wet granular layer due to the impact.
Experiment
==========
Figure \[fig:experiment\] shows the schematic of experimental setup. We prepare a wet granular matter sample by mixing glass beads of 0.495 kg (AS-ONE corp. BZ04) and water. They are manually confined and shaken 100 times in a $2\times10^{-3}$ m$^3$ bottle. The diameter of glass beads is $d_{\rm g}=0.4$ mm with 25% dispersion. The true density of glass beads is $2.5\times10^3$ ${\rm kg/m^3}$. After preparing wet granular matter, we pour it into an acrylic container (inner width: 98 mm, length: 148 mm, height: 78 mm). On all the inside walls, the identical glass beads are glued to make frictional boundary. The wet granular layer is initially set to be horizontal. As the initial condition, the layer thickness $Z$ and packing fraction $\phi$ are fixed at $Z=28$ mm and $\phi\simeq0.49$ in almost all experiments, whereas the water content $W$ is varied in the range of $0\leq W \leq 0.020$. Here, $W$ is defined by the ratio between water volume and total volume of wet granular layer. The thickness ($Z=28$ mm) is sufficiently deep so that the projectile never reaches the bottom of container. Although the water content $W$ decreases with time due to the water evaporation, the variation of $W$ is smaller than 1% during the experiment. Then, the container is inclined by a jack, and the inclination angle $\theta$ is measured by an angle meter (SK Niigata seiki Bevel Box BB-180L, resolution: $0.1^\circ$) attached on the container wall.
As a solid-projectile accelerator, we use a spring-driven air gun (Tokyo Marui Gindan air gun Glock 26). This gun shots a plastic spherical projectile with mass of 0.11 g and diameter of $D=6$ mm at a speed of $V=32.0 \pm 0.6$ m/s (kinetic energy of $57 \pm 2$ mJ). The error of $V$ is computed by the standard deviation of 10-time measurements of injection speed using a high-speed camera (CASIO EX-F1) at a frame rate of 1,200 frames/s. The gun muzzle is kept approximately 10 mm away from the surface of wet granular layer, and the projectile perpendicularly collides with the center of target surface. To measure the vibration induced by the impact of solid projectile, an accelerometer (EMIC 710-D) is attached on the bottom center of the container. The sampling rate of acceleration is $5\times10^4$ Samples/s. The entire process of impact is recorded using the high-speed camera at a frame rate of 300 frames/s with a proper illumination.
The experimental protocol is as following. First, we measure the maximum stable angle $\theta_{\rm m}$ as a function of water content $W$ by gradual increasing the inclination angle $\theta$. Here, $\theta_{\rm m}$ is defined as the critical inclination angle at which the wet granular layer starts to move by the slip on the bottom of container. Once we obtain $\theta_{\rm m}(W)$, a set of systematic impact experiments with various $W$ and $\theta$ are carried out. A fresh target layer is prepared before each impact. In this study, $W$ and $\theta$ are independently varied.
![ Schematic of experimental setup. The wet granular layer is poured into the container, and the surface is set to be parallel to the bottom of container. The inclination angle $\theta$ is varied by a jack. A high-speed camera and a light are set in front of the inclined wet granular layer. []{data-label="fig:experiment"}](experiment_setup_eng.eps){width="8cm"}
![ (a) Maximum stable angle $\theta_{\rm m}(W)$ (diamond symbols) and the impact outcomes (cross, triangular, and circular symbols) in $\theta$-$W$ space. (b) Crater formation at $W=0.0069$ and $\theta=65^\circ$. A symmetric crater is formed and left at the center of surface. (c) Collapse at $W=0.0069$ and $\theta=66^\circ$. The collapse completely erases the transient crater formed by the impact. []{data-label="fig:theta_vs_W"}](crater_and_collapse_W_vs_theta_eng.eps){width="8cm"}
Result
======
Closed diamonds in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](a) shows $\theta_{\rm m}(W)$ measured at $W=0.0025$, $0.0037$, $0.0049$, $0.0069$, $0.010$, and $0.020$. Each error bar indicates standard error of five measurements. In small water content regime ($W \leq 7\times10^{-3}$), $\theta_{\rm m}$ increases with increasing $W$. However, it approaches to a constant value in larger water content regime ($W>7\times10^{-3}$). This trend of $\theta_{\rm m}$ is qualitatively consistent with previous studies [@P.; @Tegzes; @A.; @Samadani; @S.; @Nowak]. $\theta_{\rm m}$ for dry ($W=0$) granular layer is approximately $25^\circ$ (not shown in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](a)). In dry case, only the vicinity of surface of granular layer starts to flow. In wet situations, however, slipping of the whole granular layer on the bottom wall is observed.
By the impact experiments, we found two types of outcomes for the response of wet granular layer: [*crater formation*]{} and [*collapse*]{}. In this study, crater formation phase is defined by the stable crater formation without collapse (Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](b)), whereas collapse phase is defined by the collapse of whole wet granular layer erasing the transient crater (Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](c)). The crater formed in crater-formation phase is almost axisymmetric around the normal to the surface of wet granular layer. This result is contrastive to dry case in which the asymmetric crater is formed when the target surface is tilted [@K.; @Hayashi; @J.; @Aschauer]. In this experiment, since the whole wet granular layer slips on the bottom of container, the container’s bottom wall can be seen at the upper part in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](c). The phase diagram of impact outcomes in $W$-$\theta$ space is shown in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](a). Cross, circular, and triangular symbols denote the crater formation, collapse, and coexistence of crater formation and collapse, respectively. This phase diagram is made on the basis of 1-3 experimental realizations in each condition. Although there seems to be some fluctuation, the collapse phase can only be observed when $\theta$ is close to $\theta_{\rm m}$. Basically, in the small $\theta$ region, the crater formation phase can be observed. Trivially, the crater formation is always observed at $\theta=0^\circ$. This means that the increase in $\theta$ makes the wet granular layer unstable leading to collapse.
Figure \[fig:acceleration\_waveform\](a) shows an example of measured acceleration $\alpha$ as a function of time $t$. The experimental conditions for the data shown in Fig. \[fig:acceleration\_waveform\](a) are $W=0.0069$ and $\theta=66^\circ$ corresponding to the crater formation phase. The negative value of $\alpha$ indicates that the bottom wall experiences the acceleration towards the outside (downwards) of container. $\alpha$ is almost zero before the impact ($t<7$ ms), and it shows an impulsive signal to the negative direction by the impact (7 ms $<t<$ 10 ms). Afterwards, it exhibits a strong attenuation. To simply characterize the acceleration due to the impact, we use the peak amplitude of the acceleration $\alpha_{\rm peak}$. We use the identical projectile with identical impact velocity in all the experiments. However, the variance of measured $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ is not very small, probably due to the strong heterogeneity of wet granular layer. Specifically, the mean value of $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ for all experiments is $8.2$ m/s$^2$ and its standard deviation is $3.0$ m/s$^2$. This variation level is much greater than the level of instrumental (sensor’s) uncertainty (less than a few %). The noise level before impact ($t \lesssim 7$ ms in Fig. \[fig:acceleration\_waveform\](a)), $6$ mm/s$^2$, is three orders of magnitude less than the typical $\alpha_{\rm peak}$. Namely, the principal uncertainty in this measurement originates from the difference in structure of target granular layers among various experimental runs.
![ (a) An experimentally measured acceleration waveform $\alpha(t)$ at the bottom center of container in the crater formation phase ($W=0.0069$ and $\theta=66^\circ$). The impact induces an impulsive signal followed by strong attenuation. (b) An example of $\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{t},\tilde{r}=0)$ obtained by numerical simulation ($V=25$ m/s, $\tilde{z}=18$). []{data-label="fig:acceleration_waveform"}](a_vs_time_eng.eps){width="8cm"}
To discuss the role of $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ for determining the impact outcomes, we make another phase diagram with $\theta$ and $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ (Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\]). Here, we use the data in the range of $0.0069 \leq W \leq 0.020$, where $\theta_{\rm m}$ is almost constant value (average $\theta_{\rm m}$ is $68.4^\circ$). In Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\], crosses and circles correspond to the crater-formation and collapse phases, respectively. Each plot indicates a result of one experimental realization. These plots can roughly be separated into two groups, although they overlap at some part. In Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\], we can qualitatively confirm that the large $\theta$ and/or large $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ must be fulfilled to induce the collapse.
![ Phase diagram of crater-formation phase (crosses) and collapse phase (circles) against the inclination angle $\theta$ and acceleration peak $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ acting on bottom of container. The data in the range of $0.0069 \leq W \leq 0.020$ are used. Black and red lines correspond to Eq. (\[eq:boundary\]) with $k=1$ and $k=0.034$, respectively. The region between two dotted red lines indicates the range of $k$ estimated by uncertainties (see the main text for details). The black dashed line indicates the average of maximum stable angle $\theta_{\rm m}=68.4^\circ$. []{data-label="fig:apeak_vs_theta"}](apeak_vs_theta_eng.eps){width="8cm"}
Discussion
==========
Block model
-----------
In order to understand the criterion to induce the collapse of inclined wet granular layer due to the solid projectile impact, we propose a simple block model. In the model, the wet granular layer is assumed to be a block on the slope. Additionally, we assume that the slip condition of block corresponds to the collapse condition of wet granular layer. Considering the force balance among the gravity, the basal friction, and the effective acceleration driven by the impact $\alpha_{\rm eff}$, the slip condition is written as
$$g{\rm sin}\theta>\mu(g{\rm cos}\theta-\alpha_{\rm eff}),
\label{eq:collapse_condition}$$
where $g$ is the gravitational acceleration, $\mu$ is the effective coefficient of friction between block and bottom wall, and $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ weakens the normal force acting on the block.
Based on Coulomb’s friction law, $\mu$ is expressed using $\theta_{\rm m}(W)$ as, $$\mu={\rm tan}\theta_{\rm m}(W)
\label{eq:Coulomb's_friction_law},$$ where $\theta_{\rm m}$ is a constant ($68.4^\circ$) since we discuss the range $0.0069 \leq W \leq 0.020$ (see diamonds in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](a)). Note that $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ should be less than $\alpha_{\rm peak}$, because $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ is measured at the center of bottom wall. Namely, $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ is the maximum value of vibrational acceleration on the bottom. However, $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ corresponds to representative average value of acceleration all over the bottom wall. The dissipation of acceleration, which is determined by characteristic features of wet granular layer, has to be properly considered to estimate $\alpha_{\rm eff}$. Here, we simply assume that $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ can be expressed using a proportional constant $k(=0\,$-1) as, $$\alpha_{\rm eff}=k\alpha_{\rm peak}.
\label{eq:definition_of_k}$$
Substituting Eqs. (\[eq:Coulomb’s\_friction\_law\]) and (\[eq:definition\_of\_k\]) into Eq. (\[eq:collapse\_condition\]), the slip condition of block is rewritten as, $$\alpha_{\rm peak}=\frac{g}{k}\left({\rm cos}\theta-\frac{{\rm sin}\theta}{{\rm tan}\theta_{\rm m}}\right).
\label{eq:boundary}$$ The relationship between $\theta$ and $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ written in Eq. (\[eq:boundary\]) corresponds to the boundary between crater formation and collapse phases (Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\]). If $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ is equivalent to $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ (i.e., $k=1$ in Eq. (\[eq:boundary\])), the boundary is drawn as a black line in Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\]. This line is unable to explain the experimental result. To reasonably explain the experimental result, $k$ should be much smaller than unity; $k\ll1$. The very small $k$ value reflects the strong dissipation of acceleration.
Estimate of model parameter $k$
-------------------------------
We have to understand the decay of acceleration within the impacted granular layer to quantitatively estimate the unknown parameter $k$ in the block model. However, the decay property cannot be obtained only from the experimental data because we do not measure the acceleration inside the granular layer. Therefore, we conduct three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations with discrete element method (DEM). Then, the decay of acceleration due to the dissipative nature in granular matter is formulated from the numerical data. Here, we assume that the effective acceleration $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ in the block model is equivalent to the average value of $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ distribution at the bottom of granular layer, which is calculated using the specific form obtained on the basis of numerical simulation. Then, the model parameter $k$ can be estimated. In this study, we employ a simple DEM model which does not include the cohesion effect. However, as discussed later, dry (non-cohesive) DEM model is sufficient to analyze the attenuation of $\alpha_{\rm peak}$.
As the simulation setup, the domain shape is set to be a roofless 3D cylinder with radius of 20 $d_{\rm g}$. The granular layer is formed through the free fall of 32,768 frictionless particles with diameter of $d_{\rm g}=10$ mm and mass of 1 g. After the free fall, the layer thickness is approximately 22 $d_{\rm g}$. Then, the identical particle ($D=10$ mm and 1 g in mass) perpendicularly collides with the surface of granular layer at two incident speeds: $V=25$, $40$ m/s. The impact point is roughly fixed at the center of surface, although it is randomly determined around the center. We conduct 10 impact simulations at each incident speed by changing the impact point. The detail of calculation process refers to Tanabe [*et al*]{}. [@T.; @Tanabe].
In these numerical simulations, we focus on the force generated by particle-particle interactions except the gravity term. Also, we discretize radial distance from the center of cylinder $r$ and the depth $z$ ($z=0$ corresponds to the top surface of granular layer) by $d_{\rm g}$ and 2 $d_{\rm g}$ intervals, respectively. At each region, we calculate the average of vertical component of acceleration acting on particles; and then, the maximum $\alpha_{\rm peak}(r,z)$ is computed. To compare the experimental data with the numerical data, $r$, $z$, and $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ are normalized as, $$\tilde{r}=\frac{r}{d_{\rm g}}, \;\;\; \tilde{z}=\frac{z}{d_{\rm g}},
\label{eq:dimensionless_r_and_Z}$$ $$\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}=\frac{\alpha_{\rm peak}}{V/T} \;\;\; (T=\sqrt{D/g}),
\label{eq:dimensionless_alpha_peak}$$ where $T$ is the characteristic time and $D$ is the projectile diameter. An example data of $\tilde{\alpha}(\tilde{t})$ at the center ($\tilde{r}=0$) is shown in Fig. \[fig:acceleration\_waveform\](b), where $\tilde{t}=t/T$. Its qualitative behavior around $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ is similar to experimental result (Fig. \[fig:acceleration\_waveform\](a)). Although the wave reflection and frictionless dynamics affect the relatively strong coda wave in numerical simulation, it is not important in the current study.
First, we check the propagation of $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ perpendicular to the surface of granular layer at $\tilde{r}=0$ (i.e., impact direction). To directly compare the numerical and experimental data, ${\alpha}_{\rm peak}(z)$ is also measured in the experiment with $\theta=0^{\circ}$ and $W=0.0069$ by varying the thickness of wet granular layer $Z$. We assume that the $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ measured on the bottom of thickness $\tilde{Z}=Z/d_g$ layer corresponds to the $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ at the depth $\tilde{z}=z/d_g$. Figure \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a) shows the dimensionless peak acceleration $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ calculated at various depths. Square and diamond shapes denote $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ of simulations at incident speeds $V$ of $25$ m/s and $40$ m/s, respectively, whereas the triangle shape denotes $\alpha_{\rm peak}$ measured in the experiments (Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a)). Although the focussed regions of $\tilde{z}$ (or $\tilde{Z}$) are completely separated between numerical and experimental data, they share the same power-law trend as shown in Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a). Note that the numerical simulation does not include the effect of wetness. Moreover, impact conditions are not identical between numerical simulations and experiments. Nevertheless, the $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ behavior shows a robust universal tendency. Indeed, these data are nicely fitted with the power function of $\tilde{z}$. The obtained fitting curve is expressed as, $$\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}(\tilde{r}=0, \tilde{z})=\alpha_{0} \tilde{z}^{-\gamma_1},
\label{eq:alpha_peak(Z)}$$ where $\alpha_0=4.2 \times 10^2 \pm 2.3 \times 10^2$ and $\gamma_1=2.73 \pm 0.20$ are obtained by the least square fitting. Note that Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_peak(Z)\]) is formulated based on the numerical data at $V=40$ m/s except $\tilde{z} \leq 10$ and $\tilde{z} \geq 20$ (open diamonds in Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a)), where the acceleration of particles might be affected by the free surface and the finite size of the system. In the experiments, $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ at $\tilde{Z}=50$ and $\tilde{Z} \geq 200$ also does not obey Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_peak(Z)\]). At $\tilde{Z}=50$ (the thinnest layer case), the solid projectile actually collides with the bottom wall. In the thick regime ($\tilde{Z} \geq 200$), $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ might include the effect of vibration of sidewalls since the horizontal distance from the impact point to the sidewall is shorter than the thickness of wet granular layer. It should be noticed that $\tilde{z}$ corresponds to $\tilde{Z}$ in the experimental measurements. This type of power-law decay could principally come from the geometric dissipation rather than temporal dissipation by the simple inelasticity.
![ (a) Dimensionless depth ($\tilde{z}$ for simulations and $\tilde{Z}$ for experiments) dependence of the dimensionless peak acceleration $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$. Square and diamond symbols correspond to numerical data with different incident speed $V$: $25$ and $40$ m/s, respectively. Triangular symbols are experimental data. The black line is the fitting curve to the numerical data with $V=40$ m/s. (b) The radial distribution of $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ at $V=40$ m/s and various depths: $\tilde{z}=12$ ,$15$ and $18$ obtained by numerical simulations. Red, green and blue curves are Gaussian fits at $\tilde{z}=12$, $15$ and $18$, respectively. (c)$~\tilde{z}$ dependency of decay parameter $\beta$ of Gaussian function. Square and diamond symbols correspond to numerical data at different incident speeds $V$: $25$ and $40$ m/s, respectively. []{data-label="fig:DEM_graph"}](dem_graph.eps){width="8cm"}
Similar power-law attenuation of the impact-induced pressure was also reported in [@Guldemeister2017]. In general, geometric attenuation of the impact-induced pressure obeys power law. Moreover, almost the same power-law nature was obtained in both dry and water-saturated target samples [@Guldemeister2017]. That is, the attenuation dynamics of impact-induced pressure (and acceleration) would be independent of wetness. More precise measurement of wave attenuation in dry and wet granular layers was also performed in [@Brunet2008]. They found the clear difference in dissipation between dry and wet granular layer. However, the difference is basically limited within the range of same order (small factor difference) when considering our experimental conditions (large strain by impact and low confining pressure). Such a relatively small factor difference is negligible in the logarithmic plot like Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a). The agreement of attenuation law between dry and wet granular matters is slightly surprising. We qualitatively consider the following reasons for this agreement. The structures of particles, by which the elastic wave propagates, in dry and wet granular layers are most likely similar. Besides, the interstitial liquid strengthens the particle cohesion but also dissipates the energy. These effects might compensate each other. As a consequence, the wave attenuation manner becomes similar between dry and wet granular matters.
Next, we study the propagation of $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ in the radial direction using numerical results. Figure \[fig:DEM\_graph\](b) shows the radial distribution of $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ at different depths: $\tilde{z}=12$, $15$, and $18$ with $V=40$ m/s. These trends roughly obey Gaussian form $\sim \exp(-\beta \tilde{r}^2)$ as shown by solid curves in Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](b) except for the outer region ($\tilde{r}>17$) where the sidewall effect is not negligible. Figure \[fig:DEM\_graph\](c) shows the dependency of the fitting parameter $\beta$ on $\tilde{z}$ with different incident speeds $V$. Excluding the regions influenced by the free surface ($\tilde{z} \leq 10$) or bottom wall ($\tilde{z} \geq 20$) (cf. Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\](a)), $\beta$ is expressed as the power function of $\tilde{z}$ as, $$\beta = \beta_{0}\tilde{z}^{-\gamma_2},
\label{eq:beta(Z)}$$ where $\beta_0=0.33 \pm 0.05$ and $\gamma_2= 1.36 \pm 0.05$ are obtained by the least square fitting. Based on the above analyses, the decay of dimensionless peak acceleration driven by the impact is formulated as, $$\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}(\tilde{r},\tilde{z}) = \alpha_{0} \tilde{z}^{-\gamma_1}\exp\left[-\beta_{0}\tilde{z}^{-\gamma_2}\tilde{r}^2\right]\;\;\;(\tilde{z} >10).
\label{eq:alpha_peak(Z,r)}$$ This form suggests that the attenuation of acceleration is anisotropic. We consider that this anisotropy results from the impact which has a specific direction. Some previous studies reported the exponential-type attenuation by assuming isotropic attenuation in dry granular matter [@Owens2011; @Bachelet2018]. In [@Owens2011], however, the source of wave is not an impact, and their experimental system is two dimensional. In [@Bachelet2018], while they used an impact onto a granular layer, the thickness of granular layer is much smaller than the experiment in this study. These differences are possible reasons for the variation of attenuation manners. If we restrict ourselves to the shallow region and assume the isotropic attenuation, the exponential function could also be able to explain the data behavior. However, here we employ an anisotropic attenuation because our data clearly suggest the anisotropy as shown in Fig. \[fig:DEM\_graph\].
Finally, we estimate the unknown parameter $k$ in the block model according to Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_peak(Z,r)\]). From Eq. (\[eq:definition\_of\_k\]), $k$ is defined as $k=\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm eff}/\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$. Here, $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}$ is the normalized peak acceleration at the bottom center of granular layer: $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}(\tilde{r}=0, \tilde{z})$. In addition, we assume $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm eff}$ corresponds to the spatial average of normalized peak acceleration: $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm eff}(\tilde{Z})=\langle\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm peak}(\tilde{r}, \tilde{Z})\rangle$. In other words, $k$ can be estimated depending on the thickness $\tilde{Z}$ and the area of base $A$ of the granular layer. Here, considering our experimental conditions ($\tilde{Z}=70$ and A: 98 mm $\times$ 148 mm), we obtain $k = 0.034 \pm 0.013$. This value is able to explain the boundary between crater formation and collapse as shown in Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\] (red line). The uncertainty of $k$ value is estimated by error propagation method using the fitting uncertainties of parameters in Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_peak(Z,r)\]) and uncertainty of $\theta_{\rm m}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:theta\_vs\_W\](a). The vertical component of dissipation (Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_peak(Z)\])) does not affect the estimate of $k$. Thus, the uncertainty of $k$ comes from the uncertainties of horizontal (radial) attenuation (Eq. (\[eq:beta(Z)\])) and $\theta_{\rm m}$. The dotted red lines in Fig. \[fig:apeak\_vs\_theta\] indicate this uncertainty.
Conclusion
==========
We performed solid-projectile impact experiments against an inclined wet granular layer in order to understand its collapse dynamics. As a result, we found that collapse occurs when the inclination angle is close to the maximum stable angle and impact-induced peak acceleration is large enough. To explain the collapse condition, we proposed a simple block model. To quantitatively evaluate the model parameter, we numerically reproduced the vibration propagation induced by the impact by using DEM. As a result, an empirical form of peak-acceleration dissipation was obtained. Using this model, we could reproduce the experimentally obtained phase boundary between crater formation and collapse. Since the analyses were performed with dimensionless forms, it could readily be scaled up to large scale (geophysical or planetary) phenomena.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research has been supported by JSPS KAKENHI Nos. 15H03707 and 18H03679.
[99]{} J.E. Richardson Jr, H.J. Melosh, R.J. Greenberg & D.P. O’Brien, Icarus [**179**]{}. (2005) 325-349. B. Andreotti, Y. Forterre, and O. Pouliquen, [*Granular Matter: Between Fluid and Solid*]{}, Cambridge University Press, (2013). H.M. Jaeger, S.R. Nagel & R.P. Behringer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, (1996) 1259-1273. J.J. Roering, J.W. Kirchner, L.S. Sklar & W. E. Dietrich, Geology [**29**]{}, (2001) 143-146. D. Tsuji, M. Otsuki & H. Katsuragi, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**120**]{}, (2018) 128001. S. Herminghaus, Adv. Phys. [**54**]{}, (2005) 221-261. N. Mitarai & F. Nori, Adv. Phys. [**55**]{}, (2006) 1-45. H. Schubert, Agglomeration [**77**]{}, (1977) 144-155. M. Scheel, R. Seemann, M. Brinkmann, M. DiMichiel, A. Sheppard & S. Herminghaus, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, (2008) 494236. M. Scheel, D. Geromichalos & S. Herminghaus, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**16**]{}, (2004) S4213-S4218 A.M. Walsh, K.E. Holloway, P. Habdas & J.R. de Bruyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, (2003) 104301. J. S. Uehara, M. A. Ambroso, R. P. Ojha & D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, (2003) 194301; [**91**]{}, (2003) 149902 (E). A. Seguin, Y. Bertho, P. Gondret & J. Crassous, EPL [**88**]{}, (2009) 44002. H. Katsuragi, [*Physics of Soft Impact and Cratering*]{} (Springer 2016). H. Katsuragi & J. Blum, Astrophys. J. [**851**]{} (2017) 23. K. Hayashi & I. Sumita, Icarus [**291**]{}, (2017) 160-175. J. Aschauer & T. Kenkmann, Icarus [**290**]{}, (2017) 89-95. M. Manga, A. Patel, J. Dufec & E.S. Kite, Geophys. Res. Lett. [**39**]{}, (2012) L050192. J.O. Marston, I.U. Vakarelski & S.T. Thoroddsen, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, (2012) 020301. H. Takita & I, Sumita Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, (2013) 022203. C-h. Liu & S. R. Nagel, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, (1993) 1646-15650. X. Jia, C. Caroli & B. Velicky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, (1999) 1863-1866. X. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, (2004) 154303. Th. Brunet, X. Jia & P. Mills, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, (2008) 138001. E. T. Owens & K. E. Daniels, EPL [**94**]{}, (2011) 54005. N. Güldemeister & K. Wünnemann, Icarus [**296**]{}, (2017) 15-27. V. Bachelet, A. Mangeney, J. de Rosny, R. Toussaint & M. Farin, J. Appl. Phys. [**123**]{}, (2018) 044901. P. Tegzes, R. Albert, M. Paskvan, A.-L. Barabási, T. Vicsek & P. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, (1999) 5823-5826. A. Samadani & A. Kudrolli, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, (2001) 051301. S. Nowak, A. Samadani & A. Kudrolli, Nat. Phys. [**1**]{}, (2005) 50-52. T. Tanabe, T. Koike, T. Shimada, N. Ito, & H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. E [**95**]{}, (2017) 022906.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Benjamin A. Frandsen'
- Yoav Kalcheim
- Ilya Valmianski
- 'Alexander S. McLeod'
- 'Z. Guguchia'
- 'Sky C. Cheung'
- 'Alannah M. Hallas'
- 'Murray N. Wilson'
- Yipeng Cai
- 'Graeme M. Luke'
- 'Z. Salman'
- 'A. Suter'
- 'T. Prokscha'
- Taito Murakami
- Hiroshi Kageyama
- 'D. N. Basov'
- 'Ivan K. Schuller'
- 'Yasutomo J. Uemura'
title: ' Supplementary Information: Intertwined magnetic, structural, and electronic transitions in a Mott insulator '
---
*** experiments.*** The 300-nm and 70-nm samples were each composed of six identical films of with dimensions 12 mm $\times$ 7 mm grown on a sapphire substrate cut so that the (012) plane is in the out-of-plane direction of the film. To prepare each sample for the measurements, the six films were tiled together to fill a rectangular area 24 mm $\times$ 21 mm and adhered to a nickel plate, which was inserted in the spectrometer on the LEM (Low Energy Muon) beamline at the Paul Scherrer Institute. A pseudo-continuous beam of 100% spin-polarized muons with initial energies of 4 MeV was slowed by a moderator to energies of about 15 eV, then electrostatically accelerated to a desired energy on the order of 10 keV, allowing us to implant muons selectively at a variable mean depth ranging from 10 nm to several tens of nm. After the measurements, the samples were preserved and subsequently characterized by XRD.
In a experiment, implanted muons will stop at a site in the crystal corresponding to an electrostatic potential minimum. The spin of each muon precesses around the magnetic field at this site until the muon decays with a mean lifetime of 2.2 $\mu$s into two neutrinos and a positron, the latter being emitted preferentially along the direction of the muon spin at the moment of decay. The normalized difference in positron counts between pairs of opposing positron detectors near the sample is known as the asymmetry and is proportional to the projection of the muon ensemble spin polarization along the axis defined by the detector pair. Tracking the asymmetry as a function of time after muon implantation therefore provides detailed information about the local magnetic field distribution in the sample.
Integrating the muon beam intensity profile over the sample area indicated that for both samples, 85% of the muons landed in the sample area and the remaining 15% in the nickel plate, which contributes a featureless exponential decay that disappears well before 0.1 $\mu$s in the asymmetry spectra. Of muons landing in the sample area, 10 $\pm$ 3.5% landed in exposed areas of the sapphire substrate, contributing a small and extremely rapid decay that manifests only as absent asymmetry within the time-binning used for the data analysis. Therefore, the dominant features observed are intrinsic to the films.
***Temperature calibration.*** The temperature-dependent XRD measurements of the 300-nm film, which were conducted using a Rigaku Smartlab instrument equipped with a variable temperature stage as described elsewhere [@kalch;prl19], were calibrated in temperature to the measurements in the following way. *In situ* measurements of the resistance $R$ were performed during the and XRD experiments, and the measured values were compared to precise $R$ versus $T$ measurements conducted on a separate probe station. The same contact points on the film were used in each case. To account for different contact resistances, the $R$ values measured during the and XRD experiments were corrected by adding a constant value such that the minimum resistance (i.e., the resistance in the metallic state at a temperature just above the onset of the MIT) agreed with the minimum resistance measured on the probe station. This offset was 9.8 $\Omega$ for the measurements and 2.4 $\Omega$ for XRD. For a given (corrected) value of $R$ measured during the or XRD experiments, the calibrated temperature was taken to be the corresponding temperature measured on the probe station. This procedure was not performed during any of the experiments on the 70-nm sample, so we regard the temperatures reported for that sample to be unsuitable for quantitative comparison among the different experimental techniques.
***Confirming the lack of depth dependence of the magnetism.*** Representative weak transverse field (wTF) spectra for the 300-nm film with 15-keV muons are shown in Fig. S\[fig:wtf\](a). The reduction of the oscillating amplitude as the temperature is lowered reflects the development of static magnetism in an increasingly large fraction of the sample volume probed by the muons. To determine whether there is any depth dependence of the magnetism, the 70-nm film was studied with muons of 4, 8, and 11 keV, corresponding to mean stopping depths of $20 \pm 20$ nm, $40 \pm 20$ nm, and $55 \pm 20$ nm. For the ZF measurements, there was no difference in the refined oscillation frequency measured with different muon energies outside of the statistical uncertainty of the fit parameters. Likewise, the wTF measurements revealed essentially identical temperature evolution of the asymmetry spectra. We display the wTF oscillation amplitudes as a function of temperature in Fig. S\[fig:wtf\](b). The data collected from all muon energies overlap with each other very closely, indicating that there is little or no depth dependence of the magnetic phase transition in the film.
![\[fig:wtf\] (a) Representative wTF spectra collected from the 300-nm sample using 15-keV muons. Spectra are offset vertically for clarity. (b) Amplitude of the oscillating component of the wTF spectra extracted from least-squares refinements using the 70-nm sample with 3 different muon energies. The data shown were collected in a warming sequence. Error bars represent the propagated ESDs of the refined parameters determined by the fits. ](fig_wtf300_depth70){width="80mm"}
***Nano-IR characterization.*** To examine the MIT in detail, we performed nanoIR measurements of the 70-nm sample at 12 temperatures spanning the transition. Additional details can be found elsewhere [@mcleo;np16]. The data were collected in a cooling sequence. To estimate the metallic and insulating phase fractions, we first generated histograms of the nanoIR voltage measured in each pixel for each image taken. The histograms displayed in Fig. S\[fig:histograms\](a) were collected at four representative nominal temperatures: 228 K, well above the MIT; 152.8 K and 141.6 K, expected to be in the phase-separated transition region between metal and insulator; and 100 K, which is fully insulating.
![\[fig:histograms\] (Color online) (a) Histograms of the nanoIR signal in each pixel for images collected from the 70-nm sample at four representative temperatures. Inset: Temperature dependence of the standard deviation (orange squares) and mean (blue circles) of the nanoIR histograms. (b) The relative width, $\sigma/\langle V \rangle$, of the nanoIR histograms for all measured temperatures (blue circles), along with a Gaussian fit (orange curve). The horizontal axis displays the nominal temperature recorded for each measurement, but the lack of cross-instrument thermometry calibration makes quantitative comparison unreliable.](fig_histograms){width="70mm"}
The dominant trend in the histograms as the temperature is lowered is an abrupt reduction of the mean value and standard deviation of the nanoIR signal distribution. The inset in Fig. S\[fig:histograms\](a) shows the standard deviation (left vertical axis) and mean (right vertical axis) of each histogram as a function of temperature, with a clear crossover region observed from about 140 K to 160 K.
![\[fig:phasefrac\] (a) Spatially resolved infrared spectroscopy measurements of the 70-nm sample of V2O3 at a nominal temperature of 141.6 K showing spatial phase separation between metallic (light-colored) and insulating (dark-colored) domains. (b) Same as (a), but binarized such that all pixels with a nanoIR voltage above a certain numerical threshold are white (representing metallic regions) and all pixels below the threshold are black (insulating regions).](fig_nanomaps){width="70mm"}
The relative width of each histogram, which we define as $\sigma/\langle V \rangle$ with $\sigma$ being the standard deviation and $\langle V \rangle$ the mean value for a given nanoIR image, is expected to be largest (smallest) for the images with maximal (minimal) inhomogeneity. In other words, images collected at temperatures in the middle of the transition, where the sample is segregated into metallic and insulating regions, should display a greater relative width than those collected at temperatures well above or below the transition. This expectation is borne out by the data, as shown by the blue circles in Fig. S\[fig:histograms\](b). We observe a clear peak centered around 143 K, which can be well fit by a function consisting of a Gaussian and a constant offset (orange curve in the figure). This systematic temperature evolution of the relative width reflects the progress of the electronic transition, allowing us to estimate the temperature-dependent insulating phase fraction $f_{\mathrm{ins}}(T)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:insFrac}
f_{\mathrm{ins}}(T) = \frac{\int_{T}^{\infty} A \exp{\left[-B(T'-T_0)^2\right]}\mathrm{d}T'}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} A \exp{\left[-B(T'-T_0)^2\right]}\mathrm{d}T'},\end{aligned}$$ where $A \exp{\left[-B(T'-T_0)^2\right]}$ is the Guassian function determined from the fit to the data in Fig. S\[fig:histograms\](b). To evaluate the reliability of this method, we can take the resulting insulating fraction for a given temperature (we will consider 141.6 K as an example), determine the numerical threshold separating insulating and metallic regions that yields the same insulating fraction, and generate a binarized version of the nanoIR image for comparison with the original image. This is done in Fig. S\[fig:phasefrac\](b), where white (black) regions are greater (less) than the threshold, representing metallic (insulating) regions. This binarized image corresponds nicely to the full image shown in Fig. S\[fig:phasefrac\](a). We note that this method of estimating the insulating phase fraction differs from that reported in Ref. . In that case, the distributions were clearly bimodal, allowing a two-component fit to the data to obtain the phase fractions directly. In this case, distinct peaks were not as easily resolved, so the two-component model failed to produce physically meaningful results.
[2]{} 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.122.057601) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Combining the density functional theory (DFT) and the Gutzwiller variational approach, a LDA+Gutzwiller method is developed to treat the correlated electron systems from [*ab-initio*]{}. All variational parameters are self-consistently determined from total energy minimization. The method is computationally cheaper, yet the quasi-particle spectrum is well described through kinetic energy renormalization. It can be applied equally to the systems from weakly correlated metals to strongly correlated insulators. The calculated results for SrVO$_3$, Fe, Ni and NiO, show dramatic improvement over LDA and LDA+U.'
author:
- 'XiaoYu Deng$^1$, Xi Dai$^1$, Zhong Fang$^2$'
title: LDA+Gutzwiller Method for Correlated Electron Systems
---
Despite of the successful stories of local-density-approximation (LDA) for simple metals and band insulators, the applications of first-principles calculations based on density functional theory (DFT) are limited for correlated systems, due to insufficient treatment of electron correlation. It has long been a challenge to have a simple scheme which keeps the accuracy and parameter-free character of DFT-type calculations, but can be equally applied to correlated and non-correlated systems. Along this line, significant efforts have been made in recent years to take into account explicitly the strong e-e interaction [@LDAU; @LDASIC; @DMFT]. Among them, the LDA+U method [@LDAU] adopted the orbital dependent Hartree-like scheme, and has been successfully applied to predict the insulating feature of strongly correlated systems with long-range ordering. However, it fails for intermediately correlated metallic systems. The recently developed LDA+DMFT method [@DMFT] follow the same essence of LDA+U scheme (i.e, the same effective Hamiltonian), however, the interaction is treated by the proper calculation of frequency-dependent electron self-energy through the dynamical mean field theory (DMFT). The method is quite successful [@DMFT], but the frequency-dependency make the method very expensive in practice. It is therefore important to develop a new method which covers from the correlated metal to the Mott insulator and at the same time is computationally as cheap as LDA+U.
We will present in this paper that the Gutzwiller approach [@Gut], originally proposed to study the ferromagnetism in correlated band and later widely used as analytical approach for correlated model Hamiltonian [@He3], can be naturally combined with the DFT formalism based on the variational principal. The idea is strongly motivated by the recent progresses for the Gutzwiller approach: (1) the original single band Gutzwiller method has been generalized to multi-band case, and is exact for infinite lattice dimensions [@multiband-G]; (2) the Gutzwiller approach can naturally cover both the noninteracting and the atomic limit [@limit-G]; (3) the post-LDA Gutzwiller treatment (starting from the effective Hamiltonian extracted from LDA band) has been successfully applied to some systems [@Pu; @Ni; @NaCoO]. Having those knowledge, we will show in the present paper that a fully self-consistent LDA+Gutzwiller method can be developed, and it is easy to be implemented in existing code and computationally simple. Implementing the present scheme in our pseudo-potential plane-wave code, we have calculated the non-magnetic metal SrVO$_3$, magnetic metal Fe, Ni, and antiferromagnetic insulator NiO. The results demonstrate significant improvement over LDA and LDA+U.
The basic idea of DFT and the Kohn-Sham equation is to find a reference system (usually non-interacting system with single slater determinant wave function $|\Psi_0\rangle$), which has the same charge density but the kinetic energy can be explicitly computed. In such a way, all unknown (both kinetic and potential) parts are moved into the exchange-correlation energy $E_{xc}$. Unfortunately, the exact functional form of $E_{xc}$ is not known, and the LDA for $E_{xc}$ is not sufficient for the materials containing the partly filled narrow bands, such as the $3d$ or $4f$ states. To improve this, the idea of LDA+U or LDA+DMFT method is to correct the LDA Hamiltonian $H^{LDA}$ by including explicitly e-e interaction and remove the double counting part from the LDA. Therefore in both LDA+U and LDA+DMFT, the Hamiltonian reads,
$$H^{LDA+U}=H^{LDA}+\sum_{i\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha \beta }n_{i\alpha
}n_{i\beta }-H_{dc}$$
where $\left\vert i\alpha \right\rangle $ are a set of local spin-orbitals with occupation number $n_{i\alpha}$ for lattice site $i$, and $U_{\alpha\beta}$ gives the interaction strength between the orbitals, $H_{dc}$ is the double couting term.
Now the problem to be solved is to minimize the total energy through variational principal. In LDA+U, this is done with respect to the single Slatter determinent trial wave function $|\Psi_0\rangle$, which can only improve the interaction part of the total energy and leave the kinetic part unchanged. In LDA+DMFT, however, both the single particle wave functions and the spectral density of the local orbitals are considered to be the variational parameters. The enlargement of the variational space makes the LDA+DMFT work quite well for both interaction part and kinetic part of the total energy. But the price of LDA+DMFT is that we have to deal with the frequency dependence of the self energy for each local orbitals, which makes it very expensive.
An alternative way for the problem is to improve the trial wave-function such that the kinetic part can be treated as better as possible. This is what we will done in the following. It is known that $|\Psi_{0}\rangle$ is not good, and a better candidate for the trial wave-function is the Gutzwiller wave-function [@Gut], which is basically the lattice version of the Jastrow type wave function for quantum liquid and has been extensively used in the strongly correlated systems [@He3]. It is defined as
$$|\Psi^{G}>=\hat{P}|\Psi^0>$$
The projection operator $\hat{P}$ is used to reduce the weight of configurations for the local orbitals with relatively high energy, and it reads
$$\hat{P}=\prod\limits_{i\Gamma }\left[ 1+\left( \lambda _{i\Gamma }-1\right)
\left\vert i,\Gamma \right\rangle \left\langle i,\Gamma \right\vert \right]$$
where $\Gamma $ denotes the $\Gamma $-th many-body configuration for the local orbitals in given unit cell $i$ and $\lambda _{i\Gamma }$ are the variational parameters describing the weight for given configuration $\Gamma $. Therefore our task is to minimize the total energy with respect to the Gutzwiller wave-function:
$$E^{LDA+G}(\rho )=\langle\Psi _{G}|H^{LDA}|\Psi
_{G}\rangle-E_{dc}+\langle\Psi _{G}|H_{U}|\Psi _{G}\rangle
\label{expect}$$
Thanks to the recent progresses for Gutzwiller approach, although the exact solution of the above expectation is unknown, the Gutzwiller approximation (GA) is a very tractable approximation for the multiband Hubbard model and has been proven to be exact for the infinite dimension. In the present paper, we apply the GA directly to the LDA Hamiltonian rather than tight binding form extracted from it. To do so, we only need a set of local orbitals $|i\alpha\rangle$ where we implement the local correlation effect. Following reference [@Pu], we can derive the total energy under GA as,
$$E^{LDA+G}(\rho )\approx <\Psi _{0}|H_{eff}^{LDA+G}|\Psi
_{0}>-E_{dc}+\sum_{i,\Gamma }E_{\Gamma }^{loc}m_{\Gamma }^{2}$$
with the Gutzwiller effective Hamtonian in momentum ($k$) space given as
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff}^{LDA+G}&=&[\hat{Q}+(1-\hat{R})]H^{LDA}[\hat{Q}+(1-\hat{R})] \nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{\alpha k}(1-q_{\alpha }^{2})\epsilon _{\alpha }^{0}\left\vert
\alpha k\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha k\right\vert \end{aligned}$$
$$\hat{Q} =\sum_{\alpha k}q_{\alpha }\left\vert \alpha k\right\rangle
\left\langle \alpha k\right\vert, \ \ \
\hat{R} =\sum_{\alpha k}\left\vert \alpha k\right\rangle \left\langle
\alpha k\right\vert$$
where $E_{\Gamma }$ is the eigen value and $m_{\Gamma
}^{2}$ is the weight of the $\Gamma$-th configuration, $\epsilon_\alpha^0$ is the on-site energy of each local orbital. The key quantities in our formalism are $q_{\alpha }$ ($0<q_\alpha<1$), which describe the kinetic energy renormalization of local orbitals, and can be expressed in terms of $m_{\Gamma }$ through
$$q_{\alpha }=\sum_{\Gamma \Gamma ^{\prime }}\left\langle \Gamma
^{\prime }\right\vert C_{\alpha }^{\dag }\left\vert \Gamma
\right\rangle \frac{ m_{\Gamma }m_{\Gamma ^{\prime }}}{\sqrt{n_{\alpha
}\left( 1-n_{\alpha }\right) }}$$
The main strategy of above formalism is that, kinetic energy of correlated orbitals are renormalized by factor $q_\alpha$, while all other non-correlated orbitals are taken into account by $(1-\hat{R})$ in the complete local basis projection. Therefore under GA, the total energy can be expressed again as the functional of the non-interacting wave function $\Psi_{0}$, but with additional variational parameters of the weighting factors ${ m_{\Gamma }}$, along with the following necessary constraint
$$\sum_{\Gamma }\left\langle \Gamma \right\vert C_{\alpha }^{\dag }C_{\alpha
}\left\vert \Gamma \right\rangle m_{\Gamma }^{2}=n_{\alpha
}=\sum_{k}\left\langle \Psi _{0}\right\vert C_{\alpha k}^{\dag }C_{\alpha
k}\left\vert \Psi _{0}\right\rangle$$
the original Gutzwiller variational parameters $\lambda
_{i\Gamma }$ can be obtained by $\lambda _{\Gamma }=\frac{m_{\Gamma
}}{m_{\Gamma }^{0}}$, with $ m_{\Gamma }^{0}=\left\langle \Psi
_{0}\right\vert \left\vert \Gamma \right\rangle $.
Having above equations, it is easy to obtain Kohn-Sham like equations by the variational method,
$$\frac{\partial{E^{LDA+G}(\rho)}}{\partial{\Psi_0}}=0, \ \ \
\frac{\partial{E^{LDA+G}(\rho)}}{\partial{m_\Gamma}}=0$$
The charge density under GA can be constructed as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{LDA+G}(r)&=&\left\langle \Psi _{0}\right\vert
[\hat{Q}+(1-\hat{R})] | r \rangle \langle r |
[\hat{Q}+(1-\hat{R})]\left\vert \Psi _{0}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{\alpha k}(1-q_{\alpha }^{2})\left\langle \Psi _{0}|\alpha
k\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha k|\Psi _{0}\right\rangle
\rho_{\alpha k}(r)\end{aligned}$$
In practice, two steps are followed. (1) For fixed $m_\Gamma$, the $|\Psi_0\rangle$ is optimized by solving the effective Kohn-Sham equations. This step is basically the same as all other LDA calculations, with additional little cost for the projection to local orbitals; (2) For fixed $|\Psi_{0}\rangle$, $m_{\Gamma }$ are optimized by solving set of linear equations [@SCF-GUT], which have dimension of number of configurations $\Gamma$ (for instance $2^{10}$ for five $d$ orbitals, and the number of configurations can be reduced significantly by considering the symmetry). The second step is addition to the LDA or LDA+U scheme, however, the computational cost is rather small compared with the cost by wave function optimization (i.e., the first step), because only set of linear equations needed to be solved [@SCF-GUT]. The final solution of the system is obtained until the charge density (and total energy) is self-consistently converged.
The above proposed LDA+Gutzwiller method was implemented in our BSTATE (Beijing Simulational Tool for Atom Technology) code [@STATE-review], which uses plane-wave ultra-soft pseudo-potential method. For the local basis, the physical choice is the wannier function constructed from the atomic orbital. This was done by using the projected wannier function method [@PWANF] in our calculations. For the interaction term, the on-site density-density interactions are considered in the present studies. Several typical systems have been calculated, and the results are discussed below.
[*1. Non-magnetic correlated metal: SrVO$_3$*]{}
SrVO$_3$ is a correlated metal with $3d$-$t_{2g}^1$ configuration. The simple cubic perovskite crystal structure and non-magnetic electronic state make it an idea test material [@SVO-theory]. The one-particle spectrum calculated with LDA is poorly compared with experiments [@SVO-exp]. The main problems are: (1) the calculated band width is about 40% wider than photoemission observation; (2) the estimated effective mass is about 2-3 times lower than experimental results from specific heat and susceptibility; (3) the photoemission peak observed around 2eV below Fermi level ($E_F$) is not understood.
However, most of the features can be understood from our LDA+Gutzwiller calculations. We choose the $3d$ Wannier function as the interacting local orbits with effective interaction energy $U$=5.0eV following the literatures [@SVO-theory]. Fig.1 shows the calculated band structure and the density of states of quasi-particle spectrum. It is clear that the band width is reduced by about 40% compared with LDA. From the calculated quasi-particle spectrum it is straight forward to calculate the effective mass enhancement ($m^*/m$), which is 2.1 times larger than LDA. All the results are in good consistency with experiments [@SVO-exp], and much better than that obtained from LDA. Finally, it is worth to make the comment: since all the quasi particle part has been well treated in the present scheme (incoherent part is not included yet), and no DOS is found around -2eV region, it further suggests that the observed photoemission peak in this region should be incoherent as suggested by other studies [@SVO-theory].
[*2. Magnetic correlated metal: Fe and Ni*]{}
Bulk Fe and Ni are typical magnetic metal with intermediate correlations. For Fe, the LDA fails to predict the bcc FM ground state, although GGA correctly do so. Both LDA and GGA overestimate the band width by about 10-20% compared with experiements [@Fe-AREPS]. For the Ni, the problems are more serious, the band width is overestimated by about 30%, and the spin polarization is hardly compared with experiments [@Ni]. For such intermediately correlated metal, the LDA+U method may improve one or two discrepancies to some extent, while the price to be payed is that other predicted properties become even worse than LDA.
For our calculations, we first determine the effective $U$ from constrained-LDA calculations to be 7.0eV (Fe) and 9.0eV (Ni) for the choice of our local orbital, and Hund’s coupling $J$ is fixed to be 1.0eV (a common choice for $3d$ elemental metal). The results, summarized in Table I and Fig.2, show that most of the discrepancies are systematically corrected compared with experiments, suggesting the advantages of present scheme. In particular, the following improvements are significant: (1) the band width renormalization is correctly predicted and effective mass enhancement (specific heat coefficient) can be well compared with experiments. (2) the calculated lattice parameter, bulk modulus and magnetic moment show systematic improvement. Finally, we want to point out that for the down-spin band of Ni, around the X point near $E_F$, one of the bands predicted by LDA to be above $E_F$, is now correctly predicted to be below $E_F$, in consistency with recent AREPS data [@Ni].
a$_0$(bohrs) $B$(GPa) $M$($\mu_B$) $\gamma$($\frac{mJ}{k^2mol}$) $W$(eV)
---- ------- -------------- ---------- -------------- ------------------------------- ---------
LDA 5.21 227 2.08 2.25 3.6
Fe LDA+G 5.39 160 2.30 3.52 3.2
Exp. 5.42 168 2.22 3.1,3.69 3.3
LDA 6.49 250 0.59 4.53 4.5
Ni LDA+G 6.61 188 0.50 6.9 3.2
Exp. 6.65 186 0.42,0.61 7.02 3.2
: The calculated property parameters for bcc FM Fe and fcc FM Ni in comparison with experimental results. They are equilibrium lattice constant $a_0$, bulk modulus $B$, spin magnetic moment $M$, specific heat coefficient $\gamma$, and the occupied energy band width $W$. The experimental data are from Ref. [@Fe-Ni-Exp].
[*3. AF correlated Insulator: NiO*]{}
In the present LDA+Gutzwiller scheme, both effective on-site level renormalization and kinetic renormalization are included, while only the former is considered in LDA+U scheme. For the intermediately correlated metallic systems, the kinetic energy renormalization is significant, this is reason why LDA+U scheme fails. However, for the large U limit, where effective on-site level renormalization dominate, such as the AF correlated insulator NiO, our calculations suggest that the kinetic energy renormalization factor $q_\alpha$ is almost utility, and the obtained electronic structure from LDA+Gutzwiller method is almost the same as that of LDA+U. However, it should be noted that this is true only for the cases where $q_\alpha$ close to 1. For some of the AF insulators, the localized moment is far away from utility, we expect that the kinetic energy renormalization will also contribute. In these cases, the present LDA+Gutzwiller approach will give a better results than LDA+U even for the AF ordered insulators. We will leave this issue for future studies.
In summary, we have shown that the Gutzwiller approach can be well combined with the DFT through variational principal. As the results, a fully self-consistent LDA+Gutzwiller method is developed. The method not only keeps the accuracy and parameter-free character of LDA-type calculations (such as the total energy calculations), but also automatically cover the region from weakly to strongly correlated systems. The quasi particle spectrum is properly described by taken into account the kinetic energy renormalization, and the calculated results for several typical systems demonstrate the strong advantage over LDA and LDA+U results. On the other hand, the scheme itself is easy to be implemented and computationally much cheaper than the LDA+DMFT method.
We acknowledge the supports from NSF of China (No.10334090, 10425418, 60576058), and that from the 973 program of China (No.2007CB925000).
V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 943 (1991); V. I. Anisimov, I. V. Solovyev, M. A. Korotin, and et.al., Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 16929 (1993); I. V. Solovyev, P. H. Dederichs, and V. I. Anisimov, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 16 861 (1994).
L. Petit, A. Svane, Z. Szotek, and W. M. Temmerman, Science [**301**]{}, 498 (2003).
See, for example, G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V.S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 865 (2006).
M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 159 (1963); M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. [**134**]{}, A923 (1964); M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. [**137**]{}, A1726 (1965).
D. Vollhardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**56**]{}, 99 (1984).
J. Bünemann, F. Gebhard, and W. Weber, J. Phys: Cond-Matt, [**9**]{}, 7343 (1997); J. Bünemann, and W. Weber, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 4011 (1997).
J. Bünemann, and W. Weber, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6896 (1998).
J. P. Julien, and J. Bouchet, Physica B [**359-361**]{}, 783 (2005); J. P. Julien, and J. Bouchet, ccsd-00008626.
J. Büenemann, F. Gebhard, T. Ohm, S. Weiser, and W. Weber, cond-mat/0503332, (2005); J. Bünemann, F. Gebhard, T. Ohm, and et. al. Eurphys. Lett. [**61**]{}, 667 (2003).
S. Zhou, M. Gao, H. Ding, P. A. Lee, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 206401 (2005).
X. Dai, G. Kotliar, and Z. Fang, cond-matt/0611075 (2006).
V. I. Anisimov, D. E. Kondakov, A. V. Kozhevnikov, and et. al., Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 125119 (2005).
Z. Fang, and K. Terakura, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**14**]{} 3001 (2002).
A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 096401 (2003); I. A. Nekrasov, G. Keller, D. E. Kondakov, and et.al. Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 155106 (2005); F. Lechermann, A. Georges, A. Poteryaev, cond-mat/0605539 (2006).
A. Fujimori, I. Hase, H. Namatame, and et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1796 (1992); I. H. Inoue et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2539 (1995); I. H. Inoue et al., Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 4372 (1998); A. Sekiyama, H. Fujiwara, S. Imada, and et.al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 156402 (2004);
J. Schäfer, M. Hoinkis, E. Rotenberg, and et.al Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 155115 (2005).
L. Chionce, L. Vitos, I. A. Abrikosov, and et. al. Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 235106 (2003); J. H. Cho, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 10685 (1996); and references therein.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We find an instanton analogous to the Brill instanton that describes the fragmentation of a single-centered black hole scaling throat of charge $\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_3$ in $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity to three disconnected throats of charges $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \Gamma_3$, in the limit where the intersection products between the charges of the three throats satisfies $\langle \Gamma_1, \Gamma_2\rangle \lll \langle \Gamma_2, \Gamma_3\rangle, \langle \Gamma_3, \Gamma_1\rangle$. We evaluate the Euclidean action for this instanton and find that the amplitude for the tunneling process is proportional to the difference in entropy between the initial and final configurations.'
author:
- Hyeyoun Chung
title: 'Fragmentation of black hole scaling throats in $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity'
---
Introduction {#sec-Intro}
============
In [@Brill], Brill found an instanton that corresponds to the fragmentation of a single charged $AdS_2\times S_2$ universe into several disconnected $AdS_2\times S_2$ universes, and interpreted this instanton as describing topological fluctuations near the horizon of extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. The tunneling amplitude for this instanton was found to be proportional to the difference in entropy between the initial and final black hole configurations. The probe limit of this instanton was studied in [@AdSFrag], in which a single $AdS_2\times S_2$ space of charge $\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2$ with $\Gamma_1 \ggg \Gamma_2$ splits into an $AdS_2\times S_2$ space of charge $\Gamma_1$ with a probe charge $\Gamma_2$ in the boundary. This instanton was found to give the same tunneling amplitude as the Brill instanton.
In this work we consider the multi-centered black hole scaling solutions of the bosonic sector of $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity coupled to an arbitrary number of vector multiplets. We find an instanton analogous to the Brill instanton, that connects a single-centered scaling configuration of charge $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_3$ to three disconnected scaling throats of charges $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \Gamma_3$, in the limit where the intersection products between the charges of the three throats satisfies $\langle \Gamma_1, \Gamma_2\rangle \lll \langle \Gamma_2, \Gamma_3\rangle, \langle \Gamma_3, \Gamma_1\rangle$. Thus, this instanton can be interpreted as describing the topological fluctuations of a single-centered scaling throat. We evaluate the Euclidean action for this instanton and find that it is proportional to the difference in entropy between the two black hole configurations.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec-MCSol\] we describe the general multi-centered black hole solution to $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity, as well as the scaling solutions. In Section \[sec-Instanton\] we find the instanton solution corresponding to tunneling between single and multi-centered scaling configurations. In Section \[sec-Action\] we evaluate the Euclidean action for the instanton to find the tunneling amplitude. We conclude in Section \[sec-Conc\].
The multi-centered black hole solution {#sec-MCSol}
======================================
The action for the bosonic part of four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity coupled to massless vector multiplets takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{4D} &= \frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{M_4} d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left (R - 2G_{A\bar{B}}dz^A \wedge \star d\bar{z}^{\bar{B}} - F^I \wedge G_I\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the $z^A$ $(A=1,\dots,n)$ are the vector multiplet scalars, the $F^I$ $(I=0,1,\dots,n)$ are the vector field strengths, the $G_I$ are the dual magnetic field strengths, and $G_{A\bar{B}} = \partial_A\partial_{\bar{B}}\mathcal{K}$ is derived from the Kahler potential $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K} = -\ln (i\int_X \Omega_0\wedge\bar{\Omega}_0)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_0$ is the holomophic 3-form on the Calabi-Yau manifold $X$. For later calculations, it will also be convenient to define the normalized 3-form $\Omega = e^{\mathcal{K}/2}\Omega_0$.
The lattice of electric and magnetic charges $\Gamma$ is identified with $H^3(X,\mathbb{Z})$, the lattice of integral harmonic 3-forms on $X$. In the standard symplectic basis, a charge $\Gamma$ can be written as $\Gamma = (P^I, Q_I)$, with magnetic charges $P^I$ and electric charges $Q_I$. We can define a canonical, duality invariant, symplectic product $\langle, \rangle$ on the space of charges, which is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-IntProd}
\langle\Gamma, \tilde{\Gamma} \rangle = P^I\tilde{Q}_I - Q_I\tilde{P}^I\end{aligned}$$ in the standard symplectic basis. For convenience of notation, we define $\Gamma_{ab} \equiv \langle \Gamma_a, \Gamma_b \rangle$. The central charge $Z_a$ of $\Gamma_a$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
Z_a \equiv \langle \Gamma_a, \Omega \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In [@DenefSUGRA] it was shown that multicentered BPS black hole solutions for this theory exist, and their explicit form was found in [@DenefBates]. These solutions are regular, stationary, asymptotically flat BPS solutions with intrinsic angular momentum, describing bound states of separate extremal black holes with mutually nonlocal charges.
A general multicentered solution can be explicitly constructed given the entropy function $\Sigma$, which is a homogeneous function of degree two that is defined so that $\pi\Sigma(\Gamma) = S(\Gamma)$ is the entropy of a black hole of charge $\Gamma$. Given a multicentered configuration with $N$ black holes of charges $\Gamma_1, \dots, \Gamma_N$ at locations $\textbf{x}_1,\dots, \textbf{x}_N$, we define the harmonic function: $$\begin{aligned}
H &= \sum_{a=1}^N \frac{\Gamma_a}{|\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|} - 2\mathrm{Im}(e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)_{r=\infty}\end{aligned}$$ The positions of the black holes are required to satisfy the integrability constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a < b} \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{|\textbf{x}_a - \textbf{x}_b|} = 2\mathrm{Im}(e^{-i\alpha}Z_a)_{r=\infty}\label{eq-Integ}\end{aligned}$$ The fields of the black hole solution can be written explicitly in terms of $\Sigma(H)$. The metric has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = -e^{2U}(dt + \omega_j dx^j)^2 + e^{-2U}dx^jdx^j\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-2U} = \Sigma(H).\end{aligned}$$ The 1-form $\omega = \omega_j dx^j$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-OmegaAdd}
\omega = \sum_{a < b} \omega_{ab}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{ab}$ is the value of the 1-form for a configuration of two charges $\Gamma_a, \Gamma_b$, given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-OmegaAB}
\omega_{ab} = \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{2l} \left (\frac{l^2 - r^2}{(l^4 + r^4 - 2l^2r^2\cos2\theta)^{1/2}} + 1 - \cos\theta_1 + \cos\theta_2 \right ) d\phi\end{aligned}$$ where $2l$ is the distance between the two charges, and $r,\theta,\phi$ are spherical coordinates defined with respect to the axis between the two charge centers, with the origin halfway between the charges. The angles $\theta_1, \theta_2$ are the angles with the $z$-axis in a spherical coordinate system with origin at $\textbf{x}_1$ resp. $\textbf{x}_2$, and are related to the central spherical coordinates by $r\cos\theta - r_1\cos\theta_1 = l = r_2\cos\theta_2 - r\cos\theta$. Asymptotically for $r\to\infty$, we have $\omega \approx \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{r}\sin^2\theta d\phi = \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{r^3}(xdy - ydx)$.
The scalars $z^A$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
z^A &= \frac{H^A-i\partial_{H_A}\Sigma}{H^0-i\partial_{H_0}\Sigma}\end{aligned}$$ and the electromagnetic gauge fields are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^I &= \partial_{H_I}\log \Sigma(\mathrm{d}t + \omega) + \mathcal{A}_d^I, \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_d = -\sum_a \Gamma_a \cos \theta_a \mathrm{d}\phi_a,\end{aligned}$$ where spherical coordinates $(r_a,\theta_a,\phi_a)$ have been defined around each black hole center $\textbf{x}_a$.
As stated above, these multicentered solutions can be interpreted as bound states of separate extremal black holes with charges $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_N$. To see this, note that if we define $r_a \equiv |\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|$, then in the near-horizon region $r_a \to 0$ of the black hole at $\textbf{x}_a$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{r_a \to 0} \Sigma(H) = \pi S(\Gamma_a)r_a^2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we see that if we ignore the $\omega_i$ cross-terms in the metric, then each of the black holes has the standard $AdS_2\times S_2$ near-horizon geometry of all four-dimensional extremal black holes.
These solutions have an intrinsic angular momentum $\vec{J}$, which can be extracted from the off-diagonal terms in the metric in the limit $r\to\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-omegaInf}
\omega = 2\epsilon_{ijk}\frac{J^ix^jdx^k}{r^3} + \mathcal{O}(r^{-2})\end{aligned}$$ In order to determine $\vec{J}$, we can use the asymptotic form of $\omega_{ab}$ for a two-centered solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{ab} = \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{r^3}(xdy - ydx) + \mathcal{O}(r^{-2})\end{aligned}$$ Using the additivity of $\omega$ as shown in (\[eq-OmegaAdd\]), we find that: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-J}
\vec{J} &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a<b}\frac{\Gamma_{ab}(\vec{\textbf{x}}_a - \vec{\textbf{x}}_b)}{|\textbf{x}_a - \textbf{x}_b|}.\end{aligned}$$
The Scaling Solution {#sec-ScSol}
--------------------
Scaling solutions are special instances of multicentered solutions where the black hole centers $\textbf{x}_a$ can approach arbitrarily close to each other. We can therefore write $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{x}_a = \lambda \textbf{w}_a + \lambda^2\textbf{s}_a + O(\lambda^3),\end{aligned}$$ and let $\lambda \to 0$. The exact scaling solution is obtained in the limit $\lambda = 0$.
Naively, it might appear that as $\lambda \to 0$ the black holes collapse on top of each other. However, this is not the case. As $\lambda \to 0$, the black hole centers become encapsulated in a throat, which becomes deeper and deeper as $\lambda$ decreases. Due to the warp factor of the throat, the black holes remain at a finite physical distance from each other even while the coordinate distances $|\textbf{x}_a - \textbf{x}_b|$ become infinitely small. In the full scaling limit, this throat becomes an $AdS_2\times S_2$ space that can be considered as its own separate spacetime, and the solution gains a scaling symmetry. From outside the $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat, the configuration looks like the throat of a single black hole with total charge $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \dots + \Gamma_N$.
As $\Sigma$ is homogeneous of degree 2, in the full scaling limit $\lambda = 0$, the metric becomes purely spatial, and $g_{tt} \to 0$. To avoid this, we rescale the time coordinate $t \to t/\lambda$. We can then write the solution in terms of the scaling coordinates $\textbf{w}$ and the new $t$-coordinate: $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = -e^{2U}(dt + \omega_j dw^j)^2 + e^{-2U}dw^jdw^j,\end{aligned}$$ where now $U$ and $\omega_j$ are functions of $\textbf{w}$. Upon studying the equations of motions for the metric, the scalar fields, and the electromagnetic fields, it turns out that all of the equations are exactly the same as in the non-scaling case except with the variable $\textbf{w}$ substituted for $\textbf{x}$, and also with the constant in the harmonic function $H(w)$ set to 0. Thus the positions of the black holes now satisfy the integrability constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-Integ2}
\sum_{a < b} \frac{\Gamma_{ab}}{|\textbf{w}_a - \textbf{w}_b|} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ For convenience of notation, we will now switch from using the $\textbf{w}$ coordinate to just using the $\textbf{x}$ coordinate, with the understanding that the constant in the harmonic function is set to 0.
The 3-centered Scaling Solution {#sec-Approx}
-------------------------------
In this work we consider scaling solutions with three black holes. Due to the integrability constraints (\[eq-Integ2\]), the positions of the black holes are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-TriSides}
|\textbf{x}_a - \textbf{x}_b| = |\Gamma_{ab}|\rho\end{aligned}$$ for some positive parameter $\rho$. Thus the three $\Gamma_{ab}$ correspond to the lengths of the three sides of a triangle. We can label the charges so that: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{12} &> 0\\
\Gamma_{31} &> 0\\
\Gamma_{23} &> 0.\end{aligned}$$ As the $\Gamma_{ab}$ are proportional to the distances between the black holes, we see from the formula (\[eq-J\]) that the intrinsic angular momentum of this spacetime is zero, which means that $\omega = \mathcal{O}(r^{-2})$ for any three-centered scaling solution, so that $\omega_r \sim \frac{1}{r^3}$ and $\omega_\theta, \omega_\phi \sim \frac{1}{r^2}$ as $r \to \infty$.
In this work, we consider the limit in which the charges $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2,\Gamma_3$ satisfy: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3Approx}
\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}}\to 0\end{aligned}$$ In this limit, the interaction between the two black holes of charge $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$, characterized by the quantity $\Gamma_{12}$, is small compared to the interaction between each of $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ and the third black hole of charge $\Gamma_3$, characterized by the quantities $\Gamma_{23}, \Gamma_{31}$. Note, however, that by the definition of the intersection product given in (\[eq-IntProd\]), this does not necessarily mean that the charges $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ are small compared to $\Gamma_3$.
This limit ensures that $\omega \to 0$ as $\textbf{x} \to \textbf{x}_a$, so that the geometry at each of the black holes $\textbf{x}_a$ is that of an $AdS_2 \times S_2$ throat of charge $\Gamma_a$. In this limit, we also find that $\omega \to 0$ for $|\textbf{x}| \ggg \Gamma_{31}\rho$ (for details, see Appendix \[sec-App\].) We will see later that this is necessary in order to satisfy the conditions for a valid instanton solution: namely, that the metric is real in the regions corresponding to asymptotically early and late Euclidean times. However, this limit will *not* be necessary in order to actually evaluate the Euclidean action for the instanton.
The instanton solution {#sec-Instanton}
======================
The Brill instanton and $AdS_2$ fragmentation {#sec-Brill}
---------------------------------------------
The fragmentation process that we are considering is similar to the fragmentation of the $AdS_2 \times S_2$ throats of extremal Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) black holes that was studied in [@Brill] and [@AdSFrag]. It will be helpful to first study this simpler example before considering the full $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUGRA case.
The analog of our multicentered scaling solution is the class of *conformastatic* solutions to the Einstein-Maxwell equations. The Lorentzian conformastatic metric and Maxwell field have the form: $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &= -H^{-2}dt^2 + H^2dx^jdx^j\\
\star F &= dt \wedge dH,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is a harmonic function that satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^2 H = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla^2$ is the Laplacian on flat $\mathbb{R}^3$. This solution describes a Bertotti-Robinson (BR) type universe[@BertRob] containing a number of extremal Reissner-Nordstrom (ERN) black holes. If the black holes are located at coordinates $\textbf{x}_a$, then the function $H$ has the general form: $$\begin{aligned}
H = \sum_{a=1}^N \frac{\Gamma_a}{|\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_a$ are the charges of the black holes. The spacetime extends over the range $t \in \{-T, T\}$, $r > R$, and $r_a > R_a$, where $r_a \equiv |\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|$. In the end we take the limits $T, R \to \infty$ and $R_a\to 0$.
Brill found an instanton that describes the fragmentation of one $AdS_2\times S_2$ universe into several by analytically continuing this solution to Euclidean time. He identified two asymptotic regions corresponding to the initial and final states: in the limit $r = |\textbf{x}|\to\infty$, the metric approaches an $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of a single black hole with charge $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \dots + \Gamma_N$. In the limit $r_a = |\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|\to 0$, the metric approaches an $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of a black hole with charge $\Gamma_a$.
Thus, we can define Euclidean time by taking the level surfaces of the harmonic function $H$ to be a foliation of the spacetime. For early times, corresponding to $H\to 0$ (and thus $r\to\infty$), we have a single $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of charge $\Gamma_\infty$. For late times, corresponding to $H\to\infty$ (and thus $r_a \to 0$), we have $N$ separate $AdS_2\times S_2$ throats of charges $\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_N$. As the initial and final geometries are only reached asymptotically in Euclidean time, this is not a “bounce” instanton corresponding to a genuine decay out of the initial state. Rather, it is analogous to the well-known instanton solution for the symmetric double well, which indicates mixing between two degenerate minima. Upon evaluating the Euclidean action, we find that the tunneling amplitude for the single $AdS_2\times S_2$ universe to fragment into multiple $AdS_2\times S_2$ universes is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-BrillAmp}
\frac{\pi}{2} \left ( \Gamma_\infty^2 - \sum_{a=1}^N \Gamma_a^2\right )\end{aligned}$$ The Brill instanton does not connect a single-centered conformastatic solution to a multi-centered conformastatic solution: rather, it connects a single-centered solution to a geometry containing $N$ disconnected $AdS_2\times S_2$ centers, which agrees with the multi-centered conformastatic configuration deep inside the black hole throats. Note that the tunneling amplitude for the instanton is proportional to the entropy difference between these initial and final black hole configurations. Brill conjectured that an analogous instanton with the same (or similar) amplitude would exist that would connect the full single and multi-centered conformastatic solutions, and thus describe the splitting of a single ERN black hole into multiple black holes; however, such an instanton has not yet been found.
The probe limit of the two-centered Brill instanton was studied in [@AdSFrag], where a probe charge $\Gamma_2$ was considered in the $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of a large background ERN black hole of charge $\Gamma_1 \ggg \Gamma_2$. An instanton was found that connected a single $AdS_2\times S_2$ space of charge $\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2$ to an $AdS_2\times S_2$ space of charge $\Gamma_1$ with a probe charge $\Gamma_2$ in the boundary of the $AdS_2$ space. The tunneling amplitude for the instanton was found to be proportional to the entropy difference between the initial and final configurations. The instanton is the probe limit of the Brill instanton.
The $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUGRA instanton
-----------------------------------
The $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUGRA instanton can be obtained by analytically continuing the existing stationary solution to imaginary time. Wick-rotation gives the following Euclidean metric: $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = e^{2U}(dt - i\omega_j dx^j)^2 + e^{-2U}dx^jdx^j\end{aligned}$$ As in the RN case, our spacetime extends over the range $t \in \{-T, T\}$, $r > R$, and $r_a > R_a$, where $r_a \equiv |\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|$. In the end we take the limits $T, R \to \infty$ and $R_a\to 0$.
Recall that we are considering the particular three-centered configuration described in Sec. \[sec-Approx\], in the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$. For this solution, we find that $\omega\to 0$ as $r_a\to 0$ and as $r\to\infty$ (for explicit calculations, see Appendix \[sec-App1\].)
We define Euclidean time by taking the level surfaces of the entropy function $\Sigma(H)$ to be a foliation of the spacetime. As shown above, we find that $\omega \to 0$ for $r\to\infty$ and $r_a\to 0$. Thus, for early times, corresponding to $\Sigma\to 0$ (and $r\to\infty$), we have a single $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of charge $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_2$. For late times, corresponding to $\Sigma\to\infty$ (and $r_a\to 0$), we have three separate $AdS_2\times S_2$ throats of charges $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\Gamma_3$. As $\omega \to 0$ for $r \to \infty$ and $r_a \to 0$, the metric is real in the asymptotic regions. Thus, as long as the Euclidean action is real when evaluated on this solution, this is a valid gravitational instanton.
As with the Brill instanton, our instanton connects a single-centered scaling solution to a geometry containing three disconnected scaling throats, which agrees with the three-centered scaling configuration deep inside the black hole throats. Thus, using the analogy with the Brill instanton, it is reasonable to say that this instanton describes topological fluctuations of the single-centered scaling throat, and the Euclidean action for this instanton gives the tunneling amplitude for these fluctuations. In the probe limit, our instanton corresponds to the escape of two probe particles of charges $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$ from the $AdS_2\times S_2$ throat of a single large black hole of charge $\Gamma_3$ (though as mentioned in Section \[sec-Approx\], this does not necessarily mean that the charges $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ are small compared to $\Gamma_3$, but that the interaction between first two charges is small compared to their interactions with the third charge.)
Evaluating the Euclidean action {#sec-Action}
===============================
We can now evaluate the Euclidean action. The form of the action for a general stationary solution is[@DenefSUGRA]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{4D} = -\frac{1}{16\pi} \int dt \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \{ 2{\textbf{d}U}\wedge{\star_0}{\textbf{d}U} - \frac{1}{2}e^{4U}{\textbf{d}\omega}\wedge{\star_0}{\textbf{d}\omega} + 2G_{A\bar{B}}{\textbf{d}z}^A \wedge {\star_0}{\textbf{d}\bar}{z}^{\bar{B}} + (\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}) \}\end{aligned}$$ where $\spd$ and ${\star_0}$ are the exterior derivative and the three-dimensional Hodge dual with respect to *flat* Euclidean space respectively, $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F}_{ij}$ is the spatial part of the electromagnetic field, and the scalar product $(,)$ of spatial 2-forms $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}'$ is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F}') \equiv \frac{e^{2U}}{1-\tilde{\omega}^2}\int_X \mathcal{F}\wedge \left [{\star_0}\hat{\mathcal{F}'} - {\star_0}(\tilde{\omega}\wedge\hat{\mathcal{F}'})\tilde{\omega} + {\star_0}(\tilde{\omega}\wedge{\star_0}\mathcal{F}') \right ]\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{\omega} \equiv e^{2U}\omega$. In [@DenefSUGRA] it was shown that the integrand could be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &= (\mathcal{G},\mathcal{G}) - 4(\mathcal{Q} + {\textbf{d}\alpha} + \frac{1}{2}e^{2U}{\star_0}{\textbf{d}\omega})\wedge \mathrm{Im} \langle\mathcal{G},e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega \rangle\nonumber\\
&\quad+{\textbf{d}[} 2\tilde{\omega}\wedge(\mathcal{Q}+{\textbf{d}\alpha}) + 4\mathrm{Re}\langle \mathcal{F},e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega \rangle]\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is an arbitrary real function on $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ is the spatial part of the chiral connection: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} = \mathrm{Im}(\partial_A\mathcal{K}{\textbf{d}z}^A).\end{aligned}$$ The 2-form $\mathcal{G}$ is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G} \equiv \mathcal{F} - 2\mathrm{Im}{\star_0}\textbf{D}(e^{-U}e^{-i\alpha}\Omega) + 2\mathrm{Re}\textbf{D}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega).\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{D} \equiv \textbf{d} + i(\mathcal{Q} + \textbf{d}\alpha + \frac{1}{2}e^{2U}{\star_0}\textbf{d}\omega).\end{aligned}$$ For the scaling solution, we have[@DenefSUGRA] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} + \textbf{d}\alpha &= \frac{1}{2}e^{2U}\langle{\textbf{d}H}, H\rangle\label{eq-UsefulId1}\\
{\textbf{d}U} &= e^U\mathrm{Re}(e^{-i\alpha}\zeta)\label{eq-UsefulId2}\\
{\star_0}{\textbf{d}\omega} &= \langle {\textbf{d}H}, H\rangle\label{eq-UsefulId3}\\
\mathcal{F} &= 2{\star_0}{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Im} (e^{-U}e^{-i\alpha}\Omega) - 2{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega)\label{eq-UsefulId4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-zeta}
\zeta \equiv \langle{\textbf{d}H}, \Omega \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^N Z(\Gamma_i){\textbf{d}\left} (\frac{1}{|\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}_i|}\right ).\end{aligned}$$ In addition to the boundary terms $$\begin{aligned}
&{\textbf{d}[}2\tilde{\omega}\wedge (\mathcal{Q} + {\textbf{d}\alpha})]\\
&{\textbf{d}[}4 \mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle]\end{aligned}$$ given above, the action also has the following boundary term: $$\begin{aligned}
&2 \nabla U,\end{aligned}$$ where the Laplacian is taken with respect to three dimensional *flat* space. The term $\sim\nabla U$ was omitted in [@DenefSUGRA] because it did not contribute in asymptotically flat space, but since the scaling solution is asymptotically $AdS_2\times S_2$ it must be included here. The boundary terms in the action also include the Gibbons-Hawking term, required for a valid action principle for the metric.
When evaluated on a solution of the equations of motion, the bulk term is zero. Thus the only contribution to the Euclidean action comes from the boundary terms.
The Gibbons-Hawking term
------------------------
The Gibbons-Hawking term for the Euclidean solution is given by[@HawkingIsrael]: $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int d^3 x \,\,\sqrt{h}\, K + C[h_{ij}]\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{ij}$ is the induced metric on the boundary, $K$ is the trace of the second fundamental form of the boundary, and $C[h_{ij}]$ is a term that depends solely on the induced metric at the boundary. Recall that our spacetime extends over the range $t \in \{-T,T\}$, $r > R$, and $r_a > R_a$, where $r_a \equiv |\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|$. We have three boundaries to consider:
1. The top and bottom surfaces: $t = T$, $r<R$, $r_a > R_a$, and $t = -T$, $r<R$, $r_a > R_a$.
2. The “mantle” surfaces: $-T < t < T$, $r=R$ and $-T < t < T$, $r_a = R_a$.
3. The “edges”: $t = \pm T$, $r=R$, $r_a = R_a$.
On the top surface we have: $$\begin{aligned}
K &= \frac{i}{2\Sigma^{3/2}(\Sigma^2 - \omega^2)}\{ -\Sigma^2 (\omega_i\partial_i\Sigma) - \omega^2(\omega_i\partial_i\Sigma)\nonumber\\
&\qquad+ 2\Sigma^2(\partial_i\omega_i) - 2\Sigma(\omega_x^2(\partial_z\omega_z+\partial_y\omega_y) +\omega_y^2(\partial_x\omega_x+\partial_z\omega_z)+\omega_z^2(\partial_x\omega_x+\partial_y\omega_y)\nonumber\\
&\qquad- \omega_x\omega_y(\partial_y\omega_x+\partial_x\omega_y) -\omega_x\omega_z(\partial_z\omega_x+\partial_x\omega_z)-\omega_y\omega_z(\partial_y\omega_z+\partial_z\omega_y)) \}\\
&= \frac{i}{2\Sigma^{3/2}(\Sigma^2 - \omega^2)}\{ -\Sigma^2 (\omega_i\partial_i\Sigma) - \omega^2(\omega_i\partial_i\Sigma)\nonumber\\
&\qquad- 2\Sigma(\omega_x^2(\partial_z\omega_z+\partial_y\omega_y) +\omega_y^2(\partial_x\omega_x+\partial_z\omega_z)+\omega_z^2(\partial_x\omega_x+\partial_y\omega_y)\nonumber\\
&\qquad- \omega_x\omega_y(\partial_y\omega_x+\partial_x\omega_y) -\omega_x\omega_z(\partial_z\omega_x+\partial_x\omega_z)-\omega_y\omega_z(\partial_y\omega_z+\partial_z\omega_y)) \}\end{aligned}$$ using $\partial_i\omega_i = 0$. And $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{h} = r^2\sin\theta\Sigma^{3/2}\end{aligned}$$
On the “mantle” surfaces we have: $$\begin{aligned}
K = \frac{4\Sigma + r\partial_r\Sigma}{2r\Sigma^{3/2}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{h} = r^2\sin\theta\sqrt{\Sigma}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $R\to\infty$, on the “outer mantle” surface we have: $$\begin{aligned}
K \to \frac{1}{\Sigma(\Gamma_\infty)}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{h} \to r\sin\theta\sqrt{\Sigma(\Gamma_\infty)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_3$. In the limit $R_a\to 0$, on the “inner mantle” surface we have: $$\begin{aligned}
K \to -\frac{1}{\Sigma(\Gamma_a)}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{h} \to r\sin\theta\sqrt{\Sigma(\Gamma_a)}\end{aligned}$$ The difference in sign arises from the normals on the inner and outer mantle surfaces pointing in different directions.
We take the limits $R \to \infty$, $R_a \to 0$ before taking $T\to \infty$. We can then take $C[h_{ij}]$ to be such that it cancels the contribution from the outer mantle surface, and the top and bottom surfaces. This is possible because for both the outer mantle surface, and the top and bottom surfaces, $\sqrt{h}K$ only depends on the induced metric $h_{ij}$ at the boundary. Thus the Gibbons-Hawking term will be zero in the case of a scaling solution with just one throat, where $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1$ and all other $\Gamma_a = 0$. The contributions from the inner mantle surfaces is zero since $R_a\to 0$.
Finally, the contribution from the “edges” can be calculated using the results in [@Hayward]: the contribution from the $a$th pair of edges is $\pi A_a$, where $A_a$ is the area of the edge $R_a \to 0$, which is $4\pi \Sigma(\Gamma_a)$. The contribution to the Gibbons-Hawking term from an edge formed by two boundaries with spacelike normals $n_0, n_1$ (which is the case here, in Euclidean spacetime) is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{edge} -i\eta \sigma^{1/2}d^2x = -i\eta A_a\end{aligned}$$ where the factor of $-i$ comes from Wick-rotation, and we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\eta\equiv \mathrm{arccosh}(-n_0\cdot n_1)\end{aligned}$$ In this case we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{arccosh}(-n_0\cdot n_1) &\sim \mathrm{arccosh}\left(\frac{1}{\Sigma}i\omega_r\right) \to \frac{i\pi}{2}\end{aligned}$$ as $\omega_r/\Sigma \to 0$ at the edges (this is the case even when we do not take the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$.) This is obvious for the “inner” edges $r_a=R_a$, as $\omega_r/\Sigma \sim R_a^2 \to 0$ as $r_a \to 0$. At the “outer” edges $r=R$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\Sigma}i\omega_r &\sim iR^2\frac{1}{R^3} \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $R \to \infty$.
Since $n_0\cdot n_1 \to 0$ at all the edges, the directions of the normals (i.e. whether they are inward or outward-pointing) does not matter, since we can take the branch of arccosh such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{arccosh} 0 = \frac{i\pi}{2}\end{aligned}$$ whether 0 is approached from above or below. Thus each edge will give a contribution of the same sign.
As with the contribution from the mantle surfaces, we want to normalize the Euclidean action so that it is zero when evaluated on a single-centered scaling solution of total charge $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1$. Without normalizing, the edge terms for such a solution add up to: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{8\pi}(\pi A_1 + \pi A_\infty) = \frac{1}{4} A_\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where the first term comes from the pair of edges $r_1=R_1\to 0$, $t=\pm T$, and the second term comes from the pair of edges $r=R\to\infty$, $t=\pm T$. So we must subtract $\frac{1}{4} A_\infty$ to obtain the correct normalization. This means that the total contribution to the Euclidean action from the edge terms is: $$\begin{aligned}
-\left(\frac{1}{8\pi}\sum_{a=1}^N \pi A_a + \pi A_\infty - \frac{1}{4}A_\infty \right)&= -\frac{1}{8}\sum_{a=1}^N A_a +\frac{1}{8} A_\infty\\
&= \frac{\pi}{2} \left ( \Sigma(\Gamma_\infty) -\sum_{a=1}^N \Sigma(\Gamma_a)\right)\end{aligned}$$ This is proportional to the difference in entropy between the initial and final configurations.
The remaining boundary terms
----------------------------
All of the remaining boundary terms may be evaluated solely at the *spatial* boundary, i.e. the “mantle” surfaces, as they involve the spatial exterior derivative $\spd$. So we use: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} {\textbf{d}A} = \int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} A\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial\mathbb{R}^3$ are the surfaces $-T < t < T$, $r=R$ and $-T < t < T$, $r_a = R_a$.
First consider the term: $$\begin{aligned}
{\textbf{d}[}2\tilde{\omega}\wedge (\mathcal{Q} + {\textbf{d}\alpha})]\end{aligned}$$ This boundary term does not contribute to the final Euclidean action (once again, this is the case even when we do not take the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$.) This is easy to see for the boundaries at the black holes, $r_a=R_a$, since $\tilde{\omega}=e^{2U}\omega$ and $e^{2U}\sim r_a^2$ at the $a$th black hole which goes to zero as $r_a \to 0$. At the outer boundary, $r=R$, using (\[eq-UsefulId1\]) to substitute for $(\mathcal{Q} + {\textbf{d}\alpha})$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
[2\tilde{\omega}\wedge (\mathcal{Q} + {\textbf{d}\alpha})]_{\theta\phi} &\sim e^{2U}\omega_{\theta} \left (e^{2U}\langle {\textbf{d}H}, H\rangle \right )_{\phi} \quad\mathrm{or}\quad e^{2U}\omega_{\phi} \left (e^{2U}\langle {\textbf{d}H}, H\rangle \right )_{\theta}\\
&\sim R^2 \frac{1}{R^2} R^2\frac{1}{R^3} \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $R\to \infty$.
Next consider the term: $$\begin{aligned}
&2 \nabla U\end{aligned}$$ The contribution of this boundary term is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} 2 \nabla U &= \int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 2 {\textbf{d}U} \cdot d\vec{a}\end{aligned}$$ As $e^{-2U} = \Sigma$, we can evaluate this term using: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_r U = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial_r \Sigma}{\Sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ On the outer mantle surface, the boundary term is: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 2 {\textbf{d}U} \cdot {\textbf{d}a} &= -\int_{r=R}r^2\sin\theta d\theta d\phi\frac{\partial_r \Sigma}{\Sigma} \to 8\pi R \Sigma(\Gamma_\infty)\end{aligned}$$ On the inner mantle surface, the boundary term is: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 2 {\textbf{d}U} \cdot {\textbf{d}a} &= \int_{r_a=R_a}r^2\sin\theta d\theta d\phi\frac{\partial_r \Sigma}{\Sigma} \to -8\pi R_a \Sigma(\Gamma_a)\end{aligned}$$ with the sign difference being due to the normal being either inward or outward-pointing.
Finally, in order to evaluate the boundary term: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\textbf{d}[}4 \mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle],\end{aligned}$$ we use (\[eq-UsefulId4\]) to write: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} &= 2{\star_0}{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Im} (e^{-U}e^{-i\alpha}\Omega) - 2{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega)\\
&= -{\star_0}{\textbf{d}H} - 2{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega)\end{aligned}$$ So we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle &= \langle \mathcal{F}, \mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle\\
&= \langle -{\star_0}{\textbf{d}H} - 2{\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega), \mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle\\
&= \langle-{\star_0}{\textbf{d}H},\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega) \rangle - 2\langle {\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega),\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle\\
&= -{\star_0}\langle {\textbf{d}H}, \mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega) \rangle - 2\langle {\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega),\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle\\
&= -{\star_0}\mathrm{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\zeta) - 2\langle {\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega),\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta$ is defined in (\[eq-zeta\]). Using (\[eq-UsefulId2\]) to substitute for the first term, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-EMBound}
\mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle &= -{\star_0}{\textbf{d}U} - 2\langle {\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega),\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ We can then evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} {\textbf{d}[}4 \mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle] = \int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 4 \mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle\end{aligned}$$ The second term in (\[eq-EMBound\]) will go to zero at both mantle surfaces (once again, this is the case even when we do not take the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$.) This is clearly the case at the inner mantle surface $r_a = R_a$ as $e^{2U} \to r^2_a \to 0$ and $\omega$ remains finite. At the outer mantle surface $r = R$, using (\[eq-UsefulId2\]) and (\[eq-UsefulId3\]) to evaluate ${\textbf{d}U}$ and ${\textbf{d}\omega}$, we see that as $R\to\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\textbf{d}U} &\to \frac{1}{R}\\
{\textbf{d}\omega} &\to \frac{1}{R^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the order of the 2nd term will be at most: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\textbf{d}\mathrm}{Re}(e^Ue^{-i\alpha}\Omega\omega),\mathrm{Re} (e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)\rangle &\sim \frac{1}{R} \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $R\to \infty$. So we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 4 \mathrm{Re} \langle \mathcal{F}, e^U e^{-i\alpha}\Omega\rangle = -\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 4{\star_0}{\textbf{d}U}\end{aligned}$$ On the outer mantle surface, this is: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} -4{\star_0}{\textbf{d}U} &= 4\int_{r=R}r^2\sin\theta d\theta d\phi\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial_r \Sigma}{\Sigma} \to -8\pi R \Sigma(\Gamma_\infty)\end{aligned}$$ On the inner mantle surface, this is: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\partial\mathbb{R}^3} 4{\star_0}{\textbf{d}U} &= -4\int_{r_a=R_a}r^2\sin\theta d\theta d\phi\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial_r \Sigma}{\Sigma} \to 8\pi R_a \Sigma(\Gamma_a)\end{aligned}$$ with the sign difference being due to the normal being either inward or outward-pointing. These terms cancel exactly with the boundary contribution from the $2\nabla U$ term, and thus these two terms do not contribute to the Euclidean action.
The final value of the Euclidean action
---------------------------------------
If the $C[h_{ij}]$ term in the Gibbons-Hawking term is chosen carefully, the only non-zero contribution to the Euclidean action comes from the “edges”, and is equal to the difference in entropy between the initial and final configurations. Note that the probe limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}} \to 0$ was never required at any point in order to evaluate the Euclidean action. It was merely required in order to ensure that the Euclidean metric was real in the asymptotic regions.
Conclusion {#sec-Conc}
==========
We have found an instanton solution of $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUGRA that can be interpreted as a tunneling process from a single-centered black hole scaling throat of charge $\Gamma_\infty$ to three disconnected throats of charges $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\Gamma_2$ such that $\Gamma_\infty = \Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_N$, in the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}} \to 0$. The amplitude for the tunneling process is given by the difference in entropy between the initial and final configurations.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was funded in part by a Research Assistantship from Harvard’s Center for the Fundamental Laws of Nature.
\[sec-App\]
The behavior of the metric components $\omega_i$ in the asymptotic regions {#sec-App1}
==========================================================================
Here we give the explicit form of the 1-form $\omega$ in the asymptotic regions $r\to\infty$ and $r_a\to 0$. We first consider $r\to\infty$. As mentioned in Section \[sec-Approx\], we have $\omega = \mathcal{O}(r^{-2})$ for any three-centered scaling solution. In the particular limit we are taking, with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ we can evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
\omega = \omega_{12} + \omega_{13} + \omega_{23}\end{aligned}$$ using the formula (\[eq-OmegaAB\]) for $\omega_{ab}$. If we set up Cartesian coordinates so that $\textbf{x}_3$ is at the origin, $\textbf{x}_1$ lies on the $z$-axis, and $\textbf{x}_2$ in the $y-z$ plane, then in the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$, we can explicitly solve for the $\omega_{ab}$ to find: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{12} &= \frac{-2\Gamma_{12}}{r_1r_2(2l_{12} + r_1 + r_2)}\left ((z - 2l_{13}\cos\beta)dx - xdz \right )\\
\omega_{13} &= \frac{2\Gamma_{31}}{r_1r_3(2l_{13} + r_1 + r_3)}\left ((y\cos\beta + z\sin\beta)dx - x(\cos\beta dy + \sin\beta dz) \right )\\
\omega_{23} &= \frac{-2\Gamma_{23}}{r_2r_3(2l_{23} + r_2 + r_3)}\left ((y\cos\beta - z\sin\beta)dx - x(\cos\beta dy - \sin\beta dz) \right )\end{aligned}$$ where $r_a$ is the coordinate distance to $\Gamma_a$, given by $|\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_a|$, the length $2l_{ab} = |\textbf{x}_a - \textbf{x}_b|$, and the angle $\beta$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\sin\beta \sim \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{2\Gamma_{31}}\end{aligned}$$ Explicit evaluation shows that for $r \ggg \Gamma_{31}\rho$, where $\rho$ is a finite positive parameter that gives the characteristic length scale of the scaling solution as defined in (\[eq-TriSides\]), we have $\omega \sim \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}} \to 0$.
We now consider the asymptotic regions $r_a \to 0$. From the form of $\omega_{ab}$ for two centers $\Gamma_a, \Gamma_b$, and the additivity of $\omega$, we see that at the black hole center $\textbf{x}_3$, the only non-zero contribution to $\omega$ is from $\omega_{12}$. Similarly, at the center $\textbf{x}_1$, the only non-zero contribution to $\omega$ is from $\omega_{23}$, and at $\textbf{x}_2$, the only non-zero contribution to $\omega$ is from $\omega_{13}$.
At $\Gamma_3$, since we are considering the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$, and the distances between the black holes are proportional to the $\Gamma_{ab}$ as given by (\[eq-TriSides\]), we can use the long-distance approximation for $\omega_{12}$ to write $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{12} \sim \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}\rho}\sin^2\theta d\phi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta,\phi$ are defined with respect to the axis connecting the black hole centers $\textbf{x}_1$ and $\textbf{x}_2$. Thus $\omega \to 0$ as $r_3 \to 0$.
At $\Gamma_2$, we can explicitly evaluate $\omega_{13}$ using (\[eq-OmegaAB\]) to find: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{13} = \frac{\Gamma_{13}}{\Gamma_{31}\rho}\left (\frac{l^2 - r^2}{(l^4 + r^4 - 2l^2r^2\cos2\theta)^{1/2}} + 1 - \cos\theta_3 + \cos\theta_1 \right ) d\phi\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $\frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{31}}, \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{\Gamma_{23}} \to 0$, we find that: $$\begin{aligned}
l^2 - r^2 &\sim \rho^2\Gamma_{12}^2\\
(l^4+r^4 - 2l^2r^2\cos2\theta)^{1/2} &\sim \rho^2\Gamma_{31}\Gamma_{12}\\
1-\cos2\theta &\sim \frac{\rho^2\Gamma_{12}^2}{\Gamma_{31}^2}\\
\cos\theta_1 &\sim \frac{\rho^2\Gamma_{12}^2}{\Gamma_{31}^2}\\
1-\cos\theta_3 &\sim \frac{\rho^2\Gamma_{12}^2}{\Gamma_{31}^2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we find that $\omega_{13}\to 0$ in the limit we are considering. By similar considerations, we find that $\omega_{23} \to 0$ at $\Gamma_1$ in the limit we are considering. So in the asymptotic region $r_a \to 0$, we find that $\omega_j = 0$.
[6]{} D. Brill, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992), 1560, arXiv:hep-th/9202037. J. Maldacena, J. Michelson, and A. Strominger, arXiv:hep-th/9812073. G. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993), 3275. S. Hawking and W. Israel, *General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey*, Cambridge University Press. F. Denef, arXiv:hep-th/0005049. B. Bates and F. Denef, arXiv:hep-th/0304094. T. Levi-Civita, R. C. Acad. Lincei (5) **26**, 519 (1917), B. Bertotti, Phys. Rev. **116**, 1331 (1959), I. Robinson, Bull. Akad. Polon. **7**, 351 (1959).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Moshe Rozali,'
- Benson Way
bibliography:
- 'bibl.bib'
title: Gravitating Scalars and Critical Collapse in the Large $D$ Limit
---
Introduction
============
The large dimension limit of General Relativity [@Emparan:2013moa] offers substantial simplification in various circumstances. Difficult numerical calculations at finite $D$ can be reproduced at large $D$ with significantly fewer computational resources, or even sometimes analytically. Examples include the instability of rotating black holes [@Emparan:2014jca; @Andrade:2018nsz], the Gregory-Laflamme instability [@Emparan:2015gva; @Rozali:2016yhw; @Dandekar:2016jrp; @Emparan:2018bmi], holographic turbulence [@Rozali:2017bll], and more.
Currently, the large $D$ limit of general relativity has mostly been developed for black holes. It was observed that the physics of black holes and black branes simplifies in an appropriate scaling limit in which the number of transverse directions is taken to be large [@Emparan:2014cia; @Emparan:2014aba; @Emparan:2015rva]. In such a limit, many interesting physical questions localize to the horizon of the black hole, where they can be investigated using an effective field theory on the black hole “membrane" (see [@Emparan:2015hwa; @Emparan:2016sjk] and [@Bhattacharyya:2015dva; @Bhattacharyya:2015fdk; @Dandekar:2016fvw; @Bhattacharyya:2016nhn; @Dandekar:2017aiv]). Effectively, the large $D$ expansion acts as a gradient expansion, in which variations in directions perpendicular to the horizon are consistently sub-leading in the expansion. It is thus quite similar to the fluid/gravity correspondence.
It is interesting then to attempt to utilize a large dimension expansion (perhaps with different scaling limits) to provide similar simplification to gravitational phenomena that are not localized to a pre-existing black hole horizon. Examples of possible such contexts include super-radiant instabilities, holographic superconductivity [@Emparan:2013oza], driven turbulence, black hole mergers, and many mother interesting contexts that could perhaps benefit from the underlying insight of [@Emparan:2013moa].
In this paper, we develop the large $D$ limit of general relativity in situations where horizons may or may not exist. Such situations include strongly gravitating objects like oscillaton stars and boson stars, as well as phenomena like critical collapse and the instability of anti-de Sitter space (AdS). We will focus on the simplest and most well-studied models exhibiting these phenomena, which consists of a gravitating scalar field with spherical symmetry, either in asymptotically flat space or asymptotically AdS spaces.
Let us briefly review what is known for these models at finite $D$, beginning with critical collapse [@Choptuik:1992jv]. Consider a real, massless scalar field with spherical symmetry that interacts gravitationally in asymptotically flat space. Dynamically, the scalar field tends to either disperse or collapse into a black hole. One can fine-tune the initial data so as to be near the critical point of gravitational collapse. Near criticality, evolution approaches that of a universal critical solution before eventually dispersing or collapsing. This critical solution exhibits discrete self similarity. That is, there is a coordinate $\tau$ such that the metric satisfies $g=e^{-2\tau}\tilde g$, where $\tilde g$ is a metric that is periodic in $\tau$ with period $\Delta$. For collapsing data near criticality, the mass of the black hole that is created scales as $$M\propto (p-p^*)^\gamma\;,$$ where $p$ parametrises the initial data with $p^*$ being the critical value, and $\gamma$ is a constant. Both the echoing period $\Delta$ and the critical exponent $\gamma$ are universal in the sense that they are the same for all one-parameter families of data that pass through criticality. These constants can be obtained numerically, either by either time evolution [@Choptuik:1992jv] (done up to $D=14$ [@Garfinkle:1999zy; @Sorkin:2005vz; @Bland:2005vu]) or by directly constructing the critical solution and perturbing it (done in $D=4$ [@Gundlach:1996eg]).
Besides critical phenomena, there are also quasi-stationary solutions in asymptotically flat space. For a massive real scalar, there are oscillating soliton stars, sometimes called oscillatons or oscillons [@Seidel:1991zh], where the scalar field and metric oscillate periodically. For a complex scalar field, there are similar configurations called boson stars [@Lee:1991ax; @Schunck:2003kk; @Liebling:2012fv], where only the phase of the scalar field oscillates. These are one-parameter families of solutions which can be parametrised by the value of the scalar field at the origin $\varphi_0$. There is a critical value of $\varphi_0>\varphi_0^*$ where oscillatons or boson stars become unstable. $\varphi_0$ does not seem to have a bound, and it appears that the limit $\varphi\to\infty$ is singular, where the scalar and metric curvature diverge.
Unlike Minkowski space, (global) AdS contains a reflecting boundary that allows for an arbitrarily small excitations to form black holes [@DafermosHolzegel2006; @Dafermos2006; @Bizon:2011gg]. This is the celebrated AdS instability. However, there is also a large class of initial data that do not appear to form black holes [@Dias:2012tq; @Maliborski:2013jca; @Buchel:2013uba; @Balasubramanian:2014cja; @Bizon:2014bya; @Balasubramanian:2015uua; @Dimitrakopoulos:2015pwa; @Green:2015dsa]. The separation between these two types of initial data remains poorly understood, although there is growing evidence [@Dimitrakopoulos:2015pwa; @Choptuik:2018ptp] that the non-collapsing data is intimately connected to oscillatory solutions, which are the non-linear extensions of the normal modes of AdS, such as oscillons [@Maliborski:2013jca; @Fodor:2015eia], boson stars [@Dias:2011at; @Liebling:2012fv; @Buchel:2013uba; @Choptuik:2017cyd], and geons [@Dias:2011ss; @Horowitz:2014hja; @Martinon:2017uyo].
The outline of the paper is as follows. Using our large $D$ expansion we make connection to this discussion, for both the asymptotically flat and asymptotically AdS case, which we separately discuss in the two following sections. In both cases we construct a family of horizonless strongly gravitating scalar field “stars", which we call oscillatons. These solution exist in asymptotically $AdS$ space for finite $D$, but for the asymptotically flat case their existence is surprising, and may not extend (as absolutely stable objects) to finite values of $D$. For the asymptotically $AdS$ case we can also discuss the extension to certain multi-mode solutions, which we predict to be long lived in the large $D$ limit.
Our family of solution is characterized by an amplitude, and when it reaches a critical value, certain divergences occur which we take as a signal for horizon formation. When the amplitude is close to that threshold, we can estimate the size of the resulting black hole to obtain a Choptuik scaling exponent. It is unclear though how this exponent is related to the finite $D$ Choptuik scaling exponent, defined in the conventional way. However, the numerical value we find sees to be the expected critical exponent at large $D$, as we discuss below.
After discussing the asymptotically flat case in section 2, and the asymptotically $AdS$ case in section 3, we conclude with a summary and possible directions for future research.
Large $D$ Scalars in Flat space
===============================
We now develop the large $D$ limit of a scalar field in the asymptotically flat case, which is technically simpler than the asymptotically $AdS$ case, to be discussed in the next section.
Probe Scalar in Minkowski Spacetime
-----------------------------------
To gain intuition on the nature of the large $D$ limit we are taking, we start by considering a probe real scalar field in flat spacetime, under spherical symmetry: $$\label{eq:flatprobe}
\partial_t^2\varphi=\partial_r^2\varphi+\frac{D-2}{r}\partial_r\varphi-m^2\varphi\;.$$
We know the set of solutions to this equation for all $D$, but let us attempt to find an approximate solution via a large $D$ expansion. The equation suggests that in order to have nontrivial equations in the large $D$ limit we need to perform a rescaling of time to $\tau=\sqrt{D-2} t$. Intuitively, the large $D$ limit causes spheres of slightly different radii to be very different from each other, resulting in high frequency oscillations, and so must be compensated by rescaling of time.
Performing this rescaling and a large $D$ expansion gives at lowest order $$\label{eq:largedflatprobe}
\partial_\tau^2\varphi_0=\frac{1}{r}\partial_r\varphi_0\;.$$ Note that the resulting equation is parabolic, with the roles of space and time swapped. This will be the case for all equations we obtain in the large $D$ limit, below. Note also that the mass $m$ does not appear in these equations, since we have opted not to scale it with $D$. The large $D$ scalar equation at lowest order is effectively massless, and we henceforth only consider massless scalar fields.
The solutions to , obtained via separation of variables, can be written as $$\label{eq:largedflatprobesol}
\varphi_0=a_\omega\cos(\omega \tau+\phi_0)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\omega^2r^2}\;.$$ We can then compare the result to the exact solutions of with $m=0$ which are given by (a sum of) the Bessel functions $$\varphi=a_\omega\cos(\omega \tau+\phi_0)r^{-\frac{D-3}{2}}J_{\frac{D-3}{2}}(\sqrt {D-2}\omega r)\;.$$ Scale invariance and time translation invariance lets us, without loss of generality, consider $\omega=1$, and $\phi_0=0$. We normalise the functions so that $\varphi(0,r=0)=1$ at the origin. The difference $\varphi_0-\varphi$ at $\tau=0$ is then shown in Fig. \[fig:bessel\].
![Comparison of the exact solution $\varphi$ to the large $D$ solution $\varphi_0$ for $D=4,6, 8, 10$. We see that the approximation improves with increasing $D$. []{data-label="fig:bessel"}](bessel.pdf){width=".7\textwidth"}
It is reassuring that the approximation improves with increasing $D$.
Large D scalars in Asymptotically Flat Space
--------------------------------------------
Now let us apply the same approximation to a scalar field with backreaction. We choose a Schwarzschild gauge where the metric can be written $$\mathrm ds^2=-(1-\delta)A\,\mathrm dt^2+\frac{\mathrm dr^2}{A}+r^2 \mathrm d\Omega_{D-2}\;.$$ Where all functions depend on the radial coordinate $r$ and time $t$. The full equations of motion can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t A&=-\frac{2r}{D-2}A\partial_t\varphi\partial_r\varphi\;,\\
\partial_r A&=\frac{D-3}{r}(1-A)-\frac{r}{D-2}\left[\left(\frac{\partial_t\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\right)^2+(\partial_r\varphi)^2\right]A\;,\\
\partial_r\delta&=-\frac{2r}{D-2}\left[\left(\frac{\partial_t\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\right)^2+(\partial_r\varphi)^2\right](1-\delta)\;,\\
0&=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\partial_t\left(\frac{\partial_t\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\right)+\frac{1}{r}\partial_r(r\partial_r\varphi)+\frac{D-3}{r A}\partial_r\varphi\;.\end{aligned}$$
Now we move to the time coordinate $\tau=\sqrt D t$ and perform an expansion in $1/D$: $$\label{flatexpansion}
A=1-\frac{1}{D}A_0+O(D^{-2})\;,\qquad \delta=\delta_0+O(D^{-1})\;,\qquad \varphi=\varphi_0+O(D^{-1})\;.$$ where the lowest order term in $A$ is fixed by the equations of motion. Note that in this expansion, $A_0 \ll D$ implies that within our approximation $A\neq0$. Therefore, strictly speaking, horizon formation does not occur at infinite $D$. However, as we shall see, there are solutions where $A_0$ diverges. We conjecture that the divergence in those solutions is a signal of horizon formation at large but finite $D$.
An expansion of the equations of motion then gives, to leading order
\[eq:largedflat\] $$\begin{aligned}
A_0&=r^2\frac{(\partial_t\varphi_0)^2}{1-\delta_0}\;,\\
\partial_r \delta_0&=-2r(\partial_\tau\varphi_0)^2\;,\\
\partial_r\varphi_0&=\frac{r}{\sqrt{1-\delta_0}}\partial_\tau\left(\frac{\partial_\tau\varphi_0}{\sqrt{1-\delta_0}}\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the metric function $A_0$ has decoupled, reducing the equations to a nonlinear system in $\delta_0$ and $\varphi_0$.
Like the probe scalar equation at large $D$ , the scalar field equation resembles a heat equation with spatial and temporal coordinates swapped. This raises the question of how such an equation should be solved. Analogy with the heat equation suggests that ‘initial data’ $\varphi_0(\tau,r=0)$ should be given, and then integrated to larger values of $r$. Without loss of generality, one can choose the condition for the metric $\delta_0(\tau,r=0)=0$. After obtaining a solution, one can use invariance of the equations under $\delta_0\rightarrow\delta_0+c(\tau)$ to shift $\delta_0$ to have the more standard condition $\delta_0(\tau,r\to\infty)=0$. The nature of the heat equation and the linear probe solution suggest that $\varphi_0$ will decay exponentially at large $r$.
If the scalar field and its derivatives remains finite under this construction, so too will the metric functions. This will generate a ‘non-collapsing’ solution to the field equations at leading order in $1/D$. Otherwise, if the scalar field or its derivatives diverge, then $A_0$ will also diverge, leading to a breakdown of the large $D$ equations, possibly indicating horizon formation at finite $D$.
One can continue the expansion by including higher order terms in , and expanding the equations of motion further. One will then obtain linear equations in the higher-order variables that are sourced nonlinearly by the lower order solutions.
Oscillatons and Choptuik Scaling
--------------------------------
Fortunately, and surprisingly, there is an exact analytic solution to the equations , given by $$\varphi_0=\tanh^{-1}(\epsilon \, e^{-\omega^2r^2/2}\sin(\omega\tau-\tau_0))\;,\qquad \delta_0=\frac{\epsilon^2 \, e^{-\omega^2r^2}\cos^2(\omega\tau-\tau_0)}{1-\epsilon^2 \, e^{-\omega^2r^2}\sin^2(\omega\tau-\tau_0)}\;,$$ for some amplitude $\epsilon$, phase $\tau_0$, and frequency $\omega$. Using that solution we also have $$A_0=\frac{\epsilon^2 \,\omega^2 r^2e^{-\omega^2r^2}\cos^2(\omega\tau-\tau_0)}{(1-\epsilon^2 \, e^{-\omega^2r^2})(1-\epsilon^2 \, e^{-\omega^2r^2}\sin^2(\omega\tau-\tau_0))}\;.$$ One can use scale invariance to fix $\omega$, and translation invariance to fix $\tau_0$, leaving a one-parameter family of solutions parametrised by the amplitude $\epsilon$.
This family of solutions has a sharp threshold at $\epsilon = 1$. For $\epsilon<1$ the solution is regular and the scalar field oscillates indefinitely. Since this oscillation is a single frequency, this solution describes the large $D$ version of an oscillaton. However, we note that at finite $D$, oscillatons in asymptotically flat space only exist for massive scalar fields. This large $D$ solution might have an alternative interpretation for finite $D$ massless fields as states that are especially long-lived.
For $\epsilon\geq1$, the scalar field diverges. For any $\epsilon>1$, $A_0$ also diverges. As discussed above, we conjecture that this divergence is a signal of horizon formation at finite $D$. Let us use this divergence to estimate a critical exponent. In the usual treatment of Choptuik scaling, we fine tune to the threshold for black hole formation, and look for the mass of the resulting small black hole. Note however that the exponential falloff of $A_0$ implies that the our large $D$ solutions have zero energy, we therefore cannot use a mass as a measure for the critical exponent. Instead, to get a measure for the size of the black hole above the threshold for collapse, we look the radius where $A_0$ diverges, i.e. the location of the putative horizon. The divergence occurs when $\epsilon^2 \, e^{-r^2}=1$. An expansion about $\epsilon=1$ yields $$r_\mathrm{div}=\sqrt{2(\epsilon-1)}+O((\epsilon-1)^{3/2})\;,$$ implying a critical exponent $\gamma=1/2$.
While this simple result is suggestive, it remains unclear whether $\gamma=1/2$ corresponds to the universal critical exponent expected at finite $D$. Intriguingly, studies of critical collapse in higher dimensions suggest that $\gamma\to1/2$ in the large $D$ limit. We show in Fig. \[fig:bland\] a plot from [@blandthesis] which demonstrates the trend towards $\gamma=1/2$.
![Plot from [@blandthesis], taking data from [@Garfinkle:1999zy; @Sorkin:2005vz; @Bland:2005vu; @Gundlach:1996eg] showing the critical exponent $\gamma$ as a function of $D$ (appears as $d$ in figure). The fit (labeled Fit 13) is to a function of the form $\gamma=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{m_3}{(D-m_2)^{m_1}}$. []{data-label="fig:bland"}](blandplot.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
Some similarities can be found between our infinite $D$ solutions and the Roberts family of solutions [@Roberts:1989sk; @Frolov:1998zt]. These are continuously self-similar solutions to the finite $D$ equations, including near the critical collapse threshold, which are known in closed form for $D=4$. The Roberts family resemble our oscillaton solutions in that they also contains solutions with or without horizons, connected continuously in parameter space. Our solutions, however, do not exhibit self symmetry of any sort.
It was revealed in [@Frolov:1997uu; @Frolov:1998tq] that the critical Roberts solution cannot correspond to the universal critical spacetime approached by fine tuning initial data. The reason is that perturbations of the Roberts solution contain more than one growing mode. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the particular value of $\gamma=1/2$ given by the large $D$ oscillatons corresponds to the universal critical exponent expected at finite $D$. We do not attempt a perturbative analysis here, and leave that study for future work.
Large D scalars in $AdS$ {#intro}
========================
We now develop the large $D$ limit of a scalar field in the asymptotically AdS case.
Probe Scalar in $AdS$ Space
---------------------------
Consider a probe massless scalar field in $AdS$ with the line element $$\mathrm ds^2=\frac{L^2}{\cos^2 x}\left[-\mathrm dt^2+\mathrm dx^2+\sin^2 x\,\mathrm d\Omega_{D-2}\right]\;.$$ With spherical symmetry, the solution to the scalar wave equation is $$\label{linearsol}
\phi(x,t)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n\cos(\omega_n t+\phi_0)\cos^{D-1}(x) \, P_n^{(\frac{D-3}{2},\frac{D-1}{2})}(\cos 2x)\;,$$ where $\omega_n=D-1+2n$, and $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are Jacobi polynomials.
We point out two important consequences of the large $D$ limit for those normal modes. First, the oscillations $\omega_n=D-1+2n$ become very rapid, which amounts to saying that low-lying modes oscillate very similarly to each other in time – this is similar to the flat space case discussed previously. Second, the factor of $\cos^{D-1}x\equiv e^{-\rho}$, which exhibits the universal fall-off of any massless field in AdS, effectively divides AdS into two regions: $\rho\gg D$, where this factor decreases exponentially with increasing $D$, and $\rho\ll D$ where this factor decreases more slowly. For any $D$, the radius of the sphere $S^{D-2}$ dividing these regions remains $O(1)$. This suggests it is useful to think about the equations separately in both regions, which is our strategy below.
Including Backreaction
----------------------
Let us now include backreaction with the metric ansatz $$\mathrm ds^2=\frac{L^2}{\cos^2 x}\left[-(1-\delta)A\,\mathrm dt^2+\frac{\mathrm dx^2}{A}+\sin^2 x\,\mathrm d\Omega_{D-2}\right]\;.$$ We will take the usual boundary condition $A=1$, $\delta=0$ at the conformal boundary $x=\pi/2$. The equations of motion are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_tA&=-\frac{2}{D-2}\sin x\cos^D x\,A\,\partial_t\varphi\partial_x(\cos^{d-1}x\varphi),\\
\sin x\cos x\,\partial_xA&=(D-3+2\sin^2x)(1-A)-\sin^2x\cos^{2(D-1)}x S A\\
\partial_x\delta&=-2\sin x\cos^{2D-3}S(1-\delta)\\
0&=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\partial_t\left(\frac{\partial_t\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\right)+\frac{\partial_x(\sin x\cos x\,\partial_x(\cos^{D-1}x\varphi))}{\sin x\cos^D x}+\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad+\frac{D-3+2\sin^2 x}{\sin x\cos^d xA}\partial_x(\cos^{D-1}x\varphi)\;,\end{aligned}$$
where $$S=\frac{1}{(D-1)(D-2)}\left[\left(\frac{\cos x\,\partial_t\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta}A}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\partial_x(\cos^{D-1}x\,\varphi)}{\cos^{D-2}x}\right)^2\right]\;.$$
Let us assume that the separation of regions discussed for the probe scalar is preserved in the large $D$ limit, even when the backreaction is included. That is, we take $\phi=\cos^{(D-1)}x\,\varphi$, where $\varphi$ does not scale with $D$. We also change the radial coordinate $\cos^{D-1}x\equiv e^{-\rho}$. In the outer region $\rho\gg D$, the rapid fall-off of $e^{-\rho}$ decouples the scalar field from the metric, and the solution is essentially given by . In the inner region $\rho\ll D$, backreaction must be taken into account, and the equations are nonlinear. Boundary conditions for the inner equations should be supplied from matching to the outer solution.
Let us discuss the two regions more precisely. In the outer region, where $\rho\gg D$, the exponential fall-off decouples the metric and reduces the equations to the linear scalar field equation $$\label{lineq}
-\partial_t^2\varphi-\partial_x^2 \varphi-2(1-(D-1)\cos 2x)\csc2x\,\partial_x\varphi-(D-1)^2\varphi=0\;,$$ while the metric remains $A=1$, $\delta=0$.
As we have mentioned, the solution to the linear equation is given by Jacobi polynomials , for every $D$. We can also solve the linear equations order by order in a power series expansion in $D^{-1}$. The equations to lowest two orders are solved by $$\label{outermodes}
\varphi=\sum_n a_n \cos{[(D-1+2n)t+\phi_n]}\cos^{n} 2x+O(D^{-1})\;,$$
We now turn to the inner region, where it is convenient to use the $\rho$ coordinate, where $\cos^{D-1}x\equiv e^{-\rho}$ and $\rho\ll D$. Let us also transform to a new time coordinate given by $\tau=(D-1)t.$ Let us also expand the functions in a power series in $D^{-1}$ $$A=1-\frac{1}{D}A_0+O(D^{-2})\;,\qquad \delta=\delta_0+O(D^{-1})\;,\qquad \varphi=\varphi_0+O(D^{-1})\;,$$ where the lowest order term in $A$ is determined by the equations of motion.
At leading order in the large $D$ expansion, we obtain the nonlinear equations in the inner region
\[innereq\] $$\begin{aligned}
A_0&=\frac{2\rho e^{-2\rho}(\partial_\tau\varphi_0)}{1-\delta_0}\;,\\
\partial_\rho \delta_0&=-2e^{-2\rho}(\partial_\tau\varphi_0)^2\;,\\
\partial_\rho\varphi_0&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\delta_0}}\partial_\tau\left(\frac{\partial_\tau\varphi}{\sqrt{1-\delta_0}}\right)+\varphi_0\;.\end{aligned}$$
We note that the scalar equation is parabolic in character, but with two derivatives in $\tau$, and one derivative in $\rho$. Thus, it is most naturally solved by declaring some ‘initial data’ at particular value of $\rho$, and then integrating in $\rho$. This is similar to the method of solution discussed above, in the asymptotically flat case.
Matching Solutions
------------------
A full solution must solve both the inner and outer equations and match in an appropriate way. We observe that at large $\rho$, the inner equations reduce to the decoupled equations $$\label{farphi}
\partial_\rho\varphi_0=\partial_\tau^2\varphi_0+\varphi_0\;,$$ and $$\label{fardelta}
\delta_0=0\;,\qquad A_0=0\;,$$ where we have used our boundary condition for $\delta$. The scalar equation describes the scalar field in the asymptotia of the inner region. It is equivalent to the scalar equation linearised about empty $AdS$. The general solution of is given by $$\varphi_0=\int\mathrm d\omega \, \alpha(\omega) \, e^{i\omega\tau-(\omega^2-1)\rho}\;,$$ for some frequency distribution $\alpha(\omega)$ that obeys the reality condition for $\varphi_0$. For the purpose of matching with solutions in the outer region, we choose $\alpha(\omega)$ to be a sum of delta functions, i.e. a discrete sum of modes, then $$\label{farmodesol}
\varphi_0=\sum_n \alpha^{\pm}_ne^{\pm i n\tau-(n^2-1)\rho}\;.$$ Note that the mode $n=0$ diverges and, as we shall see, cannot be matched to a regular solution to the outer equations.
Now let us consider the outer solution, which is given as a sum of modes by . To match to the large $\rho$ limit of a solution of the inner scalar equations, whose general form is , we must translate between different conventions in our treatment of the inner and outer regions. First we change to the $\rho$ and $\tau$ coordinates, which, recall are defined by $\cos^{D-1}x\equiv e^{-\rho}$ and $\tau=(D-1)t$. Furthermore, the outer solution is exact in $D$, thus to match at a given order in the large $D$ expansion we need to expand it in a power series in $D^{-1}$ which is given by . Then after the coordinate transformation, an expansion in $D^{-1}$ gives $$\label{outermatch}
\varphi=\sum_{\pm}e^{\pm i\tau}\left[E^{\pm}_0+O(D^{-1})\right]$$ where for any integer $k$ we define $$\label{Edef}
E^{\pm}_k=\sum_n a^{\pm}_n n^{k}\;.$$ The $E_k$ for $k>0$ appear in the expansion at higher orders in $D^{-1}$.
The scalar field is then a solution to the large $\rho$ limit of the inner equations which matches a general multi-mode solution to the outer equations , to leading order in the large $D$ expansion. Thus, the configuration can be supplied as boundary conditions for the inner equations at large $\rho$.
Importantly, although the outer multi-mode solution is parametrised by the amplitudes $a^{\pm}_n$ for each mode, the inner equations only use the combinations of these amplitudes that appear in the $E^{\pm}_k$. In particular, the leading order inner solution only uses $E_0$, the sum of the amplitudes. Therefore, at any fixed order in the large $D $ expansion there are many outer solutions that have the same inner solution.
Conversely, there are also many inner solutions that can be matched to the same outer solution. Recall that the large $\rho$ solution of the inner equations, written as a sum of modes with ampltiudes $\alpha^\pm_n$ is given by . Matching to the form at leading order only determines $\alpha^\pm_n$ for $n=0$ and $n=1$. The $n=0$ mode must vanish, and the $n=1$ mode must match $E_0^\pm$. All $n>1$ fall off exponentially with $\rho$ and thus can be consistently matched to .
This matching introduces an importance difference between the flat space case and the AdS case. In the flat space case, we can integrate any ‘initial data’ at $r=0$ outwards to large $r$, where the scalar field must decay. In the AdS case, the same sort of calculation for the inner equations would generically lead to a nonzero $n=0$ mode at large $\rho$, and thus cannot be matched to a solution to the outer equations. This matching therefore constrains the configurations of the scalar field at the origin.
Higher Orders
-------------
For completeness, let us also describe the matching at higher orders in the large $D$ expansion. First, let us obtain a higher-order solution to the linear equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{outermodes2}
\varphi=\sum_n& a_n \cos{[(D-1+2n)t+\phi_n]}\bigg\{\cos^{n} 2x-\nonumber\\
&\qquad-\frac{1}{D}\left(n \cos^{n-1}2x+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)\cos^{n-2}2x\right)\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{D^2}\bigg(2n(n-1)\cos^{n-1}2x+n(n-1)^2\cos^{n-2}2x+\frac{1}{2}n(n-1)(n-2)\cos^{n-3}2x+\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{8}n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)\cos^{n-4}2x\bigg)+O(D^{-3})\bigg\}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Now we perform the coordinate transformation to $\rho$ and $\tau$ defined by $\cos^{D-1}x\equiv e^{-\rho}$ and $$\tau=\left(D-1+\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\lambda_k}{D^k}\right)t\;,$$ where the $\lambda$’s are constants of our choosing. If we take the phases to be aligned $\phi_n=0$, then this coordinate transformation and another $D^{-1}$ expansion yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{outerexpand}
\varphi&=E_0\cos\tau+\frac{1}{D}\left[-\left(\frac{1}{2}(E_1+E_2)-4E_1\rho\right)\cos\tau+\tau E_0\left(\lambda_0-2\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)\sin\tau\right]+\nonumber\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{D^2}\bigg\{-\bigg[\frac{1}{8}(6E_1+E_2-6E_3-E_4)+2(2E_1+E_2-E_3)\rho+4(E_1-2E_2)\rho^2+\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{2}\left(4E_2+\lambda_1E_0\left(\lambda_0-4\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)\right)\tau^2\bigg]\cos\tau+\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+\tau\bigg[(1-\lambda_0)E_0\left(\lambda_0-2\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)+E_0\left(\lambda_1+\frac{E_2+E_3}{E_0}-\frac{\lambda_0(E_1+E_2)}{2E_0}\right)-\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-4E_1\left(\lambda_0-2\frac{E_2}{E_1}\right)\rho\bigg]\sin\tau\bigg\}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where the $E$’s have been defined analogously to . The large $\rho$ limit of the inner equations must agree with in order to form a full solution.
We see that at higher orders, there are terms that are polynomial in $\tau$. Some of these terms can be removed by a choice for $\lambda_k$, but not all of them, unless some extra constraints are placed on the $E$’s. This expansion would imply that there is a breakdown of the large $D$ expansion when $\tau\sim O(D)$. But we know that these outer solutions can be formed from the solution or the expansion which do not contain any divergences. So in this case, we know that there exists a resummation of the perturbation series to a well-behaved solution. It is less clear whether or not the inner solutions, which inevitably need to be matched to the series , can similarly be resummed.
We now consider a particular restriction on $E_k$ that removes the polynomial terms in $\tau$ that appear at this order. Let us assuume $E_0\neq0$ and then take $\lambda_0=2E_1/E_0$, and $\lambda_1=[E_0(E_1+E_2)-E_0(E_2+E_3)]/E_0^2$ to remove some of these terms. Then the remaining terms that are polynomial in $\tau$ are all proportional to $$E_0E_2-E_1^2=\frac{1}{2}\sum a_na_m(n-m)^2\;.$$ Note that this is zero for single-mode data, and (generically) nonzero for multi-mode data. We therefore have a connection to the AdS instability, where single-mode dominated data is expected to be stable, and multi-mode data is expected to form black holes.
In finite $D$, if one performs perturbation theory about $AdS$ with a scalar field of amplitude $\epsilon$, there is a secular term that appears which leads to breakdown of perturbation theory at $t\sim1/\epsilon^2$. This secular term appears for any multi-mode data, and is absent for single-mode data. It seems the large $D$ expansion in AdS is exhibiting analogous behaviour.
Oscillatons
-----------
There is an analytic solution to given by $$\varphi_0=e^{\rho}\tanh^{-1}(E_0\,e^{-\rho}\sin(\tau-\tau_0))\;,\qquad \delta_0=\frac{[E_0\,e^{-\rho}\cos(\tau-\tau_0)]^2}{1-[E_0\,e^{-\rho}\sin(\tau-\tau_0)]^2}\;,$$ for constants $E_0$ and $\tau_0$. The constant $E_0$ matches the value of $E_0$ as defined above for the outer solution. The function $A_0$ is given by $$A_0=\frac{2E_0^2\,\rho\,e^{-2\rho}\cos^2(\tau-\tau_0)}{(1-E_0^2\,e^{-2\rho})(1-E_0^2\,e^{-2\rho}\sin^2(\tau-\tau_0))}\;.$$
Matching this inner solution to an outer solution consisting of a single mode, the global solution oscillates with a single period, and therefore represents an oscillaton at large $D$. Like finite $D$ oscillatons, there is an upper bound to their amplitude, which here is signald by the divergence of the inner solution, occurring when $E_0\geq1$. As we discussed in the asymptotically flat context, we conjecture that this divergence is indicative of horizon formation at finite $D$.
Note that this inner solution can just as well be matched with outer solutions consisting of multiple modes, so long as they generate the same $E_0$. This suggests that at finite but large $D$, multi-mode initial data with $E_0<1$ are especially long-lived compared with those with $E_0>1$. This introduces a some tension with results at finite $D$. Numerical evidence at finite $D$ suggests that initial data sufficiently far from a normal mode (i.e. not single-mode dominated) will eventually collapse to form a black hole. Yet, the solutions at large $D$ we have found includes, for example, equal-amplitude two-mode initial data which is apparently long lived at large $D$, but is expected to collapse at finite $D$.
We suspect this conflict arises as a consequence of an order of limits, i.e. the large $D$ limit does not necessarily commute with the long time limit. This can be seen more explicitly by the terms that appear at higher order that are polynomial in $\tau$. Indeed, the fact that single-mode data is free from these terms (after a suitable choice of time coordinate), and that multi-mode data generically has them is consistent with expectations from studies of the AdS instability. Nevertheless, the fact that these terms only show up at higher order suggests that collapsing data at finite $D$ with a fixed $E_0<1$ will take longer and longer to collapse as $D$ is increases.
Boson Stars
-----------
We now wish to compare the infinite-$D$ solutions to those at finite $D$. However, oscillatons require the numerical solution to a nonlinear PDE, which becomes difficult to compute when $D$ is large. Instead, we opt to make a comparison to boson stars, which use a complex instead of a real scalar. The complex scalar field is chosen to be of the form $\varphi=e^{i\omega t}\psi$, where $\psi$ is a real function of the the radial coordinate. The time dependence in the phase cancels out in the metric, allowing the solution to be solved as an ODE. At leading order in the large $D$ limit, the equations of motion become
\[bstarinnereq\] $$\begin{aligned}
A_0&=\frac{4\rho e^{-2\rho}\psi_0}{1-\delta_0}\;,\\
\partial_\rho \delta_0&=-4e^{-2\rho}\psi_0^2\;,\\
\partial_\rho\psi_0&=-\frac{\delta_0}{1-\delta_0}\psi_0\;.\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\omega$ dependence drops out of the equations at leading order since $\omega\sim (D-1)+2k$. Though the above equations are just ODEs, we unfortunately do not have an analytic solution to the above equations. However, they can be straightforwardly solved numerically. The boundary conditions at large $\rho$ given by $\delta_0=0$, $A_0=0$, and $\psi_0=E_0$ for some constant $E_0$ can be obtained by matching to the outer solution. We solve these equations numerically in the coordinate $z=\sqrt{1-e^{-\rho}}$, which has a finite range $z\in[0,1]$.
To compare with boson stars at finite $D$, we must choose a family. Like oscilltons, when scalar field of the boson stars are perturbatively small, the frequency is of the form $\omega=D-1+2k$ for some non-negative integer $k$. Each choice of $k$ produces a different one-parameter family of boson stars. Since we do not assume $k$ scales with $D$ in the large $D$ limit, it suffices to take the $k=0$ family.
Parametrise the boson stars by the value of the scalar field at the origin $\psi(0)$. We choose $\psi(0)=400$ in order to compare highly nonlinear boson stars. We compare three quantities: $A_\partial\equiv A(x=p/2)$ (which is proportional to the energy), $\Delta\omega\equiv \omega-(D-1)$, and $|\langle\varphi\rangle|\equiv\psi(x=\pi/2)$. The first two these, $A_\partial$ and $\Delta\omega$ vanishes at all orders in the large $D$ expansion. The results as a function of $D$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:bosonstars\].
![Comparison of stars at finite $D$ (black dots) to those from the leading order large $D$ limit (red line). All solutions have $\psi(0)=400$. Here, $A_\partial\equiv A(x=p/2)$ is proportional to the energy, $\Delta\omega\equiv \omega-(D-1)$ is the difference in frequency to from that of the perturbative normal mode, and $|\langle\varphi\rangle|\equiv\psi(x=\pi/2)$ is the value of the scalar field at the boundary (related via AdS/CFT to the expectation value of a scalar operator).[]{data-label="fig:bosonstars"}](a.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Comparison of stars at finite $D$ (black dots) to those from the leading order large $D$ limit (red line). All solutions have $\psi(0)=400$. Here, $A_\partial\equiv A(x=p/2)$ is proportional to the energy, $\Delta\omega\equiv \omega-(D-1)$ is the difference in frequency to from that of the perturbative normal mode, and $|\langle\varphi\rangle|\equiv\psi(x=\pi/2)$ is the value of the scalar field at the boundary (related via AdS/CFT to the expectation value of a scalar operator).[]{data-label="fig:bosonstars"}](omega.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Comparison of stars at finite $D$ (black dots) to those from the leading order large $D$ limit (red line). All solutions have $\psi(0)=400$. Here, $A_\partial\equiv A(x=p/2)$ is proportional to the energy, $\Delta\omega\equiv \omega-(D-1)$ is the difference in frequency to from that of the perturbative normal mode, and $|\langle\varphi\rangle|\equiv\psi(x=\pi/2)$ is the value of the scalar field at the boundary (related via AdS/CFT to the expectation value of a scalar operator).[]{data-label="fig:bosonstars"}](phi.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
We see from Fig. \[fig:bosonstars\] that $A_\partial$ and $\Delta\omega$ rapidly approach zero (the large $D$ value) as $D$ increases, while $|\langle\varphi\rangle|$ approaches the large $D$ value more slowly. This is unsurprising due to the fact that $|\langle\varphi\rangle|$ receives corrections at higher orders while the other quantities do not.
Since linear perturbations of boson stars also involve only ODEs, let us attempt a stability analysis. We take $\psi=\psi_0+\epsilon[\cos(\lambda\tau)\delta\psi_r+i\,\sin(\lambda\tau)\delta\psi_i]$, as well as $\delta=\delta_0+\epsilon\,\cos(\lambda\tau)\delta\delta$ and expand the leading order large $D$ equations to linear order in $\epsilon$, taking $\delta\psi_r$, $\delta\psi_i$, and $\delta\delta$ to be functions of $z=\sqrt{1-e^{-\rho}}$. The resulting linear equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
(1-z^2)(1-\delta_0)\partial_z\delta\psi_r&=-2z\left[\frac{(1-z^2)^2\varphi_0}{1-\delta_0}\delta\delta+\delta_0\delta\psi_r+2\lambda\delta\psi_i+\lambda^2\delta\psi_r\right]\\
(1-z^2)(1-\delta_0)\partial_z\delta\psi_i&=-2z\left[\delta_0\delta\psi_i+2\lambda\left(\delta\psi_r+\frac{(1-z^2)^2\varphi_0}{4(1-\delta_0)}\delta\delta\right)+\lambda^2\delta\psi_i\right]\\
(1-z^2)\partial_z\delta\delta&=4z\left[\delta\delta-4\varphi_0(\delta\psi_r+\lambda\delta\psi_i)\right]\;.\end{aligned}$$
It turns out that a series around $z=1$ yields an algebraic equation for $\lambda$ which depends on how quickly $\psi_r$ and $\psi_i$ vanish. For example, choosing $\psi_r$ and $\psi_i$ to vanish linearly around $z=1$ implies $1 - 6 \lambda^2 + \lambda^4=0$, which gives the lowest non-trivial frequency we have found: $\lambda=\sqrt2-1$. These frequencies, and others like it, are independent of the background solution $\phi_0$, $\delta_0$. Numerically solving the linear equations do not reveal any additional frequencies that depend on the background solution. This suggests that the boson stars are linearly stable at large $D$.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
We have developed the large $D$ limit for spherically symmetric scalar fields in both flat space and in AdS, arriving at an effective set of large $D$ equations. These equations are parabolic in character, and may be solved by starting with data at the origin (for all time), and then integrating outwards to large radii. In the AdS case, the solution must additionally be matched to an outer region, which places restrictions on the set of data that can be supplied at the origin. This matching at higher orders also requires terms that are polynomial in time $\tau$ which may possibly cause the breakdown of the perturbation series when $\tau\sim O(D)$, which can be analogously compared to the $t\sim 1/\epsilon^2$ timescale where perturbation theory in AdS (at any finite $D$) breaks down.
In both flat space and AdS, we have found analytic solutions to the leading order equations that represent scalar fields oscillating at a single frequency. These solutions form a one-parameter family, and are regular up until this parameter reaches a critical value, at which the scalar field contains a divergence. While black hole collapse does not occur in the large $D$ limit, interpreting this divergences as finite $D$ horizon formation leads to a critical exponent of $\gamma=1/2$. While we have not demonstrated whether or not this exponent is related to the universal exponent for critical collapse at finite $D$, the value of $\gamma=1/2$ appears consistent with extrapolations of finite $D$ results. If, indeed there is a connection between the solutions we have found and critical collapse, that would imply that there is a connection at finite $D$ between the singular limit of oscillatory solutions and the critical solution of gravitational collapse.
Though asymptotically flat oscillatons do not exist at finite $D$ for massless fields, we have found them in the large $D$ limit. This may be a consequence of the effective equations becoming massless in this limit. At finite $D$, there may be long-lived configurations of massless scalars that resemble oscillatons.
We have also constructed AdS boson stars at large $D$ numerically. A linear stability analysis yields a number of frequencies that do not depend on the background solution, and suggests that these solutions are linearly stable.
In this work, as in many other studies of the large $D$ limit, we have made heavy use of spherical symmetry. It should be possible to construct effective large $D$ field equations that break several symmetries of the sphere. The effective large $D$ equations we have obtained largely relies on the rapid falloffs of the scalar field at large $D$, and these falloffs should be present even when spherical symmetry is broken. These falloffs are present for many other matter fields as well, and even for gravitons, so we expect these methods to be applicable to a wide variety of matter content.
In taking this large $D$ limit, we have required the time coordinate to be rescaled with $D$. We have also chosen a particular gauge for the metric. The metric we have chosen cannot have the continuous or discrete self-similarity exhibited by the finite $D$ critical solution at the threshold of collapse. While the critical solution may have a non-self-similar description in this large $D$ limit, it is unclear what form this particular solution would take. Perhaps an alternative gauge or scaling would allow for the critical solution, and perhaps other solutions as well, to be constructed at large $D$.
It would be interesting to see if this horizonless large $D$ limit can be joined with the well-developed large $D$ limit of black holes. The resulting theory may describe situations where the interactions between the matter and the black hole are important. We note that the time scaling we have taken for the asymptotically flat case $t\sim1/\sqrt{D}$ has not yet appeared in any large $D$ study of black holes[^1], and may be an important time scale in the dynamics of critical collpase.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to thank Matthew Choptuik, Roberto Emparan, and Shiraz Minwalla for helpful comments. We are supported by a discovery grant from NSERC.
[^1]: We thank Roberto Emparan for pointing this out.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
bibliography:
- 'zinc.bib'
---
biblabel\[1\][\#1]{}
makefntext\[1\][\#1]{}
{#section .unnumbered}
Introduction
============
Zinc finger proteins are among the most abundant proteins in eukaryotic genomes. They are encoded by 3% of human genome [@2001a; @Klug2010]. Their functions are extraordinarily diverse and include DNA recognition, RNA packaging, transcription activation, regulation of apoptosis, protein folding and assembly, and lipid binding. For example, there are increasing evidence the potential of zinc finger in cancer progression (Ref. [@jen2016]). The aberrant expression of C2H2 zinc finger proteins contributes to tumorigenesis in many different aspects. Another example is their chaperon function of nucleocapsid protein of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) [@Mitra2013]. This protein plays an important role in the life cycle of this virus, and has been an attractive target for theurapeutic treatment. In the area of biotechnology, their sequence specific DNA$-$binding property is also employed in bio$-$engineering to target desired DNA genome sequences [@Jamieson2003]. For example, the Prostate$-$Specific Antigen protein (PSA) which has zinc fingers for nucleic acid binding, is a common marker for prostate cancer [@balk2003biology]. Therefore, one can detect the PSA presence in a sample by using a substrate that is functionalized with aptamers (short DNA molecules) that onlythe PSA protein can recognize specifically [@formisano2015optimisation; @aus2005individualized; @botchorishvili2009early; @lilja2008prostate; @liu2012detection; @lai2006]. Upon binding of PSA proteins to the aptamers, the electrochemical properties of the substrate will change and can be measured accurately using a companion electric circuit. The strength of the perturbation is a measure of the PSA concentration in the sample. Thus, one can detect and measure rather accurate the PSA concentration allowing for early detection of prostate cancer.
{width="14cm"}
Zinc finger structures are as diverse as their functions. However, the most common structure follows the same motif of a short $\alpha$-helix, two $\beta$-strands and a loop [@Laity2001]. The amino acid residues of this protein segment arrange in three-dimensional space such that the zinc ion would coordinate with 4 residues, Cys2His2, Cys3His or Cys4, to maintain the rigidity of the structure. The helix group then binds to the major groove of the DNA double helix. The rest of the residues form hydrogen bonds to appropriate nucleic acid residues in a sequence specific manner. It is this genome specificity that makes zinc finger, either natural or artificially engineered, a very promising molecule for biotechnological application for gene therapy or recognition. Therefore, understanding the structure and functions of zinc$-$finger proteins, especially at molecular level, is very important for biological, biotechnology and bioengineering applications [@Wolfe2000].
In this work, we focus on investigating the structures, stability and DNA-interaction mechanism of the androgen receptor DNA$-$binding domain [@shaffer2004] (see Fig. \[fig:system\]) using molecular dynamics simulations. There have been several recent computational studies of zinc finger proteins [@Godwin_2017; @Godwin2015; @Hamed2016; @Lee2010a] with different focuses. In this work, the androgen receptor DNA-binding domain is investigated not only because it is an important protein for prostate cancer biosensor application mentioned earlier, but also for several important reasons from biological and physical points of view:
[*Firstly*]{}, these ZnCys4 proteins are standard, classical fold $\beta\beta\alpha$ zinc fingers. Therefore, studying of this structure can give us potential understanding of structure and dynamics of the most common class of zinc fingers. Additionally, the experimentally resolved structure also contains the direct repeat DNA response element that this protein binds to. This assists tremendously with truthful orientation of protein$-$DNA complex for computational investigation of their molecular interaction - one of the main goals of this work.
[*Secondly*]{}, as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:system\], this complex has a dimer of proteins, protomer A and protomer B, with identical amino acid sequences. They also bind to identical ’AGAACA’ DNA sequences, call “upstream” and “downstream” repeat sequences respectively. Yet, despite identical amino acid and nucleic acid sequences, the two protomers have two different, mirroring secondary structures and binding poses. This is an [*interesting deviation*]{} from standard concept in biology that sequence determines structure [@cellBook]. The secondary structure information for each residue using DSSP classification is shown below their sequences in Fig. \[fig:system\]. Many $\beta-$strands are absent in this structure: out of 4 zinc fingers present, only one zinc finger of protomer A shows the $\beta-$strands. All the standard $\beta-$strands of the other fingers have been downgraded to $\beta-$bridge bonds. This is clearly due to the change in secondary structure upon binding of these proteins to DNA. Thus, investigating this system allows us to understand the influence of interaction with DNA on the zinc finger structure at the molecular level.
[*Thirdly*]{}, previous studies have suggested that the cysteine amino acids in their electrostatic binding with the zinc ion is not in their natural neutrally charged state but rather in their negatively charged deprotonated state [@Godwin_2017; @Lee2011a]. This is a very interesting physic problem of overcharging. Indeed, the charge of the zinc ion is $+2e$, while the total charge of the four deprotonated cysteine amino acids is $-4e$. This means the cysteine charges [*overcondense*]{} on the zinc ion, so that the net charge of the zinc ion is negative (overcharged). This is especially interesting based on the fact that DNA molecule is also negatively charged in aqueous solution. Thus, one has the situation where negative zinc-finger complex binds to negative DNA molecule. From the electrostatic point of view, this fact seems to be counter-intuitive.
The aim of this work to understand at the molecular level the structure, interaction and mechanism of DNA binding of the dimeric zinc finger protein. Focus will be given on the electrostatics of the zinc ion. It has been known from previous theoretical and experimental works that overcharging in biological system happens when the screening charges are of [*high valence*]{} [@Grosberg2002; @Nguyen2017; @Nguyen2016; @Hall2009; @Netz2001; @Gelbart2000; @GronbechJensen1997a]. In those cases, their mutual electrostatic interaction dominates over the spatial entropy, resulting in the positional correlation of their distribution on a charged surface. This in turns leads to an overcondensation of these high valence counterions on the surface and overscreening of its charge. The same physics also leads to the phenomenon of like-charge attraction of these surfaces in the presence of high valence counterions [@Grosberg2002; @Naji2004]. We argue that similar physical mechanism applied here. The cysteine amino acids although have charge of only $-e$ and thus cannot be considered as high valence screening charge. However, their attachment to the protein polypeptide backbone severely limits their mobility. As a result, they cannot act as mobile negative charge in screening of the zinc ion, hence their spatial entropy is eliminated. This leads to them overcharging the zinc $+2e$ ion in the same way as multivalent counterions overscreen charged surface when electrostatic interaction dominates over entropy.
To show the difference between undercharged and overcharged states, and to stress the influence of protein DNA interaction, molecular dynamics will be carried out for two systems in setup similar to previous study of isolated zinc finger proteins [@Godwin_2017]. The first system, hereafter called the CYN system, is the overcharged zinc finger where the cysteine amino acids are deprotonated to become negatively charged. The second system, hereafter called the CYS system, is the zinc finger where the cysteine amino acids remains in their neutral uncharged state. The experiment X$-$ray crystal structure will be used as the initial structure of both systems. Our results show that the overcharge zinc finger is important for the stability of the protein structure even in their binding to negatively charged DNA molecule. Not only that, the overcharge zinc finger also has stable DNA binding pose. For undercharged zinc finger, the complex deviates significantly from the experimental structure. There is also less differences between the two protomers in this weak DNA-binding system. Therefore, the main differences between structures of sequence$-$identical protomers A and B are due to interactions with DNA. This paper is organized as follows. After the introduction in Section 1, the detail of the computational procedure is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, the results are presented and discussed. We conclude in Section 4.
Methods
=======
Preparation of the simulation systems
-------------------------------------
The structure of the PSA protein zinc fingers and the DNA segment it binds to is downloaded from the Protein Data Bank (<https://www.rcsb.org/>), PDB code 1R4I. This structure was resolved using X-ray crystallography method with a resolution of 3.1[@shaffer2004]. The complex contains a DNA segment and two protein chains called protomer A and protomer B, and four zinc ions. On each protein chain, the Cys542, Cys545, Cys559, and Cys562 amino acids bind to the first zinc ion (Zn$_{1}$) and the Cys578, Cys584, Cys594, Cys597 amino acids bind to the second zinc ion (Zn$_{2}$) in a tetrahedral structure (see Fig. \[fig:system\]). There are totally 4 zinc fingers on this complex, two zinc fingers on each protomer. To investigate the difference between the CYS complex with cysteine amino acids in their natural state and the CYN complex with cysteine amino acids in deprotonated state, we manually remove the hydrogen atoms from the thiol group of those 16 zinc-binding cysteine amino acids.
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation
----------------------------------
The periodic boundary condition is used in our simulation. After setting up the coordinates of the atoms, the periodic simulation box size is chosen such that the protomers and DNA complex on neighboring periodic boxes are at least 3nm apart. This is significantly larger than the screening length of the solution (about 0.7nm at 150mM NaCl salt concentration). This is large enough to eliminate the finite size effect due to the long-range electrostatic interactions, yet maintain a small enough system to have the simulation run in a reasonable time with the available computing resource. The systems are then solvated with water molecules in an explicit solvent simulation. After solvation, Na$^{+}$ and Cl$^{-}$ ions are added to the system at the physiological concentration of 150mM by randomly replace water molecules by ions. The total charge of the system is zero to maintain the neutrality. The systems are then subjected to an energy minimization procedure using a steepest descent method to remove potentially high energy contacts and overlapping atoms before doing molecular dynamic simulation.
All-atom molecular dynamics simulation with the explicit solvent model is carried out in this work. The forcefield AMBER 99-ILDN[@showalter2007validation] is used to parameterize the protein molecules. The state of the art forcefield, PARMBSC1 [@ivani2016parmbsc1] is used to parameterize the DNA molecule. Water molecules are parameterized using the TIP3P forcefield [@price2004modified], a common and highly compatible forcefield for the chosen Amber forcefields. The GROMACS version 2018.3 software package[@hess2008gromacs] is used for molecular dynamics simulation of the systems. Each system is subjected to equilibration in NVT and NPT ensembles at temperature 298K and pressure of 1 atm for 100ns. After that, a long production run of 1000ns each is used for taking statistics. The Nose-Hoover thermostat [@nose1984molecular; @hoover1985canonical] is used to maintain the temperature of the systems. The Parrinello-Rahman barostat [@parrinello1980m; @parrinello1981polymorphic] is used to maintain the pressure of systems. Both electrostatics and van de Waals interactions are cut off at 1.2nm. The long-range part of the electrostatic interactions among charges is calculated in the reciprocal $k$-space using the Ewald summation via Particle Mesh Ewald method[@darden1993particle] at fourth order interpolation. The long-range part of the van de Waals interactions among atoms is approximated as appropriate corrections to the energy and the pressure. All the covalent bonds are constrained using the LINCS (Linear Constraint Solver) algorithm in order to increase the simulation time step to 2.5 fs [@hess1997lincs].
Analysis the results of MD simulation
-------------------------------------
Analysis of the simulation results is performed using the corresponding tools provided within the GROMACS package, such as the root mean square deviation (RMSD) as well as the root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) for backbone atoms of both protomers and DNA on each upstream or downstream complex. The visualization of 3D structures of the systems is performed using VMD version 1.9.3 program [@humphrey1996vmd]. Some in$-$house python scripts are used for various tasks and for combining different analysis softwares for RMSD-based clustering, covariance matrix calculations, principal component analyses.
Results and discussions
=======================
Deviations and fluctuations of the structural backbone atoms of proteins and of DNA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a standard procedure, the first analysis of the systems is done by calculating the root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the proteins from its native crystallized X$-$ray experiment structure. For calculation of protein RMSD, the backbone C$_\alpha$ atoms are used. For calculation of nucleic acid RMSD, the O4’ atoms (in standard deoxyribose nucleic acid nomenclature) of sugar group of the backbone of the DNA strand are used. The results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:rmsd\].
The deprotonated CYN state (red line) clearly shows higher stability with only 2Å deviation from native structure for protomer A and 1Å deviation for protomer B. The deviations for the same protein chains in the CYS system (black line) are of much higher value upto 4Å. While the CYN complex is always stable throughout the simulation run (with protomer B more stable than protomer A), for the CYS state, the RMSD values reach their plateaus only after about 500ns for both protein chains. Later, we will see that this is related to the reorganization of the secondary structures as well as changes in the unstable binding pose of the CYS proteins to the DNA. As a result of this RMSD analysis, in all later statistical analysis of the reference structures of the CYS system, only configurations from 500ns onward are processed.
In the same Fig. \[fig:rmsd\], the RMSD deviation for the DNA molecule is plotted for CYN system (Fig. \[subfig:ddn\]) and for the CYS system (Fig. \[subfig:dds\]). Unlike the deviation of protein structures, the RMSD plotted for DNA strands are similar in both systems. Although for CYS system, deviation as large as 7Å are observed (and it seems to coincide with a large deviation in protomer B as it also deviates strongly at around 400ns), DNA RMSD in both systems show plateau after 400ns, and settle at a saturated value of 4Å deviation as the DNA molecule equilibrates its binding pose to the protein chains. This value is the same for both complimentary strands of the DNA, suggesting the two strands always remain in double helix state and move together. This stresses the structural stability of the DNA double helices, unaffected by the change in protein configuration.
Next, let us calculate the time-averaged root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) of atoms of the protomers and DNA backbone residues. This is directly related to how deprotonated state of Zn$-$Cys4 complex can affect structural rigidity of the molecules. Once again, only atomic fluctuations of the C$_\alpha$ atoms of the protein and of the O4’ atoms of the DNA are considered because these backbone atoms are representative of the overall structure of the molecules more than the side chain atoms. The results of the atomic fluctuations for the CYN and CYS systems are shown in Fig. \[fig:rmsf\]. As can be seen clearly from Fig. \[subfig:fpa\] and \[subfig:fpb\], the average fluctuation value of C$\alpha$ backbone atom of each amino acid residue are almost always smaller for the CYN systems (around 0.5Å) as compared to the CYS system (1Å to 3Å). This is especially true for most of the four cysteine residues that make up the zinc$-$fingers. This confirms that deprotonated, negatively charge cysteine residues stabilize zinc-finger structure even in the presence of negatively charged DNA molecule. Another observation is the large fluctuations of the $\beta\beta\alpha$ zinc$-$finger that binds to the DNA major groove in protomer B (from residue GLU548 to residue ALA570). As we will see later, this zinc finger structure is disrupted strongly by the protonation state of the cysteine amino acids. For both protein chains, the region that binds the DNA are very stable in CYN system, only 0.5Å fluctuation. This again confirms that deprotonated cysteine amino acids not only stabilize zinc finger structures, they also stabilize DNA-binding function of zinc-fingers, although both DNA and zinc-fingers are negatively charged in the CYN system. Notice that the RMSF values of 0.5Å are significantly lower than the typical 5Å RMSF value for regular folded protein in solution. This means that DNA binding stabilize protein structure of these zinc fingers.
Figs. \[subfig:fdn\] and \[subfig:fds\]) shows the atomic fluctuation along the backbone of the nucleic acids segment. As one can see from these figures, both strands show very similar values, dominantly in the range 1Å to 2Å (excluding the free moving end of each strand) and only very minor different between CYN and CYS systems. The two upstream and downstream sequence backbones (the green bars in the x$-$axis) behave similarly and stably for both strands. The results show the same trend as that of the above RMSD analysis: the structural rigidity of the DNA double helix is weakly affected by the deprotonated state of the binding proteins.
Disruption to the secondary structure of the zinc$-$fingers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let us analyze how the secondary structures of the proteins are affected by protonation state of these zinc finger amino acids. In Fig. \[fig:dssp\], the change in the secondary structure during the time of simulation are shown for the two protomers of the CYN system in the top figure, and the two protomers of the CYS system in the bottom figure. The definition of the secondary structure follows the standard DSSP classification system. The major $\alpha-$helices involved in the zinc$-$fingers are shown in blue: the helix from residue GLU560-ALA570 sits at the DNA major groove, while the other helix from PRO595 to ALA605 residues aligns along the DNA principle axis.
Compare the change in the secondary structures of the proteins overtime for the CYN and CYS systems, one immediately sees a major disruption around 400ns in the CYS system, as already inferred from RMSD analysis. Interestingly enough, from these figures, the effect of zinc-binding in CYS neutral state affects the secondary structure of zinc$-$finger protein differently for the upstream versus downstream binding configurations. For downstream binding complex (protomer B), the first zinc finger is affected more. Specifically, the $\alpha-$helix from residues GLU560-ALA570 melts and shorten by half from 400ns onward. In later analysis, we will be able to see that in CYS system, the Zn$^{2+}$ unbinds from the cysteine amino acids and moves to bind the negatively charged DNA phosphate backbone atoms instead. The shorten helix, however, remains in binding with DNA and only disorient inside the major groove, leading to higher fluctuations and deviations.
For the upstream binding complex (protomer A), the second zinc$-$finger associated with the second helix is affected more in CYS system. This helix from residues PRO595-ALA605 for protomer A shows transient extension to include more residues during the time frame from 400ns - 900ns. In later analysis, we will see that this is due to this second zinc ions turn away from DNA to face the solvent molecule and detach from the $\alpha-$helix. This results in the helix recruits temporarily more amino acids onto itself.
In the contrary, Fig. \[subfig:dsspCym\] for the CYN system clearly shows that zinc-ion overcharged state is important. Both helices of the zinc$-$fingers for both upstream and downstream binding complex remains stable during the whole simulation time of 1 microsecond. Only the unstructured loops show large significant changes during simulation which is natural for such flexible regions.
Another measure of the stability of the structure of the proteins in these systems is to calculate the Ramachandran plot for the angles of the C$_\alpha$ backbone atoms of the peptide chains. The results for the two systems are plotted in Fig. \[fig:rama\]. For clarity, the regions of favorable values of the two angles ($\psi$, $\phi$) of proteins are outlined using red colors. As expected, most of the values for the proteins of the two systems are indeed fall inside these red regions.
Additionally, the “yellow” and “green” regions are for the “allowed” and “generously allowed” values. Outside the green boundary are the “unfavorable” region with high energy cost for these values of the angle pairs. One can see immediately from this plot that the neutral CYS system shows many high energy angle pairs. On the other hand, the overcharged deprotonated CYN system avoids of these high energy regions and mostly compacts in the allowed regions. This once again confirms the stability of the overcharged configuration CYN in DNA$-$binding complex.
Hydrogen bonding stability
--------------------------
Previous simulation works have shown that hydrogen bonds are unique in the presence of zinc ion binding [@Godwin_2017]. The folded protein structure shows narrowest distribution of hydrogen bonds in the overcharged state. Therefore, one naturally asked how this state influences hydrogen bonding with the nucleic acids in their complexation with the DNA molecule. In Fig. \[fig:hbond\], the distribution of hydrogen bonds for protomer A and protomer B with the upstream and downstream DNA sequences are plotted. In each plot, the values for overcharged CYN system is colored light blue while those for the undercharged CYS system is colored light green.
One can see from this figure that the hydrogen bonds of protomer B with the downstream sequence are stable in both systems, but the CYN system shows slightly narrower distribution, indicating more unique bonding. Protomer A on the other hand shows the loss of several hydrogen bonds in the undercharged CYS state. In later cluster analysis where the representative structures are investigated, we will see that this is the results of the lifting of the first zinc finger further away from the DNA to push the zinc ion deeper into the aqueous solution. For protomer B, due to its dimeric binding to protomer A, this zinc finger slightly more stable in its binding with DNA.
RMSD-based clustering and simulated representative structures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now move to investigate important dynamical features of the zinc$-$finger DNA binding complex. As a first step, we use RMSD-based clustering analysis to group configurations of the 1$\mu$s trajectories into similar configurations. This procedure, couples with principle component analysis later, provides detail insights into the various macrostates of the binding complex, its collective motions, as well as potential kinetic traps.
In all results listed in this work, the RMSD cutoff value of 0.15nm is used to distinguish neighboring configurations. This value is chosen by trials and errors to find the most reasonable number of clusters of configurations. For a large cutoff value, all configurations are neighbors and only one cluster is generated. Vice versa, for small cutoff value, there are too many clusters of configurations generated which defeats our purpose. In fact, by varying this value and counting the number of clusters of configurations generated, one identifies a cutoff value for which this number show a sharp rise in the number of configurations, as well as a decrease in the probability of the most populous and lowest free energy cluster. Ultimately, the value 0.15nm is chosen as the threshold cutoff. Using this RMSD cutoff values, the results of distributing all the trajectory configurations into clusters is shown in Table \[tbl:rmsd\] for the two simulated systems.
[@l\*[15]{}[||cc|cc]{}]{} & &\
&CYN&CYS &CYN&CYS\
Number of clusters & 8 & 39 & 2 & 32\
Probability of 1st cluster & 92.5% & 51.9% & 99.92% & 39.3%\
Probability of 2nd cluster & 4.5% & 10.4% & 0.08% & 24.5%\
Probability of 3rd cluster & 1.6% & 8.9% & 0% & 12.1 %\
Percentage unclustered & 0.1% & 0.2% & 0% & 0.2%\
\[tbl:rmsd\]
One can see from this table immediately how much more unstable and strongly fluctuating the protomers in the CYS system as compared to the CYN system. For protomer A, the CYN system has only 8 distinct clusters with the lowest energy cluster has almost 93% probability. For protomer B in the same system, we could only distribute them into two clusters with the lowest free energy has near 100% probability. These data show that this CYN system is very stable and stay close to the experimental ground state X$-$ray structure. On the other hand, in the CYS system, the protomer A configurations are categorized into 39 clusters, with the three lowest free energy clusters occupy 70% of the total time. In the same CYS system, protomer B can be categorized into 32 clusters, with the three lowest free energy clusters occupy about 75% of the time. In both cases, the binding of protomer B to DNA is stronger than protomer A as previously mentioned.
To discern major similarities as well as differences among the dominant clusters of the proteins and to show their deviation with respect to the experimental structure, we align and overlap the central configuration (the representative configuration) of these clusters. The results are shown in Figs. \[fig:rmsdclusterCYN\] and \[fig:rmsdclusterCYS\].
For the overcharged CYN system, it is clear that there are strong overlapped in the simulated and experimental structures. Nevertheless, one subtle difference should be mentioned here. While protomer A of the CYN system keeps its structural components, protomer B of the CYN system shows appearance of additional $\beta-$ strands in the location where the experiment structure shows short $\beta-$bridges. Following the time dependent structure information shown in Fig. \[subfig:dsspCym\], one learns that these $\beta-$strands are created after 300ns into the simulation. These $\beta-$ strands are supposed to be native to these zinc-fingers but upon binding to DNA they are not observed in the experimental crystal structure. Our simulation results show that the $\beta-$strands are still there, albeit transiently. This suggests the DNA binding of these zinc fingers are so strong that it disrupts these $\beta-$strand secondary structures. In experimental structure measurement, the temperature is effectively zero. In molecular dynamics simulation, the temperature is finite, so the $\beta-$strands has finite probability to reappear transiently.
Moving on to the comparison of simulated structures of the zinc-finger in the undercharged CYS system shown in Fig. \[fig:rmsdclusterCYS\], one can see substantial reorganization of the zinc ions. In both protomers, one zinc ion leaves the cysteine binding pocket and moves to near the negatively charged DNA phosphate backbone. The other zinc ion remains with the cysteine amino acids in the loop segment of the binding pocket, but it pushes this loop further into the water solution, far away from the DNA molecule. This is totally understandable from the electrostatic interaction point of view. Since the cysteine amino acids are neutral now, they only act as polarized side chains. The zinc ion binds weaker to them as compared to the CYN system. As the results, the ions have more rooms to explore other configuration. The zinc ion of the zinc finger near the DNA would move to the negatively charged DNA backbone to lower the electrostatic energy. On the other hand, the zinc ions in the zinc finger far away pushes toward to water solution to enjoy a medium with large dielectric constant, hence also lower its electrostatic self$-$energy. Besides the big movement of the zinc ions, the secondary structures of the protomers remain relatively stable in this new configuration (albeit with larger fluctuations) since they are determined mostly by the hydrogen bond interactions among the constituent amino acids. Most notable change is the melting of half of the helix of protomer B in the DNA major groove, as already seen from Fig. \[subfig:dsspCys\]. Nevertheless, it remains in this groove throughout the simulation. Overall, in the CYS system, the proteins settle to a new equilibrium configuration, with the zinc ions deviates significantly from its experiment position, and with high flexibility meaning weaker DNA binding. Note that the electrostatic interaction of zinc ions to the protein$-$DNA complex remains larger than the thermal energy due to the high valence of zinc ion ($+2$), so they donot go into solution.
Principle component analysis and free energy landscape in collective variables
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="95.00000%"}
Principle component analysis (PCA) is a useful method to analyses dynamical behaviour of the proteins. Using PCA, one can screen out fast and high energy modes in the dynamics, leading to a huge reduction in the dimensionality of the system. Just like in the case of RMSD clustering analysis, dynamics of proteins are well described using the first few principal collective motions of the backbone atoms. By our own inspection, three most dominant eigenvectors are enough to locate the number of distinct clusters of configurations of the systems.
In Fig. \[fig:pcaall\], the distribution of all simulated configurations projected on the first three eigenvectors are shown. The four rows correspond respectively to the protomer A of the CYN system, protomer B of the CYN system, protomer A of the CYS system, and protomer B of the CYS system. For each row, the left, middle and right are the projections on eigenvectors 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 2 and 3 respectively. As one can see from these figures, protomer A shows two distinct peaks of high probabilities, while protomer B shows three, once again signifying the difference among the identical protomers upon DNA$-$binding. The influence of the charging states of the cysteine amino acids are obvious. The peaks for the overcharged CYN system are much sharper and Gaussian-like, indicating structural stability. On the other hand, for the CYS system the peaks are broader, with irregular shapes. For CYS system, there are also many extra small peaks appearing indicating structural flexibility and intermediate states. The trace of the covariance matrix of the four corresponding complexes are 0.798 nm$^2$, 0.403 nm$^2$, 1.467 nm$^2$, and 1.54638 nm$^2$ respectively. The higher the value, the more structural flexibility the system is. Therefore one sees that protomer A and B in the CYN system are more stable (with protomer B shows stronger DNA binding). In the CYS system, their trace values show the same flexibility indicating that weaker DNA binding leads to less difference between protomer A and B. This is expected because the two protomers are identical in sequence, any difference between them is due to DNA binding. Thus, weaker DNA binding means less difference.
Lastly, in the coordinates of these collective variables, the free energy can be easily obtained from the probability density distribution function, $\Delta G \propto - k_BT \log p (\mathbf{a}_i, \mathbf{a}_j)$ where $\mathbf{a}_i$ are projections on eigenvector $i-$th. As the color coded values of this Fig. \[fig:pcaall\] shows, the CYS system has much wider range of these projection values leading to lower probability density distribution. Among the protomer A and protomer B in the same system, protomer B show sharper peaks and smaller range of $\mathbf{a}_i$. Specifically, the free energy of protomer B has lower $\Delta G$ than protomer A by about 0.94 kJ/mol in CYN system and 0.46kJ/mol in CYS system. Between CYN and CYS systems, the free energy of protomer A in CYN system is lower by 0.87 kJ/mol than protomer A in CYS system. Protomer B in CYN system is lower by 1.7 kJ/mol than that in CYS system. One can see from these analyses that the overcharge state is more stable with protomer B has even lower free energy. In the undercharged state, the structures are more flexible, thus the DNA binding causes less difference in the free energy between protomer A and B. Overall, DNA binding once again is the main reason for the structural stability of the overcharged state and to differentiate protomer A and B.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have used the molecular dynamics simulation to investigate the a ZnCys4 zinc finger protein dimer in its binding pose with DNA. The monomers of the dimers are identical in sequences, and they bind to the same nucleic acid sequences. Yet there are differences in structures and energies between them with the “downstream” complex showing stronger binding. The overcharged state of the zinc ion is very important for this binding. In this state, all four cysteine amino acids are deprotonated to become negatively charged, thus overcharge the zinc ion. Previous work showed that this overcharged state is important for stability of the zinc finger. In this work, by various analyses, it is shown that this overcharged state is also very important for the protein$-$DNA binding complex. In undercharged state, the zinc ions would move to different locations in the complex to lower their electrostatic free energy, leading to an increase the atomic fluctuations and dynamics of the complex. For this specific zinc finger, our results provide insights into the DNA binding state of PSA protein and have potential application in designing specialized biosensor for prostate cancer screening. In a broader aspect, this is a very common classical $\beta\beta\alpha$ zinc finger, therefore the results have a potential broader implication to understand structures and functions of this common class of zinc finger and their DNA binding mechanism at molecular levels.
Conflicts of interest {#conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}
=====================
There are no conflicts to declare.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Vietnam National University, Hanoi, grant number QG.16.01. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the World Bank and the Ministry of Science and Technology of Vietnam grant number 13/FIRST/1.a/VNU1.
We thank Prof. Lien Truong of the Hanoi University of Science and Technology for useful discussions and for sharing her preliminary work on manufacturing biosensors of prostate cancer screening which gives us the incentive to investigate stability of zinc$-$finger structure and its DNA binding process. The authors thank Prof. Morikawa Yoshitada for many useful discussions and inputs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The growing ubiquity of Social Media data offers an attractive perspective for improving the quality of machine learning-based models in several fields, ranging from Computer Vision to Natural Language Processing. In this paper we focus on Facebook posts paired with “reactions” of multiple users, and we investigate their relationships with classes of emotions that are typically considered in the task of emotion detection. We are inspired by the idea of introducing a connection between reactions and emotions by means of First-Order Logic formulas, and we propose an end-to-end neural model that is able to jointly learn to detect emotions and predict Facebook reactions in a multi-task environment, where the logic formulas are converted into polynomial constraints. Our model is trained using a large collection of unsupervised texts together with data labeled with emotion classes and Facebook posts that include reactions. An extended experimental analysis that leverages a large collection of Facebook posts shows that the tasks of emotion classification and reaction prediction can both benefit from their interaction.'
author:
- 'Lisa Graziani\[0000-0002-7384-9633\]\*'
- 'Stefano Melacci\[0000-0002-0415-0888\]'
- 'Marco Gori\[0000-0001-6337-5430\]'
bibliography:
- 'icann2019.bib'
title: 'Jointly Learning to Detect Emotions and Predict Facebook Reactions [^1] '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Model and Data Organization {#sec:model}
===========================
Multi-Task Learning with Constraints {#sec:logic}
====================================
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 825619.
[^1]: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in LNCS, volume 11730. The final authenticated version is available online at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30490-4_16>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Andrew J. Christlieb[^1]'
- 'Yuan Liu[^2]'
- 'Qi Tang[^3]'
- 'Zhengfu Xu[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'BigBib.bib'
title: 'Positivity-Preserving Finite Difference WENO Schemes with Constrained Transport for Ideal Magnetohydrodynamic Equations'
---
WENO; finite differences; magnetohydrodynamics; positivity-preserving; constrained transport; hyperbolic conservation laws
35L65, 65M06, 65M20, 76W05
[^1]: Department of Mathematics and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA ([[email protected]]{}).
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA ([[email protected]]{}).
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA ([[email protected]]{}).
[^4]: Department of Mathematical Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA ([[email protected]]{}).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A model to estimate the asymptotic isotropic mutual information of a multiantenna channel is considered. Using a block-based dynamics and the angle diversity of the system, we derived what may be thought of as the operator-valued version of the Kronecker correlation model. This model turns out to be more flexible than the classical version, as it incorporates both an arbitrary channel correlation and the correlation produced by the asymptotic antenna patterns. A method to calculate the asymptotic isotropic mutual information of the system is established using operator-valued free probability tools. A particular case is considered in which we start with explicit Cauchy transforms and all the computations are done with diagonal matrices, which make the implementation simpler and more efficient.'
author:
- 'Mario Diaz[^1]'
- 'Victor Pérez-Abreu [^2]'
title: '**Random Matrix Systems with Block-Based Behavior and Operator-Valued Models**'
---
Introduction
============
Random matrices and free probability are areas of applied probability with increasing importance in the area of multiantenna wireless systems, see for example [@Coulliet2011]. One key problem in the stochastic analysis of these systems has been the study of their asymptotic performance with respect to the number of antennas. The first answer to this question is the groundbreaking work by Telatar [@Telatar1999], who, describing the system as a random matrix with statistically independent entries, showed that the capacity of this system is infinite. Since this independence condition might be restrictive, several further proposals have been made over the past decade. As a result, a few models have emerged to take into account some instances of correlation in the system [@Foschini2000], [@Mestre2003], [@Tulino2005].
Operator-valued free probability theory has proved to be a powerful tool to study block random matrices [@Benaych2009; @Shlyakhtenko1996]. This has made possible to analyze certain systems exhibiting some block-based dynamics [@Far2008; @Speicher2012]. With recent developments in operator-valued free probability theory [@Belinschi2013a; @Belinschi2013b], simple matricial iterative algorithms now allow us to find the asymptotic spectrum of sums and products of free operator-valued random variables.
The purpose of the present paper is show the significance of these new tools by studying a particular application in wireless communications. In particular, we study an operator-valued Kronecker correlation model based on an arbitrarily correlated finite dimensional multiantenna channel. From a block matrix dynamics and a parameter related to the angle diversity of the system, an operator-valued equivalent is derived and then a method to calculate the asymptotic isotropic mutual information is developed using tools from operator-valued free probability. The model allows using information related to the asymptotic antenna patterns of the system. To our best knowledge, this the first time that a model with these characteristics is analyzed.
More precisely, a multiantenna system is an electronic communication setup in which both the transmitter and the receiver use several antennas. The input and the output of the system can be thought of as complex vectors $u=(u_{1},\cdots,u_{n_{T}})^{\top}$ and $v=(v_{1},\cdots,v_{n_{R}})^{\top} $, where $n_{T}$ is the number of transmitting antennas and $n_{R}$ is the number of receiving antennas. The system response is characterized by the linear model $$v=Hu+w,$$ where $H$ is an $n_{R}\times n_{T}$ complex random matrix that models the propagation coefficients from the transmitting to the receiving antennas and $w$ is a circularly symmetric Gaussian random vector with independent identically distributed unital power entries.
In a correlated multiantenna system, there is correlation between the propagation coefficients. Namely, the random matrix $H$ is such that the random variables $\{H_{i,j}:i=1,\ldots,n_{R};j=1,\ldots,n_{T}\}$ are not necessarily independent. It is customary to take the random variables composing $H$ with circularly symmetric Gaussian random law [Telatar1999]{}. In this context, the joint distribution of the entries of $H$ depends only on the covariance function $\sigma(i,j;i^{\prime},j^{\prime}):=\mathbb{E}\left( H_{i,j}\overline{H}_{i^{\prime},j^{\prime}}\right) $ for $i,i^{\prime}\in\{1,\ldots,n_{R}\}$ and $j,j^{\prime}\in\{1,\ldots,n_{T}\}$.
For a fixed rate $n_{T}/n_{R}$, it is known that the capacity of a multiantenna system grows linearly with the number of antennas of the system as long as the matrix $H$ has independent entries [@Telatar1999]. This shows the well-behaved scalability properties of multiantenna systems. However, correlation may have a negative effect on the performance of the system. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate quantitatively the effect that correlation may have.
Throughout this paper we will assume that the transmitter uses an isotropical scheme, i.e., $\mathbb{E}\left( uu^{\ast}\right) =\dfrac{P}{n_{T}}\mathrm{I}_{n_{T}}$ where $P$ is the transmitter power. In this case, a canonical way to quantify the effect of correlation is by means of the asymptotic isotropic mutual information[^3] per antenna [@Telatar1999]. Specifically, suppose that $H_{1}:=H$ and for each $N\geq2$ the $n_{R}^{(N)}\times n_{T}^{(N)}$ random matrix $H_{N}$ describes the channel behavior when there are $n_{T}^{(N)}$ transmitting antennas and $n_{R}^{(N)}$ receiving antennas. Moreover, suppose that both $(n_{T}^{(N)})_{N\geq1}$ and $(n_{R}^{(N)})_{N\geq1}$ are increasing sequences and $n_{T}^{(N)}/n_{R}^{(n)}$ converges to a positive real number. Then, the asymptotic isotropic mutual information per antenna $I_{\infty}$ is $$I_{\infty}=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}\left( \frac{1}{n_{R}^{(N)}}\log\det\left( I+\frac{P}{n_{T}^{(N)}}H_{N}H_{N}^{\ast}\right) \right) ,$$ as long as the limit exists. A common phenomena in random matrix theory is that the sequence of arguments in the expected value above converges almost surely to a constant, and under mild conditions also in mean. Therefore, the asymptotic isotropic mutual information per antenna is given, essentially, by the a.s. limit of the aforementioned sequence.
Therefore, in order to find $I_{\infty}$, it is necessary to derive a model for the sequence of random matrices $(H_{N})_{N\geq1}$ that approximates the channel behavior in the finite size regime and then compute the asymptotic quantity $I_{\infty}$.
In this paper we use an alternative method described in four steps:
1. Assign an operator-valued matrix $\mathbf{H}$ to the matrix $H$;
2. Compute the operator-valued Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$;
3. Via the Stieltjes inversion formula, recover the distribution of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$, call it $F$;
4. Compute $I_{\infty}$ as $$I_{\infty}=\int\log(1+P\xi)F(\text{d}\xi). \label{AsymptoticCapacity}$$
The operator-valued matrix $\mathbf{H}$ can be thought of as the asymptotic operator-valued equivalent of the channel $H$ [@Speicher2012]. In this sense, the common approach consists of giving a model for the finite size regime, computing the mutual information, and taking the limit. On the other hand, the alternative approach takes *limits in the model*, replacing matrices by operator-valued matrices, and then calculates the mutual information. Of course, these approaches are intimately related. Actually, in the traditional case, they provide the same results[^4], but we prefer the latter approach since it is conceptually easier to understand and carry out, providing a powerful tool for modelling.
We will see that this way of thinking goes well with channels exhibiting a block-based behavior. In particular, the operator-valued matrix assigned in step 1 carries the block structure of the channel and some other features of the system. In the example analyzed here, these features include the effect of the asymptotic antenna patterns and the inclusion of the starting finite dimensional channel correlation. To illustrate the kind of tools that may be useful in the assigning process at step 1, in the next section we retrieve a block-based Kronecker model from an angular-based model and derive the operator-valued equivalent $\mathbf{H}$.
In Section \[Section:Model\] we derive the proposed operator-valued Kronecker correlation model. In Section \[Section:AsymptoticCapacity\] we discuss the asymptotic isotropic mutual information of our model using tools from operator-valued free probability. In Section \[Section:DiagonalCase\] we consider a particular example where the implementation is simple but at the same time flexible enough to be applied in several interesting cases, like some symmetric channels. In Section \[Section:NumericalComparison\] we compare, through the example of a finite dimensional system, the mutual information predicted by the usual Kronecker correlation model against the results from the proposed operator-valued alternative. In Appendix A we summarize the notation, the background, and the prerequisites from operator-valued free probability theory. In Appendix B we prove Theorem [Thm:ExtremalCases]{} on two extreme behaviors of the model regime. In Appendix C we compute some of the operator-valued Cauchy transforms required in this paper.
The Angular Based Model and Its Operator-Valued Equivalent {#Section:Model}
==========================================================
The proposed model to approximate the channel behavior in the finite size regime is derived as follows. Suppose that for a fixed $N\in\mathbb{N}$, each antenna of the original system is replaced by $N$ new antennas located around the position of the original one. Thus, the new system has $n_{T}N$ transmitting and $n_{R}N$ receiving antennas. Figure \[fig:Antennas\] shows the original system for $n_{T}=1$ and $n_{R}=2$ together with the corresponding virtual one for $N=2$.
![On the left the original $1\times2$ system. On the right the virtual $2\times4$ system corresponding to $N=2$.[]{data-label="fig:Antennas"}](Antennas.png){width="70.00000%"}
For any given $N\in\mathbb{N}$, the channel matrix $H_{N}$ for this $n_{R}N\times n_{T}N$ system will have the form $$H_{N}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
H_{N}^{(1,1)} & \cdots & H_{N}^{(1,n_{T})} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
H_{N}^{(n_{R},1)} & \cdots & H_{N}^{(n_{R},n_{T})}\end{matrix}
\right) ,$$ where $H_{N}^{(i,j)}$ is the $N\times N$ matrix whose entries are the coefficients between the new antennas that come from the original $i$ receiving and $j$ transmitting antennas.
Statistics of the channel and block matrix structure
----------------------------------------------------
We now derive a model for $H_{N}=(H_{N}^{(i,j)})_{i,j}$ that takes into account the statistics of the channel matrix $H$ and the block structure exhibited above. First, fix a block $H_{N}^{(i,j)}$, and for notational simplicity denote it by $A$. This matrix $A$ should reflect the behavior of a scalar channel between two antennas of the original system when these are replaced by $N$ antennas each.
In a regime of a very high density of antennas per unit of space, any two pairs of antennas close enough are likely to experience very similar fading. Since as $N\rightarrow\infty$ the new antennas are closer to each other, then the propagation coefficients between them are prone to be correlated. As an extreme case, we suppose that all the propagation coefficients between the antennas involved in $A$ have the same norm, and without loss of generality we set this to be one[^5]. This means that these coefficients produce the same power losses and the differences between them come from the variation that they induce in the signal’s phases. With this in mind, we will suppose that for $1\leq k,l\leq N$, $$A_{k,l}=\exp(\gamma\mathrm{i}\theta_{k,l})$$ where $\mathrm{i}=\sqrt{-1}$, $\theta_{k,l}$ is a real random variable and $\gamma>0$ is a physical parameter that reflects the statistical variation of the phases of the incoming signals. In some geometrical models, this statistical variation of the phases has been used, along with the angle of arrival and the angle spread, to study the capacity of multiantenna channels [@Foschini2000].
Some of the physical factors that have the most impact on the correlation of an antenna array are related to either the physical parameters of the antennas or to local scatterers. Since these factors are different for each end of the communication link then, borrowing the intuition from the usual Kronecker model, it is natural to take the matrix $\theta=(\theta
_{k,l})_{k,l=1}^{N}$ as a separable or Kronecker correlated matrix, that is, $$\theta=RXT$$ where $R$ and $T$ are the square roots of suitable correlation matrices and $X$ is a random matrix with independent entries having the standard Gaussian distribution. It is important to point out that $A$ is not Kronecker correlated.
Extreme regimes of the parameter $\protect\gamma$ of the system
---------------------------------------------------------------
From a modelling point of view, the case $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$ represents the situation in which the environment is rich enough to ensure a high diversity in the angles of the propagation coefficients. On the other hand, the case $\gamma\rightarrow0$ represents a system in which the propagation coefficients in the given block are almost the same. Intuitively, the first case is better in terms of $\gamma$, since we should be able to recover the multiantenna diversity via the angle diversity; while in the second case we almost lose the diversity advantage of a multiantenna system over a single antenna system.
In these limiting cases the following holds. We denote by $\lambda
_{1}(\cdot )\geq \cdots \geq \lambda _{N}(\cdot )$ the ordered eigenvalues of an Hermitian matrix.
\[Thm:ExtremalCases\] Assume that $R$ and $T$ are full rank. For $N$ fixed, as $\gamma \rightarrow \infty $, $$(\lambda _{1}(AA^{\ast }),\ldots ,\lambda _{N}(AA^{\ast }))\Rightarrow
(\lambda _{1}(UU^{\ast }),\ldots ,\lambda _{N}(UU^{\ast }))$$where $U$ is a matrix with i.i.d. entries with uniform distribution on the unit circle.
Suppose that $(\gamma _{N})_{N\geq 1}$ is a sequence of positive real numbers such that $\gamma _{N}\rightarrow 0$ as $N\rightarrow \infty $. Then, almost surely, $F^{\gamma _{N}^{-2}AA^{\ast }}\Rightarrow F$ as $N\rightarrow \infty $ where $F$ is the asymptotic eigenvalue distribution of $\theta \theta ^{\ast }$.
See Appendix B.
Observe that in the second part of the previous theorem both $A$ and $\theta$ depend on $N$ as they are $N\times N$ matrices.
This means that the entries of the matrix $A$ become uncorrelated as $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, and, by universality, the spectrum of $A$ must behave similar to the spectrum of a standard Gaussian matrix of the same size. Observe that in this limiting case, we arrive at the well known case of i.i.d. entries, i.e., the canonical model of a multiantenna system [Telatar1999]{}. As was mentioned before, in this situation the environment has a high diversity in the angles of the propagation coefficients, and thus it is natural that the system behaves as in the i.i.d. case.
On the other hand, when $\gamma \rightarrow 0$, the bulk of $AA^{\ast }$ is close to that of $\gamma ^{2}\theta \theta ^{\ast }=\gamma ^{2}RXT^{2}XR$. This suggests approximating $A\approx \gamma RXT$. Note that this limiting case leads to the well known Kronecker correlation model [@Tulino2005]. In the spirit of a worst case analysis, we will use $A=\gamma RXT$ in what follows.
In the proof of Theorem \[Thm:ExtremalCases\] we only used the fact that $\theta\theta^*$ has an asymptotic eigenvalue distribution with compact support and $\left\vert \left\vert \theta\theta^*\right\vert \right\vert_{op}
$ converges a.s. as $N\to\infty$. Therefore, under these mild conditions, the same analysis yields to the approximation $A=\gamma\theta$ for any model $\theta$.
Operator-valued free probability modelling
------------------------------------------
In terms of the asymptotic behavior of the spectrum and invoking ideas from random matrix theory and free probability, let $(\mathcal{C},\varphi)$ be a noncommutative probability space where the algebra $\mathcal{C}$ has unit $\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}$ (see Appendix A). We can model the matrix $A=\gamma RXT$ by means of a noncommutative random variable $a$ in $\mathcal{C}$ such that $a=rxt$ where $r$ and $t$ are in $\mathcal{C}$ such that $r^{2}$ and $t^{2}$ are the limits in distribution of $R^{2}$ and $T^{2}$ respectively, and $x$ is a circular operator with a given variance. Since the matrices $R^{2}$ and $T^{2}$ depend on separate sides of the communication link, and in some contexts, such as mobile communications, the transmitter and receiver are not in any particular orientation with respect to each other, we can assume that the eigenmodes of this matrices are in standard position. In particular, this means that the distributional properties of $R$ and $T$ are invariant under random rotations, i.e., $(R,T)\overset{\mathrm{d}}{=}(R,UTU^{\ast})$ where $U$ is a Haar distributed random matrix independent from $R$ and $T$. The latter implies that $r$ and $t$ are free [@Coulliet2011], and by Voiculescu’s theorem [@Hiai2000] they both are free from $x$.
If we use the noncommutative random variable representation, as we did with $A$, for every block $H_{N}^{(i,j)}$ with $i\in\{1,\ldots,n_{R}\}$ and $j\in\{1,\ldots,n_{T}\}$, then $$\left(H_{N}^{(i,j)}:i=1,\ldots,n_{R};j=1,\ldots,n_{T}\right) \overset{\textnormal{dist}}{\longrightarrow} \left(
r_{i,j}x_{i,j}t_{i,j}:i=1,\ldots,n_{R};j=1,\ldots,n_{T}\right) ,$$ where $r_{i,j}$, $t_{i,j}$ and $x_{i,j}$ are the corresponding correlation and circular random variables for the block $H_{N}^{(i,j)}$. By the same argument as before, we assume that the families $\{r_{i,j}:i,j\}$ and $\{t_{i,j}:i,j\}$ are free. In this way, for any $m\in\mathbb{N}$ $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}\left( \text{tr}_{n_{R}N}\left(
(H_{N}H_{N}^{\ast})^{m}\right) \right) =(\text{tr}_{n_{R}}\circ E)\left( (\mathbf{HH}^{\ast})^{m}\right)$$ where $$\mathbf{H}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
r_{1,1}x_{1,1}t_{1,1} & \cdots & r_{1,n_{T}}x_{1,n_{T}}t_{1,n_{T}} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
r_{n_{R},1}x_{n_{R},1}t_{n_{R},1} & \cdots &
r_{n_{R},n_{T}}x_{n_{R},n_{T}}t_{n_{R},n_{T}}\end{matrix}
\right) .$$
Let $\mathrm{I}_{n_{R}}\otimes\text{tr}_{N}:\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}N}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) \rightarrow\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ be the linear map determined by $$(\mathrm{I}_{n_{R}}\otimes\text{tr}_{N})(E_{i,j}\otimes A)=\text{tr}_{N}\left( A\right) E_{i,j}$$ where $E_{i,j}$ is the $i,j$-unit matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $ and $A$ is any $N\times N$ matrix. It is clear that $\text{tr}_{n_{R}N}=\text{tr}_{n_{R}}\circ(\mathrm{I}_{n_{R}}\otimes \text{tr}_{N})$. For every $N\in\mathbb{N}$, $H_{N}H_{N}^{*}$ belongs to the $\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued probability space[^6] $(\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}N}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) ,\mathbb{E}\circ(\mathrm{I}_{n_{R}}\otimes
\text{tr}_{N}))$ and $\mathbf{HH}^{*}$ to the $\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $-valued probability space $(\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}}\left(
\mathcal{C}\right) ,E) $ where $E:=\mathrm{I}_{n_{R}}\otimes\varphi$.
Moreover, we will restrict ourselves to working with asymptotic eigenvalue distributions with compact support, which allows us to work within the framework of a $C^{\ast}$-probability space. In this context, convergence in distribution implies weak convergence of the corresponding analytic distributions [@Nica2006], see also Appendix A.
In the derivation of this model, we can observe that all the $r_{k,1},\ldots,r_{k,n_{T}}$ depend on the new antennas around the original $k
$th receiving antenna, and thus it is reasonable to take all them equal to some random variable $r_{k}$. Proceeding with this reasoning at the transmitter side, we conclude that $$\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{RXT} \label{Hmodel}$$ where $\mathbf{R}=\textnormal{diag}\left( r_{1},\ldots,r_{n_{R}}\right) $ and $\mathbf{T}=\textnormal{diag}\left( t_{1},\ldots,t_{n_{T}}\right) $ are the operators associated to the correlation structure of the antennas at each side, and $\mathbf{X}=(x_{i,j})_{i,j}$. Thus, we can think of this model as the operator-valued version of the Kronecker correlation model for multiantenna systems.
Moreover, let $\Sigma^{2}$ be the correlation matrix[^7] of ${\textrm{Vec}\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}$, i.e., $E\left( {\textrm{Vec}\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}{\textrm{Vec}\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}^{\ast}\right) =\Sigma^{2}$. In terms of the model, $\Sigma^{2}$ must reflect the correlation structure of the channel matrix $H$ and the parameter $\gamma$ of the system. A reasonable way to do this is by setting $\Sigma^{2}=\gamma^{2}\mathbb{E}\left( {\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}{\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}^{\ast}\right) $. In the regime $\gamma\rightarrow0$, the latter implies that the mutual information decreases proportionally to $\gamma^{2} $. Since we can incorporate the constant $\gamma$ into the correlation operator-valued matrices $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{T}$, for notational simplicity we will set $\gamma=1$ in our discussion, thus we will take $\Sigma^{2}=\mathbb{E}\left( {\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}{\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}^{\ast}\right) $. Nonetheless, remember that the model derivation was made in the regime $\gamma\rightarrow0$.
Observe that each $r_{k}$ depends on the new antennas around the original $k$th receiving antenna. Thus the distribution of $r_{k}$ will depend strongly on the specific geometric distribution of the new antennas. For example, if all the new antennas are located in exactly the same place[^8] as the original antenna, we would obtain that the distribution of $r_{k}$ must be zero. In the case where the antennas are collinear and equally spaced, we can use some class of Toeplitz operators as shown in [@Mestre2003]. A similar argument can be used for the transmission operators.
Observe that in this way we have incorporated the finite dimensional statistics in our operator-valued equivalent. Moreover, the correlation matrix $\Sigma^{2}$ does not need to be separable, i.e., with a Kronecker structure. This shows that the operator-valued Kronecker model is slightly more flexible than the classical version: it allows an arbitrary correlation resulting from the channel, and it also allows different correlations for different regions of the transmitter and receiver antenna arrays, which in our notation is encoded in the matrices $\mathbf{T}$ and $\mathbf{R}$.
Asymptotic Isotropic Mutual Information Analysis {#Section:AsymptoticCapacity}
================================================
In this section we derive a method to calculate the asymptotic isotropic mutual information (\[AsymptoticCapacity\]) of our model using the tools of operator-valued free probability. For simplicity of exposition, in what follows we will take $n_{R}=n_{T}=n$. Note that if, for example, $n_{R}<n_{T}
$, then we can proceed by just taking $n=n_{T}$ and by taking $r_{k}$ equal to $0$ for $k>n_{R}$. Let $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ as in (\[Hmodel\]). The goal is to find the distribution $F$ of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$ in (\[AsymptoticCapacity\]) by means of the $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}
$ (see Appendix A).
Using the symmetrization technique [@Speicher2012], we define $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ as $$\widehat{\mathbf{H}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & \mathbf{H} \\
\mathbf{H}^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ Notice that the distribution of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}^{2}$ is the same as the distribution of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$, and that $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ is selfadjoint. Since all the odd moments of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ are 0, the distribution of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ is symmetric.
We can then obtain the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform (\[CTOper\]) of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}^{2}$ from the corresponding transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ using the formula [Nica2006]{} $$G_{\widehat{\mathbf{H}}}(\zeta\mathrm{I}_{2n})=\zeta G_{\widehat{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}(\zeta^{2}\mathrm{I}_{2n}),$$ where $\zeta\in\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathrm{I}_{2n}$ is the identity matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. Since $$\widehat{\mathbf{H}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{R} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbf{T}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & \mathbf{X} \\
\mathbf{X}^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{R} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbf{T}\end{matrix}
\right) ,$$ the spectrum of $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ is the same as the spectrum of $$\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{R}^{2} & 0 \\
0 & \mathbf{T}^{2}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & \mathbf{X} \\
\mathbf{X}^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) =\mathbf{Q}\widehat{\mathbf{X}}\text{, say}. \label{QC}$$ The $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$ is well known (see [@Far2008]). Thus, we just need to find the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{Q}$ in order to be able to apply the operator-valued subordination theory [@Belinschi2013a; @Belinschi2013b]; see (\[CTOperProd\]) in Theorem \[Thm:Subbordination\] of the Appendix A.
a\) The above mentioned operator valued subordination theory allows us to compute, via iterative algorithms over matrices, the distribution of sums and products of operator valued random variables free over some algebra (Theorem \[Thm:Subbordination\] in Appendix A). For a rigorous exposition of the concept of freeness over an algebra, we refer the reader to [Far2008,Speicher2012]{} and the references therein. Observe that this relation is similar to the usual freeness in free probability.
b\) The Cauchy transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$ is not given explicitly, instead, it is given as a solution of a fixed point equation [@Far2008]. In general, the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform $G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}}:\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \rightarrow\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ has to be computed for any matrix $B\in\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. However, in some cases it is enough to compute it for diagonal matrices, which simplifies the practical implementation (see Section 4).
If the correlation matrices associated to the correlation operators $\{r_{k}\}$ are either constant or exhibit a distribution invariant under random rotations, as we supposed for $r$ and $t$ in the previous section, then these correlation operators will be free among themselves. In some applications, these correlation operators come from constant matrices since they model the antenna array architecture which in principle is fixed. Suppose that this is the case, and that also the $\{t_{k}\}$ are free among themselves. In some cases this hypothesis will be unnecessary (see Section \[Section:DiagonalCase\]). Observe that $$\mathbf{Q}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}r_{k}^{2}E_{k,k}+\sum_{k=1}^{n}t_{k}^{2}E_{n+k,n+k}.$$ By the assumed freeness relations between the random variables $\{r_{k},t_{k}\}_{k}$, we have that the coefficients of the operator-valued matrices in the previous sums are free, and thus the operator-valued matrices $\{r_{k}^{2}E_{k,k}:1\leq k\leq n\}\cup\{t_{k}^{2}E_{n+k,n+k}:1\leq
k\leq n\}$ are free over $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. So we just have to compute the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of each operator-valued matrix in the above sum, and then apply the results from the free additive subordination theory (([CTOperSum]{}) of Theorem \[Thm:Subbordination\] in Appendix A).
\[Thm:CauchyTrk2\] Let $r$ be a noncommutative random variable, $n\geq1$ a fixed integer and $k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. For $B\in\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{rE_{k,k}}(B)=B^{-1}+[B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{-2}\left(
G_{r}([B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{-1})-[B^{-1}]_{k,k}\right) B^{-1}E_{k,k}B^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix C.
With the previous theorem, we can compute the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transforms of $\{r_{k}^{2}E_{k,k},$ $t_{k}^{2}E_{n+k,n+k}\}$. With these transforms, we have all the elements to compute the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of $\ \widehat{\mathbf{H}}$, and in consequence the scalar Cauchy transform of the spectrum $F$ of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$ is obtained from ([CTOpSca]{}): $$G_{F}(\zeta)=\text{tr}_{n_{R}}(G_{\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}}(\zeta\mathrm{I}_{2n}))\mathbf{,\quad}\zeta\in\mathbb{C}\mathbf{.}$$ Using the Stieltjes inversion formula, one then obtains $F$ and this gives the asymptotic isotropic mutual information (\[AsymptoticCapacity\]).
Channels with Symmetric-Like Behavior {#Section:DiagonalCase}
=====================================
From Section \[Section:Model\], we have that $$\mathbf{X}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{1,1} & \cdots & x_{1,n} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
x_{n,1} & \cdots & x_{n,n}\end{matrix}
\right)$$ is an operator-valued matrix composed of circular random variables with correlation $$\Sigma^{2}=\mathbb{E}\left( {\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}{\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}^{\ast}\right) .$$ Observe that in this case, $${\textrm{Vec}\left(\mathbf{X}\right)}=\Sigma\left(
\begin{matrix}
c_{1,1} \\
c_{2,1} \\
\vdots \\
c_{n,n}\end{matrix}
\right)$$ where the $c_{k,l}$ ($1\leq k,l\leq n$) are free circular random variables. Thus there exist complex matrices $M_{k,l}$ for $1\leq k,l\leq n$ such that $$\mathbf{X}=\sum_{k,l=1}^{n}c_{k,l}M_{k,l}, \label{Eq:SumFreeOverM}$$ i.e., $\mathbf{X}$ can be written as the sum of free circular random variables multiplied by some complex matrices. In this way, the summands in (\[Eq:SumFreeOverM\]) are free over $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. Observe that the previous procedure is exactly the same as writing a matrix of complex Gaussian random variables as a sum of independent complex Gaussian random variables multiplied by some complex matrices.
For $1\leq k,l\leq n$, define $$\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l} = \left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{0} & c_{k,l} M_{k.l} \\
c_{k,l}^{*}M_{k,l}^{*} & \mathbf{0}\end{matrix}
\right) ,$$ so $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}=\sum_{k,l=1}^{n} \widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}$. Recall that the operator-valued matrices $\{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}\}$ are free over $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. As an alternative to the technique given in [@Far2008] to compute the operator-valued Cauchy transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$, we can use the subordination theory by computing the individual operator-valued Cauchy transforms $G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}}$ for all $1\leq k,l\leq n$ and then using equation (\[CTOperSum\]). This technique is particularly neat in the following setup.
Suppose that for all $1\leq k,l\leq n$ the operator-valued Cauchy transforms $G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}}$ send diagonal matrices to diagonal matrices. From this assumption and Equations (\[CTOperSum\]) and ([CTOperProd]{}), it follows that this property is also shared by $G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}}$. Moreover, the following theorem shows that this is also true for the operator-valued Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{Q}$.
\[Thm:CauchyTQ\] Let $D=\textnormal{diag}\left(
d_{1},\ldots,d_{2n}\right) $ be a diagonal matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. Then $$\label{Eq:CauchyTQ}
G_{\mathbf{Q}}(D) = \textnormal{diag}\left(
G_{r_{1}}(d_{1}),\ldots,G_{t_{n}}(d_{2n})\right) .$$
See Appendix C.
Since this diagonal invariance property is also satisfied by $\mathbf{Q}$, again from Equations (\[CTOperSum\]) and (\[CTOperProd\]), we conclude that $\widehat{\mathbf{H}}$ satisfies this property. Therefore, all the computations involved in this case are within the framework of diagonal matrices.
Also, in this diagonal case, any assumption of freeness between the noncommutative random variables in $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ is unnecessary since they do not interact when evaluating the Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{Q}$ in diagonal matrices. Intuitively, the structure of $\mathbf{X}$ behaves well enough to destroy the effect that any possible dependency between the correlation operators may have in the spectrum of $\mathbf{H}$.
It is easy to prove that the condition that $G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}}$ sends diagonal matrices to diagonal matrices is equivalent to requiring that $$\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & M_{k,l} \\
M_{k,l}^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) J\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & M_{k,l} \\
M_{k,l}^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right)$$ is diagonal for any diagonal matrix $J\in\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $. This last condition can be shown to be equivalent to requiring that for all $1\leq k,l\leq n$, we have that $M_{k,l}=D_{k,l}P_{k,l}$ where $D_{,lk}$ is a diagonal matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right)
$ and $P_{k,l} $ is a permutation matrix.
If in a concrete application the correlation matrix $\mathbb{E}\left( {\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}{\textrm{Vec}\left(H\right)}^{\ast}\right) $ can be suitably decomposed, or approximated, in such a way that this latter condition holds, then the method of this example can be applied.
\[Thm:CauchyTXkl\] Let $n\geq1$. Suppose that $x$ is a circular random variable, $D$ a diagonal matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $, and $P$ a permutation matrix of the same size. Let $M:=DP$ and $\widehat{Mx}:=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & Mx \\
M^{\ast}x^{\ast} & 0\end{smallmatrix}
\right) $. Then, for $J=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
J_{1} & 0 \\
0 & J_{2}\end{smallmatrix}
\right) $ with $J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$ diagonal matrices in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\widehat{Mx}}(J) & =\mathrm{diag}([J_{2}]_{\pi(1)}|D_{1}|^{-2}G_{xx^{\ast
}}([J_{1}]_{1}[J_{2}]_{\pi(1)}|D_{1}|^{-2}),\ldots \notag
\label{Eq:CauchyTXkl} \\
&
\quad\quad\ldots,[J_{1}]_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|D_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|^{-2}G_{x^{\ast}x}([J_{1}]_{\pi^{-1}(n)}[J_{2}]_{n}|D_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|^{-2})).\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix C.
It is important to remark that $xx^{\ast}$ and $x^{\ast}x$ have a Marchenko–Pastur distribution, of which the scalar Cauchy transform is given by $$G_{xx^{\ast}}(\zeta)=\frac{\zeta-\sqrt{(\zeta-2)^{2}-4}}{2\zeta},\mathbf{\quad}\zeta\in\mathbb{C}. \label{Eq:CauchyTMP}$$
Taking $x=x_{k,l}$ and $M=M_{k,l}=D_{k,l}P_{k,l}$, we obtain the $\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{k,l}$ explicitly. Given the scalar Cauchy transforms of the variables $\{r_{k},t_{k}\}$, the corresponding operator-valued transform of $\mathbf{Q}$ is also explicit, as given in Equation ([Eq:CauchyTQ]{}). Nonetheless, the operator-valued Cauchy transform of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$ and $\mathbf{Q}\widehat{\mathbf{X}}$ are not given explicitly, and need to be computed by means of Equations (\[CTOperSum\]) and (\[CTOperProd\]), respectively.
Example
-------
Suppose that we have an operator-valued equivalent given by $$\mathbf{H}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
r_{1} & 0 \\
0 & r_{2}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{1} & x_{2} \\
x_{2} & x_{1}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
t_{1} & 0 \\
0 & t_{2}\end{matrix}
\right)$$ which corresponds to a channel with symmetric behavior. Let $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{2}$ be defined as follows $$\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}=x_{1}\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & x_{1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & x_{1} \\
x_{1}^{*} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & x_{1}^{*} & 0 & 0\end{matrix}
\right) ;\ \ \ \widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{2}=x_{2}\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & x_{2} \\
0 & 0 & x_{2} & 0 \\
0 & x_{2}^{*} & 0 & 0 \\
x_{2}^{*} & 0 & 0 & 0\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ In the notation of (\[QC\]), $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}=\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}+\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{2}$. Moreover, using the same notation as above, $M_{1}=P_{1}=D_{1}=\mathrm{I}_{2}$, $M_{2}=P_{2}=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}
\right) $ and $D_{2}=\mathrm{I}_{2}$. By Equation (\[Eq:CauchyTXkl\]), the $\textnormal{M}_{4}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transforms of $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}$ are given, for $D=\textnormal{diag}\left( d_{1},d_{2},d_{3},d_{4}\right) $, by[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{1}}(D) & =\textnormal{diag}\left(
d_{3}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{1}d_{3}),d_{4}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{2}d_{4}),d_{1}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{1}d_{3}),d_{2}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{2}d_{4})\right)
\\
G_{\widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{2}}(D) & =\textnormal{diag}\left(
d_{4}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{1}d_{4}),d_{3}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{2}d_{3}),d_{2}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{3}d_{2}),d_{1}G_{xx^{*}}(d_{4}d_{1})\right)\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Figure \[fig:Histogram\] shows the asymptotic spectrum of $\mathbf{HH}^{\ast}$ against the corresponding matrix of size $1000\times1000$ when the correlations $\{r_{k}^{2},t_{k}^{2}\}$ are assumed to obey the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. The figure shows good agreement.
![Histograms of the eigenvalues against the computed density.[]{data-label="fig:Histogram"}](Histogram.png){width="50.00000%"}
Other symmetric-like channels can also be solved using the above approach, for example $$\mathbf{X}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} \\
x_{3} & x_{1} & x_{2} \\
x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{1}\end{matrix}
\right) ,\quad\quad\quad\mathbf{X}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{1} & x_{4} & x_{5} \\
x_{4} & x_{2} & x_{6} \\
x_{5} & x_{6} & x_{3}\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ Observe that neither the matrix computed in this example nor the above matrices have a separable correlation matrix.
Comparison With Other Models {#Section:NumericalComparison}
============================
In order to compare the operator-valued Kronecker model with some of the classical models, in this section we compute the isotropic mutual information of a $2\times2$ multiantenna system with Kronecker correlation given by $$K:=\frac{1}{8}\left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 3\end{matrix}
\right) \otimes\left(
\begin{matrix}
3 & 0 \\
0 & 5\end{matrix}
\right) ,$$ the asymptotic isotropic mutual information predicted by the usual Kronecker correlation model, and the corresponding quantity based on the operator-valued model. For such a channel, one possibility for implementing the classical Kronecker correlation model is to take three noncommutative random variables $r$, $x$ and $t$ such that $x$ is circular and the distributions of $r^{2}$ and $t^{2} $ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{r^{2}} & =\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\frac{3}{2}}, \\
\mu_{t^{2}} & =\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\frac{3}{4}}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{\frac{5}{4}}.\end{aligned}$$ From this it is clear that we may compute the asymptotic isotropic mutual information of the classical Kronecker model within the framework of the operator-valued Kronecker model. In particular, the classical Kronecker correlation model corresponds to the $n=1$ operator-valued Kronecker model. This shows that the operator-valued Kronecker model is a generalization of the usual Kronecker model also from this operational point of view.
The operator-valued Kronecker model uses $\Sigma^{2}=K$, but we have to use a model for the correlation produced by the asymptotic antenna patterns. Here we use two types of antenna pattern correlations. In one case we assume that the distribution of the correlation operators $\{r_{k},t_{k}\}$ take 1 with probability one, i.e., there is no correlation due to the antenna patterns; in the second case we assume that their distribution is given by $$\mu=\frac{18}{38}\delta_{1}+\frac{12}{38}\delta_{\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{8}{38}\delta_{\frac{1}{4}}.$$ This distribution is motivated by an exponential decay law. In both cases we set $\gamma=1$.
Figure \[fig:SNR\] shows the mutual information of each model. The mutual information of the $2\times2$ system was computed using a Monte Carlo simulation. From this figure, we observe that the highest mutual information is produced by the $2\times2 $ system. This is caused by the tail of the eigenvalue distribution of the $2\times2$ random matrix involved. It is also important to notice that the operator-valued model predicts more mutual information than the usual Kronecker model when we assume no antenna pattern correlations. However, in the presence of antenna pattern correlations, the mutual information predicted by the operator-valued Kronecker model goes below the one predicted by the classical Kronecker model. In particular, this shows that the impact of the antenna design may be more significant than the impact of the propagation environment itself.
![Isotropic mutual information predicted by the different models with respect to $P$.[]{data-label="fig:SNR"}](SNR.png){width="60.00000%"}
Observe that in this example the correlation satisfies the hypothesis of the previous section. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\scriptstyle \left(
\begin{matrix}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{1} & x_{2} \\
x_{3} & x_{4}\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{\frac{5}{4}}\end{matrix}
\right) = \left(
\begin{matrix}
\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}x_1 & 0 \\
0 & 0\end{matrix}
\right) + \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & \sqrt{\frac{5}{8}}x_2 \\
0 & 0\end{matrix}
\right)+ \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 \\
\sqrt{\frac{9}{8}}x_3 & 0\end{matrix}
\right) + \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt{\frac{15}{8}}x_4\end{matrix}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the operator-valued Kronecker model may be used for some specific separable correlation channels.
Prerequisites
=============
Notation
--------
$\mathbb{N}$: the set of natural numbers;
$\textnormal{M}_{n\times m}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $: the set of all $n\times m$ matrices with entries from the algebra $\mathcal{C}$;
$A_{i,j}$ or $[A]_{i,j}$: the $i,j$th entry of the matrix $A$;
$A^{\top}$ the transpose of the matrix $A$, and $A^{\ast}$, its conjugate transpose;
$E_{i,j}$: the $i,j$-unit matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n\times m}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $;
$\mathrm{I}_{n}$: the identity matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) $;
$\mathbb{E}$: $\ $expected valued with respect to a classical probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$;
Operator-Valued Free Probability Background
-------------------------------------------
In what follows, $\mathcal{C}$ will denote a noncommutative unital $C^{\ast}
$-algebra with unit $\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}$, and $\varphi:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ is a unit-preserving positive linear functional, i.e., $\varphi\left( \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}\right) =1$ and $\varphi\left(
aa^{\ast}\right) \geq0$ for any $a\in\mathcal{C}$. The pair $(\mathcal{C},\varphi)$ is called a noncommutative probability space and the elements of $\mathcal{C}$ are called noncommutative random variables. Unless otherwise stated, we use Greek letters to denote scalar numbers, lower case letters for noncommutative random variables in $\mathcal{C}$, upper case letters for matrices or random matrices in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $, and upper case bold letters for matrices in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left(
\mathcal{C}\right) $. The latter are called operator-valued matrices and $(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) ,\text{tr}_{n}\otimes\varphi)$ is a noncommutative probability space [@Speicher2012].
Given a selfadjoint element $a\in\mathcal{C}$, its algebraic distribution is the collection of its moments, i.e., $(\varphi\left( a^{k}\right) )_{k\geq 1}
$. Let $(\mathcal{A},\varphi)$ and $(\mathcal{A}_{n},\varphi_{n})$ for $n\geq1$ be noncommutative probability spaces. If $a\in\mathcal{A}$ and $a_{n}\in\mathcal{A}_{n}$ for $n\geq1$ are selfadjoint elements, we say that $(a_{n})_{n\geq1}$ converges in distribution to $a$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ if the corresponding moments converge, i.e., $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\varphi_{n}(a_{n}^{m})=\varphi\left( a^{m}\right)$$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. If there is a probability measure $\mu$ in $\mathbb{C}$ with compact support such that for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$ $$\varphi\left( a^{m}\right) =\int_{\mathbb{C}}\zeta^{m}\,\mu(\mathrm{d}\zeta),$$ we call $\mu$ the analytical distribution of $a$. A family $a_{1},\ldots
,a_{n}\in\mathcal{A}$ of noncommutative random variables is said to be *free* if $$\varphi\left( \lbrack p_{1}(a_{i_{1}})-\varphi\left( p_{1}(a_{i_{1}})\right)
]\cdots\lbrack p_{k}(a_{i_{k}})-\varphi\left( p_{k}(a_{i_{k}})\right)
]\right) =0$$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, polynomials $p_{1},\ldots,p_{k}$ and $i_{1},\ldots,i_{k}\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $i_{l}\neq i_{l+1}$ for $1\leq l\leq k-1$. Let $A_{n}$ and $B_{n}$ be random matrices in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ for every $n\geq1$. If there exists $a,b\in\mathcal{C}$ such that $a$ and $b$ are free and $(A_{n},B_{n})$ converge in distribution to $(a,b)$, i.e., $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\text{tr}\left(
A_{n}^{l_{1}}B_{n}^{m_{1}}\cdots A_{n}^{l_{k}}B_{n}^{m_{k}}\right)
=\varphi\left( a^{l_{1}}b^{m_{1}}\cdots a^{l_{k}}b^{m_{k}}\right)$$ for all $k,l_{1},\ldots,l_{k},m_{1},\ldots,m_{k}\in\mathbb{N}$, we say that $A_{n}$ and $B_{n}$ are asymptotically free.
Given a probability measure $\mu$ in $\mathbb{R}$, its (scalar) Cauchy transform $G_{\mu}:\mathbb{C}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}^{-}$ is defined as $$G_{\mu}(\zeta):=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\mu(\text{d}\xi)}{\zeta-\xi}.$$ The Stieltjes inversion formula states that if $\mu$ has density $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ then $$f(\xi)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\lim_{\begin{smallmatrix}
\zeta\in\mathbb{R} \\
\zeta\rightarrow0+\end{smallmatrix}
}\Im(G_{\mu}(\xi+i\zeta))$$ for all $\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, where $\Im$ denotes the imaginary part and $\Re$ the real part.
Let $\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )\subset
\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ denote the set of matrices $B$ such that $\Im(B):=\dfrac{B-B^{\ast}}{2i}$ is positive definite, and define $\mathcal{H}^{-}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) ):=-\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$. For an operator-valued matrix $\mathbf{X}\in\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $ we define its $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transform $G_{\mathbf{X}}:\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right)
)\rightarrow\mathcal{H}^{-}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$ by $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mathbf{X}}(B) & =E\left( (B-\mathbf{X})^{-1}\right) \label{CTOper} \\
& =\sum_{n\geq0}B^{-1}E\left( (\mathbf{X}B^{-1})^{n}\right) , \notag\end{aligned}$$ where the last power series converges in a neighborhood of infinity. The scalar Cauchy transform of $\mathbf{X}$ is given by $$G(\zeta)=\text{tr}_{n} (G_{\mathbf{X}}(\zeta\mathrm{I}_{n}))\mathbf{,\quad }\zeta\in\mathbb{C}\mathbf{.} \label{CTOpSca}$$
The freeness relation over $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ is defined similarly to the usual freeness, but taking $E$ instead of $\varphi$ and non-commutative polynomials over $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ instead of complex polynomials. The main tools that we use from the subordination theory are the following formulas to compute the $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $-valued Cauchy transforms of sums and products of free elements in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $; see [@Belinschi2013a; @Belinschi2013b].
If $\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{X}^{\ast}$ is an operator-valued matrix in $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $, we define the $r_{\mathbf{X}}$ and $h_{\mathbf{X}}$ transforms, for $B\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$, by $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\mathbf{X}}(B) & =G_{\mathbf{X}}(B)^{-1}-B, \\
h_{\mathbf{X}}(B) & =B^{-1}-G_{\mathbf{X}}(B^{-1})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
\[Thm:Subbordination\] Let $\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}\in\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $ be selfadjoint elements free over $\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) $.
i\) For all $B\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )
$, we have that $$G_{\mathbf{X}+\mathbf{Y}}{B}=G_{\mathbf{X}}(\omega_{1}(B)),
\label{CTOperSum}$$ where $\omega_{1}(B)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_{B}^{n}(W)$ for any $W\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathcal{C}\right) )$ and $$f_{b}(W)=r_{\mathbf{Y}}(r_{\mathbf{X}}(W)+B)+B.$$
ii\) In addition, if $\mathbf{X}$ is positive definite, $E\left( \mathbf{X}\right) $ and $E\left( \mathbf{Y}\right) $ invertible, and we define for all $B\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$ with $\Im(B\mathbf{X})>0$ the function $g_{B}(W)=Bh_{\mathbf{X}}(h_{\mathbf{Y}}(W)B)$ for all $W\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$, then there exists a function $\omega_{2}$ such that $$\omega_{2}(B)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}g_{B}^{n}(W)$$ for all $W\in\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$, and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mathbf{XY}}(z\mathrm{I}_{n}) & =(z\mathrm{I}_{n}-h_{\mathbf{XY}}(z^{-1}\mathrm{I}_{n}))^{-1}, \label{CTOperProd} \\
zh_{\mathbf{XY}}(z\mathrm{I}_{n}) & =\omega_{2}(z\mathrm{I}_{n})h_{\mathbf{Y}}(\omega_{2}(z\mathrm{I}_{n}))). \notag\end{aligned}$$
The functions above are defined in $\mathcal{H}^{+}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left(
\mathbb{C}\right) )$. Whenever we evaluate any of these functions in $B\in\mathcal{H}^{-}(\textnormal{M}_{n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) )$ we have to do so by means of the relation $f(B)=f(B^{\ast})^{\ast}$.
Proof of Theorem \[Thm:ExtremalCases\] and Further Analysis
===========================================================
Case $\protect\gamma\to\infty$
------------------------------
It is a well known result [@Tao2012] that the eigenvalues are continuous functions of the entries of a selfadjoint matrix. If the entries of a matrix $M$ lie in the unit circle, then its Frobenius norm is bounded and so its operator norm. In particular, $g(M):=(\lambda_1(MM^*),\ldots,\lambda_N(MM^*))
$ is a bounded and continuous function of the entries of $M$. Therefore, if we prove that the entries of $A$ converge in distribution to the entries of $U$, i.e. $(A_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^N \overset{\textnormal{d}}{\to}
(U_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^N$, then $g(A)\overset{\textnormal{d}}{\to} g(U)$ as required.
The entries of $A$ and $U$ lie in the unit circle, so we are dealing with compact support distributions. Thus, it is enough to show the convergence of the joint moments of the entries of $A$ to those of $U$ to ensure the multivariate convergence in distribution, and so the claimed convergence in the first part of Theorem \[Thm:ExtremalCases\].
Let $N\in\mathbb{N}$ be fixed, for $(n_{k,l})_{k,l=1}^N\subset\mathbb{Z}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{k,l=1}^N A_{k,l}^{n_{k,l}}\right) &= \mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{k,l=1}^N \exp\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma
n_{k,l}\theta_{k,l}\right)\right) \\
&= \mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{k,l=1}^N \exp\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma
n_{k,l}\sum_{i,j=1}^N R_{k,i}X_{i,j}T_{j,l}\right)\right) \\
&= \mathbb{E}\left(\exp\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^N \mathrm{i} \gamma
\left(\sum_{k,l=1}^N n_{k,l} R_{k,i}T_{j,l}\right) X_{i,j} \right)\right) \\
&= \mathbb{E}\left(\prod_{i,j=1}^N \exp\left( \mathrm{i} \gamma
\left(\sum_{k,l=1}^N n_{k,l} R_{k,i}T_{j,l}\right) X_{i,j} \right)\right) \\
&= \prod_{i,j=1}^N \exp\left(-\frac{\gamma^2}{2} \left(\sum_{k,l=1}^N
n_{k,l} R_{k,i}T_{j,l}\right)^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $R$ and $T$ are full rank, a linear algebra argument shows that the previous exponents are all zero if and only if $(n_{k,l})_{k,l=1}^N$ are all zero. Therefore, the joint moments of the entries of $A$ vanish as $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$ except when $n_{k,l}=0$ for all $k$ and $l$. It is easy to show that these limiting moments are indeed the joint moments of the entries of $U$. This conclude the proof of the first part.
Case $\protect\gamma\to0$
-------------------------
The following lemma and two theorems are from Appendix A in [@Bai2010]
\[Lem:NormHadamardProd\] Let $A_1,\ldots,A_l\in\textnormal{M}_{m\times
n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$. Then $$\left|\left|A_1\circ A_2\circ\cdots\circ
A_l\right|\right|_{}\leq\left|\left|A_1\right|\right|_{}\left|\left|A_2\right|\right|_{}\cdots\left|\left|A_l\right|\right|_{},$$ where $A\circ B$ denotes the pointwise or Hadamard product of $A$ and $B$.
\[Thm:PerturbationInq\] Let $A,B\in\textnormal{M}_{m\times n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^p |\sigma_k(A)-\sigma_k(B)|^2 \leq \text{tr}\left((A-B)(A-B)^*\right)$$ where $p=\min(m,n)$ and $\sigma_1(\cdot)\geq\cdots\geq\sigma_p(\cdot)$ are the singular values of $\cdot$.
\[Thm:InqEigDistRank\] Let $A$ and $B$ be two $m\times n$ complex matrices. Then, for any Hermitian complex matrices $X\in\textnormal{M}_{m}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$ and $Y\in\textnormal{M}_{n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$ we have that $$||F^{X+AYA^*}-F^{X+BYB^*}|| \leq \frac{1}{m} \textnormal{rank}\left(A-B\right).$$
In this rest of this subsection, $F^A$ will denote the empirical distribution of the *singular values* $\sigma_1(A)\geq\cdots\geq\sigma_n(A)$ of $A\in\textnormal{M}_{n\times n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$. Since the classical convergence theorems in random matrices hold almost surely, it is enough to deal with the case of non-random matrices.
\[Lem:InqSingularValuesSqrtTrace\] Let $A,B\in\textnormal{M}_{N}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$. Then $$\sum_{k=1}^N |\sigma_k(A)-\sigma_k(B)| \leq \sqrt{N\text{tr}\left((A-B)(A-B)^*\right)}.$$
An straightforward application of Theorem \[Thm:PerturbationInq\] and the generalized means.
We define the entrywise exponential function $\exp_\circ:\textnormal{M}_{m\times n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)\to\textnormal{M}_{m\times n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$ by $$\exp_\circ(A) = (\exp(A_{i,j}))_{i,j}$$ for all $A\in\textnormal{M}_{m\times n}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$.
\[Prop:EntrywiseExpDist\] Let $A\in\textnormal{M}_{N}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$ for $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $1>\gamma>0$. Let $X=\exp_\circ(i\gamma A)$, then $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=2}^N \left|\sigma_k\left(\frac{X}{\gamma}\right)-\sigma_k(A)\right| \leq \gamma \exp(\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{})+\frac{2||A||}{N}.$$
Using the power series for the exponential function we obtain that $$X={\bf 1}_N+i\gamma A+\sum_{n\geq2} \frac{(i\gamma A)^{\circ n}}{n!}$$ where $T^{\circ n}=T\circ T\circ \cdots\circ T$. Define $Z={\bf 1}_N + i\gamma A$ and $Y=X-Z$. By Lemma \[Lem:NormHadamardProd\] and the fact that $\gamma<1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left|\left|Y\right|\right|_{}} &= \gamma^2 {\left|\left|\sum_{n\geq2} \gamma^{n-2} \frac{(iA)^{\circ n}}{n!}\right|\right|_{}}\\
&\leq \gamma^2 \exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}}).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[Lem:InqSingularValuesSqrtTrace\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \sum_{k=1}^N \left|\sigma_k(X)-\sigma_k(Z)\right| &\leq \sqrt{N{\textrm{tr}\left(YY^*\right)}}\\
\nonumber &\leq \sqrt{N^2{\left|\left|Y\right|\right|_{}}^2}\\
\label{Eq:EstimateXZ} &\leq \gamma^2 N\exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}})\end{aligned}$$ and in particular $$\frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=2}^N \left|\sigma_k\left(\frac{X}{\gamma}\right) - \sigma_k\left(\frac{Z}{\gamma}\right)\right| \leq \gamma \exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}}).$$ Applying Theorem \[Thm:InqEigDistRank\] to the matrices $Z$ and $\gamma A$ we obtain[^10] $${\left|\left|F^{ZZ^*}-F^{AA^*}\right|\right|_{}} \leq \frac{1}{N} {\textnormal{rank}\left({\bf 1}_N\right)} = \frac{1}{N},$$ which implies that $$\left| \sum_{k=1}^N {1_{x\leq \sigma_k(Z)^2}} - \sum_{k=1}^N {1_{x\leq\sigma_k(\gamma A)^2}} \right| \leq 1$$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$. This implies that for $2\leq k\leq N-1$ $$\label{Eq:Interleaving}
\sigma_{k+1}(\gamma A)\leq \sigma_k(Z) \leq \sigma_{k-1}(\gamma A),$$ and equivalently $$\sigma_{k+1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_k(\gamma A)\leq \sigma_k(Z)-\sigma_k(\gamma A) \leq \sigma_{k-1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_k(\gamma A).$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|\sigma_k(Z)-\sigma_k(\gamma A)| &\leq \sigma_{k-1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_k(\gamma A)+\sigma_k(\gamma A)-\sigma_{k+1}(\gamma A)\\
&= \sigma_{k-1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_{k+1}(\gamma A),\end{aligned}$$ and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=2}^N |\sigma_k(Z)-\sigma_k(\gamma A)| &\leq \sum_{k=2}^{N-1} \sigma_{k-1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_{k+1}(\gamma A)+|\sigma_N(Z)-\sigma_N(\gamma A)|\\
&\leq \sigma_1(\gamma A) + \sigma_2(\gamma A) - \sigma_{N-1}(\gamma A)-\sigma_N(\gamma A)+\sigma_N(Z)+\sigma_N(\gamma A).\end{aligned}$$ Using the same argument that in equation (\[Eq:Interleaving\]) we have that $\sigma_N(Z)\leq\sigma_{N-1}(\gamma A)$ and thus $$\sum_{k=2}^N |\sigma_k(Z)-\sigma_k(\gamma A)| \leq 2\gamma ||A||$$ and in particular $$\frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=2}^N \left|\sigma_k\left(\frac{Z}{\gamma}\right)-\sigma_k(A)\right| \leq \frac{2||A||}{N}.$$ By the triangle inequality we conclude that $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=2}^N \left|\sigma_k\left(\frac{X}{\gamma}\right)-\sigma_k(A)\right| \leq \gamma \exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}})+\frac{2||A||}{N}$$ as claimed.
Observe that the previous analysis exclude the biggest singular value of $X/\sigma$. In the following proposition we study the behavior of this singular value.
In the notation of the previous proposition, $$\left|\frac{\sigma_1(X/\gamma)}{N/\gamma}-1\right| \leq \gamma (\gamma
\exp(\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{})+\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}).$$
This shows that $\sigma_1(X/\gamma)$ is roughly $N/\gamma$, while the bulk of $X/\gamma$ is essentially the same as $A$.
By inequality (\[Eq:EstimateXZ\]) in the first part of the previous proof $$\left|\sigma_1\left(\frac{X}{\gamma}\right)-\sigma_1\left(\frac{Z}{\gamma}\right)\right| \leq \gamma N \exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}}).$$ Using Lemma \[Lem:InqSingularValuesSqrtTrace\] for $Z/\gamma$ and ${\bf 1}_N/\gamma$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sigma_1\left(\frac{Z}{\gamma}\right) - \sigma_1\left(\frac{{\bf 1}_N}{\gamma}\right)\right| &\leq \sqrt{N{\textrm{tr}\left(AA^*\right)}}\\
&\leq N {\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}}.\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward computation shows that $\sigma_1({\bf 1}_N/\gamma)=N/\gamma$, so by the triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{\sigma_1(X/\gamma)}{N/\gamma}-1\right| \leq \gamma (\gamma \exp({\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}})+{\left|\left|A\right|\right|_{}}),\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Finally, with the previous quantitative results we prove the following qualitative result.
Let $A_N\in\textnormal{M}_{N}\left(\mathbb{C}\right)$ such that $\left|\left|A_N\right|\right|_{}$ converge as $N\to\infty$ and $F^{A_N}
\Rightarrow F^A$. Define $X_N=\exp_\circ(i\gamma_N A_N)$. If $(\gamma_N)_{N\geq1}$ is a sequence of positive real numbers such that $\gamma_N\to0$ as $N\to\infty$, then $F^{X_N/\gamma_N} \Rightarrow F^A$ as $N\to\infty$.
Recall that $F^{X_N/\gamma_N}\Rightarrow F^A$ if and only if $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^{X_N/\gamma_N}(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^A(x)$$ for all $f$ bounded Lipschitz function. Let $f$ be any bounded Lipschitz function, by the previous propositions $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg| \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^{X_N/\gamma_N}(x) &- \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^{A_N}(x) \bigg|\\
&= \left| \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N f\left(\sigma_k\left(\frac{X_N}{\gamma_N}\right)\right) - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N f(\sigma_k(A_N))\right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \left|f\left(\sigma_k\left(\frac{X_N}{\gamma_N}\right)\right)-f(\sigma_k(A_N))\right|\\
&\leq \frac{K}{N} \sum_{k=2}^N \left|\sigma_k\left(\frac{X_N}{\gamma_N}\right)-\sigma_k(A_N)\right| +
\frac{\left|f\left(\sigma_1\left(\frac{X_N}{\gamma_N}\right)\right)\right|+|f(\sigma_1(A_N))|}{N},\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the Lipschitz constant of $f$. Since $f$ is bounded and ${\left|\left|A_N\right|\right|_{}}$ converge as $N\to\infty$, by Proposition \[Prop:EntrywiseExpDist\] the previous expression converges to 0 as $N\to\infty$. Finally, since $F^{A_N} \Rightarrow F^A$ as $N\to\infty$ we have that $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^{A_N}(x) - \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x) {\textrm{d}}F^A(x)\right| = 0$$ and by the triangle inequality the result follows.
The second part of Theorem \[Thm:ExtremalCases\] is an straightforward application of the previous theorem.
Computation of Some Cauchy Transforms
=====================================
*Proof of Theorem \[Thm:CauchyTrk2\].* The identities $E_{k,k}BE_{k,k}=B_{k,k}E_{k,k}$ and $E_{k,k}^{2}=E_{k,k}$ lead to $$\begin{aligned}
G_{r_{k}^{2}E_{k,k}}(B) & =\sum_{n\geq0}B^{-1}E\left(
(r_{k}^{2}E_{k,k}B^{-1})^{n}\right) \\
& =B^{-1}+B^{-1}\sum_{n\geq1}\varphi\left( r_{k}^{2n}\right)
[B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{n-1}E_{k,k}B^{-1} \\
& =B^{-1}+[B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{-2}\left( \sum_{n\geq0}\varphi\left(
r_{k}^{2n}\right) [B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{n+1}-[B^{-1}]_{k,k}\right)
B^{-1}E_{k,k}B^{-1} \\
& =B^{-1}+[B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{-2}\left(
G_{r_{k}^{2}}([B^{-1}]_{k,k}^{-1})-[B^{-1}]_{k,k}\right) B^{-1}E_{k,k}B^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Of course, the previous equations do not hold for every matrix $B\in
\textnormal{M}_{2n}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $, in particular, the power series expansion is valid only in a neighborhood of infinity. However, the previous computation can be carried out at the level of formal power series, and then extended via analytical continuation to a suitable domain.
*Proof of Theorem \[Thm:CauchyTQ\].* A straightforward computation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\mathbf{Q}}(D) & =\sum_{k\geq0}D^{-1} E\left( (\mathbf{Q}D^{-1})^{k}\right) \notag \\
& =\sum_{k\geq0}\textnormal{diag}\left( d_{1}^{-1},\ldots,d_{2n}^{-1}\right)
E\left( \textnormal{diag}\left(
d_{1}^{-k}r_{1}^{k},\ldots,d_{n}^{-k}r_{n}^{k},d_{n+1}^{-k}t_{1}^{k},\cdots,d_{2n}^{-k}t_{n}^{k}\right) \right) \notag \\
& =\sum_{k\geq0}\textnormal{diag}\left( d_{1}^{-(k+1)}\varphi\left(
r_{1}^{k}\right) ,\ldots,d_{2n}^{-(k+1)}\varphi\left( t_{n}^{k}\right)
\right) \notag \\
& =\textnormal{diag}\left( G_{r_{1}}(d_{1}),\ldots,G_{t_{n}}(d_{2n})\right) .
\notag\end{aligned}$$
*Proof of Theorem \[Thm:CauchyTXkl\].* Observe that $$\widehat{Mx}J^{-1}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & DPx \\
(DP)^{\ast}x^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) \left(
\begin{matrix}
J_{1}^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & J_{2}^{-1}\end{matrix}
\right) =\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & DPJ_{2}^{-1}x \\
(DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}x^{\ast} & 0\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ Thus, $$\left( \widehat{Mx}J^{-1}\right) ^{2}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}xx^{\ast} & 0 \\
0 & (DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DPJ_{2}^{-1}x^{\ast}x\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ Since $P^{\top}D^{\prime}P$ and $PD^{\prime}P^{\top}$ are diagonal for any diagonal matrix $D^{\prime}$, and diagonal matrices commute, we have for $n\geq1$ that $$\left( \widehat{Mx}J^{-1}\right) ^{2n}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
J_{1}^{-n}(DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast})^{n}(xx^{\ast})^{n} & 0 \\
0 & ((DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DP)^{n}J_{2}^{-n}(x^{\ast}x)^{n}\end{matrix}
\right) .$$ Recalling that the odd moments of $x$ are zero, the previous equation implies $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\widehat{Mx}}(J) & =\sum_{n\geq0}J^{-1}E\left( \left( \widehat{Mx}J^{-1}\right) ^{n}\right) \\
& =\sum_{n\geq0}J^{-1}E\left( \left( \widehat{Mx}J^{-1}\right) ^{2n}\right)
\\
& =\sum_{n\geq0}\left(
\begin{matrix}
J_{1}^{-(n+1)}(DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast})^{n}\varphi\left(
(xx^{\ast})^{n}\right) & 0 \\
0 & ((DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DP)^{n}J_{2}^{-(n+1)}\varphi\left(
(x^{\ast}x)^{n}\right)\end{matrix}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, let $\pi$ be the permutation associated to $P$, then $[PD^{\prime
}]_{k}=[D^{\prime}]_{\pi(k)}$ for any diagonal matrix $D^{\prime}$ and any $1\leq k\leq n$. Therefore[^11] $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\widehat{Mx}}(J) & =\left(
\begin{matrix}
(DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast})^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & ((DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DP)^{-1}\end{matrix}
\right) \times \notag \\
& \quad\quad\sum_{n\geq0}\left(
\begin{matrix}
J_{1}^{-(n+1)}(DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast})^{n+1}\varphi\left(
(xx^{\ast})^{n}\right) & 0 \\
0 & ((DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DP)^{n+1}J_{2}^{-(n+1)}\varphi\left( (x^{\ast
}x)^{n}\right)\end{matrix}
\right) \notag \\
& =\left(
\begin{matrix}
(DPJ_{2}^{-1}(DP)^{\ast})^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & ((DP)^{\ast}J_{1}^{-1}DP)^{-1}\end{matrix}
\right) \times \notag \\
& \quad\quad\textnormal{diag}\left( G_{xx^{\ast}}([J_{1}]_{1}[J_{2}]_{\pi
(1)}|D_{1}|^{-2}),\ldots,G_{x^{\ast}x}([J_{1}]_{\pi^{-1}(n)}[J_{2}]_{n}|D_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|^{-2})\right) \notag \\
& =\mathrm{diag}([J_{2}]_{\pi(1)}|D_{1}|^{-2}G_{xx^{\ast}}([J_{1}]_{1}[J_{2}]_{\pi(1)}|D_{1}|^{-2}),\ldots \notag \\
&
\quad\quad\ldots,[J_{1}]_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|D_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|^{-2}G_{x^{\ast}x}([J_{1}]_{\pi^{-1}(n)}[J_{2}]_{n}|D_{\pi^{-1}(n)}|^{-2})). \notag\end{aligned}$$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Mario Diaz was supported in part by the Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas A.C., México and the government of Ontario, Canada.
[99]{}
[^1]: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON Canada, *[email protected]*
[^2]: Department of Probability and Statistics, CIMAT, Guanajuato, Mexico, *[email protected]*
[^3]: Observe that this quantity is not the capacity of the system since the input is restricted to be isotropic.
[^4]: For example, in the iid case, we know that the empirical spectral distribution of $H_{N}H_{N}^{\ast}/n_{T}$ converges in distribution almost surely to the Marchenko–Pastur distribution [@Telatar1999]. This is equivalent to saying that $H_{N}H_{N}^{\ast}/n_{T}$ converges in distribution to a noncommutative random variable whose analytical distribution $F$ is the corresponding Marchenko–Pastur distribution, which gives the asymptotic mutual information (1).
[^5]: Latter, we will incorporate the effect of these norms in the covariance of our operator-valued equivalent.
[^6]: Here, $\textnormal{M}_{n_{R}N}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ is in fact an algebra of $n_{R}N\times n_{R}N$ random matrices over the complex numbers. This is the only time we use this abuse of notation.
[^7]: With respect to $E:=\mathbf{1}\otimes\varphi$.
[^8]: Of course this is physically impossible.
[^9]: Here we take the generic notation $xx^{*}$ to denote that $G_{xx^{*}}$ is the scalar Cauchy transform in Equation (\[Eq:CauchyTMP\]).
[^10]: Recall that the singular values of $i\gamma A$ and $\gamma A$ are equal, i.e. $\sigma_k(i\gamma A)=\sigma_k(\gamma A)$ for all $1\leq k\leq n$.
[^11]: For notational simplicity, let $D_{k}^{\prime}$ denote the $k,k$th entry of the diagonal matrix $D^{\prime}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
F. Caporale$^1$, F. G. Celiberto$^{1,2}$, G. Chachamis$^1$,\
D. Gordo G[' o]{}mez$^1$[^1], A. Sabio Vera$^{1}$\
\
[$^1$ Instituto de F[' i]{}sica Te[' o]{}rica UAM/CSIC, Nicol[á]{}s Cabrera 15]{}\
[& Universidad Aut[' o]{}noma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain.]{}\
[$^2$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit[à]{} della Calabria &]{}\
[Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza,]{}\
[I-87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Cosenza, Italy.]{}
title: '**Probing the BFKL dynamics in inclusive three jet production at the LHC**'
---
We propose the study of new observables in LHC inclusive events with three tagged jets, one in the forward direction, one in the backward direction and both well-separated in rapidity from the each other (Mueller-Navelet jets), together with a third jet tagged in central regions of rapidity. Since non-tagged associated mini-jet multiplicity is allowed, we argue that projecting the cross sections on azimuthal-angle components can provide several distinct tests of the BFKL dynamics. Realistic LHC kinematical cuts are introduced.
Introduction {#intro}
============
The Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) resummation program in the leading logarithmic (LL) [@Lipatov:1985uk; @Balitsky:1978ic; @Kuraev:1977fs; @Kuraev:1976ge; @Lipatov:1976zz; @Fadin:1975cb] and next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) approximation [@Fadin:1998py; @Ciafaloni:1998gs] may be applied for phenomenological studies at hadronic colliders when the final-state is characterised by jets that are produced at large relative rapidities. Mueller-Navelet jets [@Mueller:1986ey] is an key example, specifically, for observables that are based on the azimuthal angle formed by the two outermost in rapidity tagged jets, $\phi$. The precise form of the observables is built by considering ratios of projections on the azimuthal angle ${\cal R}^m_n = \langle \cos{(m \, \phi)} \rangle / \langle \cos{(n \, \phi)} \rangle$. Comparison of different NLL predictions against LHC experimental data for these observables has been quite successful [@DelDuca:1993mn; @Stirling:1994he; @Orr:1997im; @Kwiecinski:2001nh; @Angioni:2011wj; @Caporale:2013uva; @Caporale:2013sc; @Marquet:2007xx; @Colferai:2010wu; @Ducloue:2013wmi; @Ducloue:2014koa; @Mueller:2015ael; @N.Cartiglia:2015gve; @Chachamis:2015crx; @Vera:2006un; @Vera:2007kn; @Ducloue:2013bva; @Caporale:2014gpa; @Caporale:2014blm; @Celiberto:2015dgl; @Celiberto:2016ygs].
![3D plot of the partonic ${\cal R}^{12}_{22}$ as a function of the rapidity $\text{y}_J$ and the momentum $k_J$ of the central jet for $k_A = 40$ GeV, $k_B = 50$ GeV and $\Delta Y_{A,B}=10$.[]{data-label="3d"}](figure-icnfp.pdf)
New LHC observables, that may be seen as a generalisation of the Mueller-Navelet jets, were proposed recently for inclusive three-jet [@Caporale:2015vya; @Caporale:2016soq] and four-jet production [@Caporale:2015int; @Caporale:2016xku]. In this work we discuss only the observables for inclusive three-jet production. These are defined by the generalised ratios [@Caporale:2015vya] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}^{M N}_{P Q} =\frac{ \langle \cos{(M \, \phi_1)} \cos{(N \, \phi_2)} \rangle}{\langle \cos{(P \, \phi_1)} \cos{(Q \, \phi_2)} \rangle} \, ,
\label{Rmnpq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_1$ is the azimuthal angle difference between the forward and the central jet and $\phi_2$ the azimuthal angle difference between the central jet and the backward in rapidity jet. The ratios ${\cal R}^{M N}_{P Q}$ in Eq. (\[Rmnpq\]) are actually partonic level quantities and therefore, cannot be readily compared to experimental data. Therefore, we define the hadronic level observables $R^{M N}_{P Q}$ [@Caporale:2016soq] and study their stability once we introduce corrections beyond the LL accuracy. For that, we produce the two outermost in rapidity jets within the collinear factorization scheme, each of them associated with a forward “jet vertex” [@Caporale:2012:IF]. Then we link these vertices and the central jet using two BFKL gluon Green’s functions. At the end, the partonic differential cross-section is convoluted with collinear parton distribution functions and is integrated over the momenta of all produced jets in order to calculate the ratios $R^{M N}_{P Q}$. For the integration over the momenta of the jets we use standard LHC experimental cuts. The rapidity of the central jet takes values close to the middle of the rapidity distance between the two outermost tagged jets.
Hadronic inclusive three-jet production in multi-Regge kinematics {#sec-1}
=================================================================
Let us first remember some of the notation defined in [@Caporale:2015vya; @Caporale:2016soq]. Assuming that the transverse momenta of the outermost jets are $\vec{k}_{A,B}$, their rapidity difference, $Y$, is large and the central jet has transverse momentum $\vec{k}_J$. We allow for mini-jet activity between the three tagged jets so that the process[^2] we need to study is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{process}
{\rm proton }(p_1) + {\rm proton} (p_2) \to
{\rm jet}(k_A) + {\rm jet}(k_J) + {\rm jet}(k_B) + {\rm minijets}\;.\end{aligned}$$
Firstly, we define the two relative azimuthal angles between the outermost jets and the central jet as $\Delta\theta_{\widehat{AJ}} = \theta_A - \theta_J - \pi$ and $\Delta\theta_{\widehat{JB}} = \theta_J - \theta_B - \pi$ respectively. Then the projection on azimuthal-angle components gives the mean value $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Cmn}
{\cal C}_{MN} \, = \,
\langle \cos{\left(M \left( \theta_A - \theta_J - \pi\right)\right)}
\cos{\left(N \left( \theta_J - \theta_B - \pi\right)\right)}
\rangle && \\
&&\hspace{-9cm} = \frac{\int_0^{2 \pi} d \theta_A d \theta_B d \theta_J \cos{\left(M \left( \theta_A - \theta_J - \pi\right)\right)} \cos{\left(N \left( \theta_J - \theta_B - \pi\right)\right)}
d\sigma^{3-{\rm jet}} }{\int_0^{2 \pi} d \theta_A d \theta_B d \theta_J
d\sigma^{3-{\rm jet}} },\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $M,N$ are positive integers) and $d\sigma^{3-{\rm jet}}$ the partonic deferential cross-section for three-jet production defined in [@Caporale:2015vya].
![$Y$-dependence of the LL $R^{22}_{12}$ for $\sqrt s = 7$ TeV. Symmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV (top) and asymmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 50$ GeV (bottom).[]{data-label="res1"}](rs7-R22o12.pdf "fig:") ![$Y$-dependence of the LL $R^{22}_{12}$ for $\sqrt s = 7$ TeV. Symmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV (top) and asymmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 50$ GeV (bottom).[]{data-label="res1"}](ra7-R22o12.pdf "fig:")
In order to compute theoretical estimates that may be compared against current and future experimental data, we integrate ${\cal C}_{M,N}$ over the momenta of the tagged jets in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Cmn_int}
C_{MN} =
\int_{Y_A^{\rm min}}^{Y_A^{\rm max}} \hspace{-0.25cm} dY_A
\int_{Y_B^{\rm min}}^{Y_B^{\rm max}} \hspace{-0.25cm} dY_B
\int_{k_A^{\rm min}}^{k_A^{\rm max}} \hspace{-0.25cm} dk_A
\int_{k_B^{\rm min}}^{k_B^{\rm max}} \hspace{-0.25cm} dk_B
\int_{k_J^{\rm min}}^{k_J^{\rm max}} \hspace{-0.25cm} dk_J
\delta\left(Y_A - Y_B - Y\right) {\cal C}_{MN},\end{aligned}$$ where the rapidity of the forward jet takes values in the range $Y_{A}^{\rm min} = 0$ and $Y_{A}^{\rm max} = 4.7$ and that of the backward jet in the range $Y_{B}^{\rm min} = -4.7$ and $Y_{B}^{\rm max} = 0$ while their difference $Y \equiv Y_A - Y_B$ is kept fixed at definite values in the range $5 < Y < 9$. We calculate $C_{MN}$ for two different center-of-mass energies, $\sqrt s = 7$ and $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV and we introduce two typical kinematical cuts previously used in the study of Mueller-Navelet jets at the LHC. Specifically, we use both a symmetric and an asymmetric cut [@Ducloue:2013wmi; @Celiberto:2015dgl]:
1. $k_A^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV, $k_B^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV, $k_A^{\rm max} = k_B^{\rm max} = 60$ GeV (symmetric);
2. $k_A^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV, $k_B^{\rm min} = 50$ GeV, $k_A^{\rm max} = k_B^{\rm max} = 60$ GeV (asymmetric).
![$Y$-dependence of the LL $R^{22}_{12}$ for $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV. Symmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV (top) and asymmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 50$ GeV (bottom).[]{data-label="res2"}](rs13-R22o12.pdf "fig:") ![$Y$-dependence of the LL $R^{22}_{12}$ for $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV. Symmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 35$ GeV (top) and asymmetric cut $k_B^{\rm min} = 50$ GeV (bottom).[]{data-label="res2"}](ra13-R22o12.pdf "fig:")
We are interested in maximising the stability with respect to higher order effects (beyond LL) in our results (see [@Caporale:2013uva]), therefore, we remove the zeroth conformal spin contribution of the BFKL kernel by considering the ratios $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RPQMN}
R_{PQ}^{MN} \, = \, \frac{C_{MN}}{C_{PQ}}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, M, N, P, \,Q > 0,
\label{RmnqpNew}\end{aligned}$$ which have no $n=0$ dependence. Thus, we can study the ratios $R_{PQ}^{MN}(Y)$ in Eq. (\[RmnqpNew\]) as functions of the rapidity difference $Y$ between the outermost jets for some typical values of $M, N, P, Q$. We define three different $p_T$ ranges (bins) for the allowed momentum of the central jet:\
$\text{bin-1} = [20\, \mathrm{GeV} < k_J < 35\, \mathrm{GeV}]$ ($k_J$ ‘smaller’ that $k_A$, $k_B$),\
$\text{bin-2} = [35 \,\mathrm{GeV} < k_J < 60\, \mathrm{GeV}]$ ($k_J$ ‘similar’ to $k_A$, $k_B$),\
$\text{bin-3} = [60\, \mathrm{GeV} < k_J < 120\, \mathrm{GeV}]$ ($k_J$ ‘larger’ than $k_A$, $k_B$).\
This permits the discrimination of different behaviours of the $R_{PQ}^{MN}(Y)$ by using as a criterion the relative size of the central jet. In Fig. \[3d\] we show the behaviour of ${\cal R}^{12}_{22}$ as we change the size of the central jet and its position in rapidity. We notice that while a small variation in $\text{y}_J$ around the central rapidity value $\Delta Y_{A,B}/2=5$ does not result in significant changes for a fixed $k_J$, a change in the value of $k_J$ may have a big impact for a fixed $\text{y}_J$.
![ $Y$-dependence of the LL (dashed lines) and NLL (BLM) predictions (continuous bands) for $R^{22}_{12}$ in the asymmetric cut at $\sqrt s = 7$ TeV (top) and $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV (bottom). The blue NLL band is very narrow and lies on top of the LL line. []{data-label="res3"}](icnfp-7-22-12.pdf "fig:") ![ $Y$-dependence of the LL (dashed lines) and NLL (BLM) predictions (continuous bands) for $R^{22}_{12}$ in the asymmetric cut at $\sqrt s = 7$ TeV (top) and $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV (bottom). The blue NLL band is very narrow and lies on top of the LL line. []{data-label="res3"}](icnfp-13-22-12.pdf "fig:")
A number of different ratios was presented in [@Caporale:2016soq], here we are focussing on ratios that involve the coefficients $C_{12}$ and $C_{22}$. In Figs. \[res1\] and \[res2\] we see the LL accuracy results for $R^{22}_{12}$. Generally, the dependence of the different observables on the rapidity difference between $k_A$ and $k_B$ is rather smooth whereas the slope of the three curves depends on the particular observable. For $R^{22}_{12}$ we see that shifting from a symmetric to an asymmetric cut makes no noticeable difference. Moreover, there are no important changes when we change the colliding energy from $\sqrt{s} = 7$ TeV to $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The latter is crucial as it suggests that $R^{22}_{12}$ is already within some sort of asymptotic regime for the specific kinematical configurations.
Apart from the stability of the observable with regard to an increase of the colliding energy, another important question is the stability with respect to effects that go beyond the LL approximation [@NLO-3jets]. A first important step towards a full NLL computation is to take into account the NLL contributions to the two gluon Green’s functions that connect the three jets. In Fig. \[res3\] we present exactly these corrections obtained by using the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie (BLM) prescription [@Brodsky:1982gc] for the $R^{22}_{12}$ coefficient in the asymmetric cut. In particular, we have used the MOM scheme and chosen the renormalisation scale such that the $\beta_0$-dependence of the given observable vanishes, following the BLM prescription. The dashed lines represent the LL predictions and the coloured bands represent the NLL BLM predictions. It is impressive that the NLL values are almost on top of the LL ones which gives us great confidence that the observables $R^{MN}_{PQ}$ are indeed excellent BFKL probes at the LHC.
Summary & Outlook
=================
We have presented a first BFKL driven hadronic-level phenomenological work on the recently proposed observables $R^{MN}_{PQ}$ that depend on the azimuthal-angles of the jets in inclusive three-jet production at the LHC. In particular, we concentrated on the ratio $R^{22}_{12}$. Our major task was to study the variation of $R^{22}_{12}$ when we set the rapidity difference $Y$ between the outermost jets to different fixed values in the range $5 < Y < 9$. Generally, we notice a smooth functional dependence of the ratio $R^{22}_{12}$ on $Y$. A key observation is that $R^{22}_{12}$ and other similar ratio observables do not exhibit a significantly different behaviour when one changes the energy configuration from 7 to 13 TeV. This gives us confidence that these ratios pinpoint the most important characteristics of the azimuthal behaviour of the tagged jets within the BFKL framework. Moreover, one of the two big parts of radiative corrections beyond the LL approximation, namely, the NLL contributions to the two gluon Green’s functions that link the three tagged jets, do not significantly change the functional behaviour of $R^{22}_{12}$ on $Y$. The other big part of the beyond the LL corrections would be the NLO corrections to the jet vertices and these need also to be taken into account. In addition, it is crucial to investigate whether fixed order calculations and studies with the BFKL inspired Monte Carlo [**BFKLex**]{} [@Chachamis:2011rw; @Chachamis:2011nz; @Chachamis:2012fk; @Chachamis:2012qw; @Caporale:2013bva; @Chachamis:2015zzp; @Chachamis:2015ico; @Chachamis:2016ejm] give similar results. Predictions from the usual all-purpose collinear Monte Carlo codes are also needed to complete the picture from the theoretical side. To conclude with, a dedicated experimental analysis on the proposed ratio observables $R^{MN}_{PQ}$ based on existing (and future) LHC data will answer the question of whether these observables qualify as new probes for the BFKL dynamics.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
GC acknowledges support from the MICINN, Spain, under contract FPA2013-44773-P. ASV acknowledges support from Spanish Government (MICINN (FPA2010-17747,FPA2012-32828)) and, together with FC and FGC, to the Spanish MINECO Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa Programme (SEV-2012-0249). FGC thanks the Instituto de F[í]{}sica Te[ó]{}rica (IFT UAM-CSIC) in Madrid for warm hospitality.
L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP [**63**]{} (1986) 904 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**90**]{} (1986) 1536\]. I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**28**]{} (1978) 822 \[Yad. Fiz. [**28**]{} (1978) 1597\]. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP [**45**]{} (1977) 199 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**72**]{} (1977) 377\]. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP [**44**]{} (1976) 443 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**71**]{} (1976) 840\] \[Erratum-ibid. [**45**]{} (1977) 199\]. L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**23**]{} (1976) 338 \[Yad. Fiz. [**23**]{} (1976) 642\]. V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev and L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B [**60**]{} (1975) 50. V. S. Fadin and L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{} (1998) 127 \[hep-ph/9802290\]. M. Ciafaloni and G. Camici, Phys. Lett. B [**430**]{} (1998) 349 \[hep-ph/9803389\]. A. H. Mueller and H. Navelet, Nucl. Phys. B [**282**]{} (1987) 727.
V. Del Duca and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 4510 \[hep-ph/9311290\]. W. J. Stirling, Nucl. Phys. B [**423**]{} (1994) 56 \[hep-ph/9401266\]. L. H. Orr and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 5875 \[hep-ph/9706529\]. J. Kwiecinski, A. D. Martin, L. Motyka and J. Outhwaite, Phys. Lett. B [**514**]{} (2001) 355 \[hep-ph/0105039\]. M. Angioni, G. Chachamis, J. D. Madrigal and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 191601 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.6172 \[hep-th\]\].
F. Caporale, B. Murdaca, A. Sabio Vera and C. Salas, Nucl. Phys. B [**875**]{} (2013) 134 \[arXiv:1305.4620 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{} (2013) 73 \[arXiv:1211.7225 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Marquet and C. Royon, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 034028 (2009) \[arXiv:0704.3409 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Colferai, F. Schwennsen, L. Szymanowski and S. Wallon, JHEP [**1012**]{}, 026 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.1365 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Ducloue, L. Szymanowski and S. Wallon, JHEP [**1305**]{}, 096 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.7012 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Ducloue, L. Szymanowski and S. Wallon, Phys. Lett. B [**738**]{}, 311 (2014) \[arXiv:1407.6593 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. H. Mueller, L. Szymanowski, S. Wallon, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, JHEP [**1603**]{}, 096 (2016) \[arXiv:1512.07127 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Cartiglia [*et al.*]{} \[LHC Forward Physics Working Group Collaboration\], CERN-PH-LPCC-2015-001, SLAC-PUB-16364, DESY-15-167. G. Chachamis, arXiv:1512.04430 \[hep-ph\]. A. Sabio Vera, Nucl. Phys. B [**746**]{} (2006) 1 \[hep-ph/0602250\]. A. Sabio Vera and F. Schwennsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**776**]{} (2007) 170 \[hep-ph/0702158 \[HEP-PH\]\].
B. Ducloue, L. Szymanowski and S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{} (2014) 082003 \[arXiv:1309.3229 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{} (2014) 3084 \[arXiv:1407.8431 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, Phys. Rev. D[**91**]{} (2015) 11, 114009 \[arXiv:1504.06471 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. G. Celiberto, D. Yu. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{} (2015) 292 \[arXiv:1504.08233 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. G. Celiberto, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 4, 224 (2016) \[arXiv:1601.07847 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, G. Chachamis, B. Murdaca and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 1, 012001 (2016) \[arXiv:1508.07711 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, F. G. Celiberto, G. Chachamis, D. G. Gomez and A. Sabio Vera, arXiv:1603.07785 \[hep-ph\]. F. Caporale, F. G. Celiberto, G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 3, 165 (2016) \[arXiv:1512.03364 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, F. G. Celiberto, G. Chachamis, D. G. Gomez and A. Sabio Vera, arXiv:1606.00574 \[hep-ph\]. F. Caporale, D. Yu. Ivanov, B. Murdaca, A.Papa, A.Perri, JHEP [**1202**]{} (2012) 101; \[arXiv:1212.0487 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Y. Ivanov and A. Papa, JHEP [**1207**]{}, 045 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.6068 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. G. Celiberto, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, arXiv:1604.08013 \[hep-ph\]. F. G. Celiberto, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca and A. Papa, work to be released soon.
F. Caporale, F. G. Celiberto, G. Chachamis, D. G. Gomez and A. Sabio Vera, work to be released soon.
S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 228 (1983). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.228 G. Chachamis, M. Deak, A. Sabio Vera and P. Stephens, Nucl. Phys. B [**849**]{} (2011) 28 \[arXiv:1102.1890 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B [**709**]{} (2012) 301 \[arXiv:1112.4162 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B [**717**]{} (2012) 458 \[arXiv:1206.3140 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Chachamis, A. Sabio Vera and C. Salas, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 1, 016007 \[arXiv:1211.6332 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Caporale, G. Chachamis, J. D. Madrigal, B. Murdaca and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B [**724**]{} (2013) 127 \[arXiv:1305.1474 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, arXiv:1511.03548 \[hep-ph\]. G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, JHEP [**1602**]{} (2016) 064 \[arXiv:1512.03603 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Chachamis and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 3, 034019 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.07349 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: ‘la Caixa’-Severo Ochoa Scholar.
[^2]: Another interesting idea, suggested in [@Ivanov:2012iv] and investigated in [@Celiberto:2016hae; @celiberto:wip], is the study of the production of two charged light hadrons, $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, $\bar p$, with large transverse momenta and well separated in rapidity.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A bi-univalent function is a univalent function defined on the unit disk with its inverse also univalent on the unit disk. In the present investigation, estimates for the initial coefficients are obtained for bi-univalent functions belonging to certain classes defined by subordination and relevant connections with earlier results are pointed out.'
address:
- 'Department of Applied Mathematics, Delhi Technological University, Delhi—110042, India'
- 'Department of Applied Mathematics, Delhi Technological University, Delhi—110042, India'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Delhi, Delhi—110007, India'
author:
- 'S. Sivaprasad Kumar'
- Virendra Kumar
- 'V. Ravichandran'
title: 'Estimates for the Initial Coefficients of Bi-univalent Functions'
---
Introduction
============
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the class of analytic functions defined on the open unit disk $\mathbb{D}:=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|<1\}$ and normalized by the conditions $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=1$. A function $f\in \mathcal{A}$ has Taylor’s series expansion of the form $$\label{eq1}
f(z)=z+\sum^{\infty}_{n=2}a_nz^n.$$ The class of all univalent functions in the open unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ of the form (\[eq1\]) is denoted by $\mathcal{S}$. Determination of the bounds for the coefficients $a_n$ is an important problem in geometric function theory as they give information about the geometric properties of these functions. For example, the bound for the second coefficient $a_2$ of functions in $\mathcal{S}$ gives the growth and distortion bounds as well as covering theorems. Some coefficient related problems were investigated recently in [@filomat; @ali11; @chen; @cho10; @liu11; @samni]. Since univalent functions are one-to-one, they are invertible but their inverse functions need not be defined on the entire unit disk $\mathbb{D}$. In fact, the famous Koebe one-quarter theorem ensures that the image of the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ under every function $f\in\mathcal{S}$ contains a disk of radius $1/4$. Thus, inverse of every function $f\in\mathcal{S}$ is defined on a disk, which contains the disk $|z|<1/4$. It can also be easily verified that $$\label{ei}F(w):=f^{-1}(w)=w-a_2w^2+(2a_2^2-a_3)w^3-(5a_2^2-5a_2a_3+a_4)w^4+
\cdots$$ in some disk of radius at least 1/4. A function $f\in\mathcal{A}$ is called *bi-univalent* in $\mathbb{D}$ if both $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are univalent in $\mathbb{D}$. In 1967, Lewin [@lewin] introduced the class $\sigma$ of bi-univalent analytic functions and showed that the second coefficient of every $f\in\sigma$ satisfy the inequality $|a_2|\leq1.51$. Let $\sigma_1$ be the class of all functions $f=\phi\circ\psi^{-1}$ where $\phi,\psi$ map $\mathbb{D}$ onto a domain containing $ \mathbb{D}$ and $\phi'(0)=\psi'(0)$. In 1969, Suffridge [@suff69] gave a function in $\sigma_1\subset\sigma$, satisfying $a_2=4/3$ and conjectured that $|a_2|\leq 4/3$ for all functions in $\sigma$. In 1969, Netanyahu [@neta] proved this conjecture for the subclass $\sigma_1$. Later in 1981, Styer and Wright [@sty81] disproved the conjecture of Suffridge [@suff69] by showing $a_2>4/3$ for some function in $\sigma$. Also see [@bhs] for an example to show $\sigma\neq \sigma_1$. For results on bi-univalent polynomial, see [@smith1; @ked88]. In 1967, Brannan [@branan] conjectured that $|a_2|\leq \sqrt{2}$ for $f\in \sigma$. In 1985, Kedzierawski [[@ked89 Theorem 2]]{} proved this conjecture for a special case when the function $f $ and $f^{-1}$ are starlike functions. In $1985$, Tan [@tan] obtained the bound for $a_2$ namely $|a_2|\leq 1.485$ which is the best known estimate for functions in the class $\sigma$. For some open problems and survey, see [@good; @smith2]. In $1985$, Kedzierawski [@ked89] proved the following: $$|a_2|\leq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1.5894, & \hbox{$f\in \mathcal{S},\; f^{-1}\in \mathcal{S}$;} \\
\sqrt2, & \hbox{$f\in \mathcal{S}^*,\; f^{-1}\in \mathcal{S}^*$;} \\
1.507, & \hbox{$f\in \mathcal{S}^*,\; f^{-1}\in \mathcal{S}$;} \\
1.224, & \hbox{$f\in \mathcal{K},\; f^{-1}\in \mathcal{S}$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mathcal{S}^*$ and $\mathcal{K}$ denote the well-known classes of starlike and convex functions in $\mathcal{S}.$
Let us recall now various definitions required in sequel. An analytic function $f$ is *subordinate* to another analytic function $g$, written $f\prec g$, if there is an analytic function $w$ with $|w(z)|\leq |z|$ such that $f =g\circ w$. If $g$ is univalent, then $f\prec g$ if and only if $f(0)=g(0)$ and $f(\mathbb{D})\subseteq g(\mathbb{D})$. Let $\varphi$ be an analytic univalent function in $\mathbb{D}$ with positive real part and $\varphi(\mathbb{D})$ be symmetric with respect to the real axis, starlike with respect to $\varphi(0)=1$ and $\varphi'(0)>0.$ Ma and Minda [@minda] gave a unified presentation of various subclasses of starlike and convex functions by introducing the classes $\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ and $\mathcal{K}(\varphi)$ of functions $f\in \mathcal{S}$ satisfying $zf'(z)/f(z)\prec\varphi(z)$ and $1+zf''(z)/f'(z)\prec\varphi(z)$ respectively, which includes several well-known classes as special case. For example, when $\varphi(z)=(1+A z)/(1+Bz)\; (-1\leq B<A\leq 1),$ the class $\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ reduces to the class $\mathcal{S}^*[A,B]$ introduced by Janowski [@jano]. For $0\leq\beta<1$, the classes $\mathcal{S}^*(\beta):=\mathcal{S}^*((1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))$ and $\mathcal{K}(\beta):=\mathcal{K}((1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))$ are starlike and convex functions of order $\beta.$ Further let $\mathcal{S}^*:=\mathcal{S}^*(0)$ and $\mathcal{K}:=\mathcal{K}(0)$ are the classes of starlike and convex functions respectively. The class of strongly starlike functions $\mathcal{S}^*_\alpha:=\mathcal{S}^*(((1+z)/(1-z))^\alpha)$ of order $\alpha,\; 0<\alpha\leq1.$ Denote by $\mathcal{R}(\varphi)$ the class of all functions satisfying $f'(z)\prec\varphi(z)$ and let $\mathcal{R}(\beta):=\mathcal{R}((1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))$ and $\mathcal{R}:=\mathcal{R}(0)$.
For $ 0\leq\beta<1$, a function $f\in \sigma$ is in the class $\mathcal{S}^*_{\sigma}(\beta)$ of *bi-starlike function of order $\beta$*, or $\mathcal{K}_{\sigma}(\beta)$ of *bi-convex function of order $\beta$* if both $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are respectively starlike or convex functions of order $\beta$. For $0<\alpha\leq 1$, the function $f\in\sigma$ is *strongly bi-starlike function of order $\alpha$* if both the functions $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are strongly starlike functions of order $\alpha$. The class of all such functions is denoted by $\mathcal{S}^*_{\sigma,\alpha}$. These classes were introduced by Brannan and Taha [@branan1] in 1985 (see also [@branan0]). They obtained estimates on the initial coefficients $a_2$ and $a_3$ for functions in these classes. Recently, Ali *et al.* [@ravi] extended the results of Brannan and Taha [@branan1] by generalizing their classes using subordination. For some related results, see [@srivastava; @frasin; @xu]. For the various applications of subordination one can refer to [@filomat; @ali11; @cho10; @liu11; @samni] and the references cited therein.
Motivated by Ali *et al.* [@ravi] in this paper estimates for the initial coefficient $a_2$ of bi-univalent functions belonging to the class $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$ as well as estimates on $a_2$ and $a_3$ for functions in classes $\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\varphi)$ and $K_{\sigma}(\varphi)$, defined later, are obtained. Further work of Kedzierawski [@ked89] actuates us to derive the estimates on initial coefficients $a_2$ and $a_3$ when $f$ is in the some subclass of univalent functions and $f^{-1}$ belongs to some other subclass of univalent functions. Our results generalize several well-known results in [@ravi; @frasin; @ked89; @srivastava], which are pointed out here.
Coefficient estimates
=====================
Throughout this paper, we assume that $\varphi$ is an analytic function in $\mathbb{D}$ of the form $$\label{eb}\varphi(z)=1+B_1z+B_2z^2+B_3z^3+\cdots \;\;\text{with}\;\;B_1>0,\;{\text {and}}\; B_2\;{\text{ is any real number}} .$$
Let $\lambda\geq0$. A function $f\in \sigma$ given by (\[eq1\]) is in the class $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$, if it satisfies $$(1-\lambda)\frac{f(z)}{z}+\lambda f'(z)\prec\varphi(z) \quad \text{ and}\quad (1-\lambda)\frac{F(w)}{w}+\lambda F'(w)\prec\varphi(w).$$
The class $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$ includes many earlier classes, which are mentioned below:
1. $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, (1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))=\mathcal{R}_{\sigma}(\lambda,\beta)\;$ $(\lambda\geq 1;\;0\leq\beta<1)$ [@frasin Definition 3.1]
2. $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, ((1+z)/(1-z))^\alpha)=\mathcal{R}_{\sigma,\alpha}(\lambda)\;\; (\lambda\geq 1;\;0<\alpha\leq1)$ [@frasin Definition 2.1]
3. $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(1,\varphi)
=\mathcal{R}_{\sigma}(\varphi)$ [@ravi p. 345].
4. $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(1,(1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))
=\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\beta)\;\; (0\leq\beta<1)$ [@srivastava Definition 2]
5. $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(1,((1+z)/(1-z))^\alpha)
=\mathcal{R}_{\sigma,\alpha}\;\; (0<\alpha\leq1)$ [@srivastava Definition 1]
Our first result provides estimate for the coefficient $a_2$ of functions $f\in\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$.
\[th1\] If $f\in\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1}|a_2|&\leq \sqrt\frac{B_1+|B_1-B_2|}{1+2\lambda}
$$
Since $f\in\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\lambda, \varphi)$, there exist two analytic functions $r, s:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$, with $r(0)=0=s(0)$, such that $$\label{p1}(1-\lambda)\frac{f(z)}{z}+\lambda f'(z)=\varphi(r(z))\;\text {and}\; (1-\lambda)\frac{F(w)}{w}+\lambda F'(w)=\varphi(s(z)).$$ Define the functions $p$ and $q$ by [$$\label{pq}
p(z)=\frac{1+r(z)}{1-r(z)}= 1+p_1z+p_2z^2+p_3z^3+\cdots \;\;\text {and}\;\; q(z)=\frac{1+s(z)}{1-s(z)}= 1+q_1z+q_2z^2+q_3z^3+\cdots,$$]{} or equivalently, $$\label{p2}
r(z)=\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_1z+\Big(p_2-\frac{p_1^2}{2}\Big)z^2+
\Big(p_3+\frac{p_1}{2}\big(\frac{p_1^2}{2}-p_2\big)-\frac{p_1p_2}{2}\Big)z^3+\cdots\right)$$ and $$\label{p3}
s(z)=\frac{q(z)-1}{q(z)+1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(q_1z+\Big(q_2-\frac{q_1^2}{2}\Big)z^2+ \Big(q_3+\frac{q_1}{2}\big(\frac{q_1^2}{2}-q_2\big)-\frac{q_1q_2}{2}\Big)z^3+\cdots\right).$$ It is clear that $p$ and $q$ are analytic in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p(0)=1=q(0)$. Also $p$ and $q$ have positive real part in $\mathbb{D}$, and hence $|p_i|\leq2$ and $|q_i|\leq2$. In the view of (\[p1\]), (\[p2\]) and (\[p3\]), clearly $$\label{p4}(1-\lambda)\frac{f(z)}{z}+\lambda f'(z)=\varphi\left(\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}\right)\;\;\text {and}\;\; (1-\lambda)\frac{F(w)}{w}+\lambda F'(w)=\varphi\left(\frac{q(w)-1}{q(w)+1}\right).$$ On expanding (\[eb\]) using (\[p2\]) and (\[p3\]), it is evident that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{p5}
\varphi\left(\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}\right)= 1+\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1z+\left(\frac{1}{2}B_1\big(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\big)
+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2\right)z^2+\cdots.\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{p6}
\varphi\left(\frac{q(w)-1}{q(w)+1}\right)= 1+\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1w+\left(\frac{1}{2}B_1\big(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\big)
+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2\right)w^2+\cdots.\end{gathered}$$ Since $f\in\sigma$ has the Maclaurin series given by (\[eq1\]), a computation shows that its inverse $F=f^{-1}$ has the expansion given by (\[ei\]). It follows from (\[p4\]), (\[p5\]) and (\[p6\]) that $$(1+\lambda) a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{eq12}
(1+2\lambda) a_3 =\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$-(1+\lambda) a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1,$$ $$\label{eq16}
(1+2\lambda) (2a_2^2-a_3) =\frac{1}{2}B_1\left(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ Now (\[eq12\]) and (\[eq16\]) yield $$\label{eq17a}
8(1+2\lambda)a_2^2=2(p_2+q_2)B_1+(B_2-B_1)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ Finally an application of the known results, $|p_i|\leq2$ and $|q_i|\leq2$ in (\[eq17a\]) yields the desired estimate of $a_2$ given by (\[e1\]).
Let $\varphi(z)=(1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z),\; 0\leq\beta<1.$ So $B_1=B_2=2(1-\beta).$ When $\lambda=1$, Theorem \[th1\] gives the estimate $|a_2|\leq \sqrt {2(1-\beta)/3}$ for functions in the class $\mathcal{R}_\sigma(\beta)$ which coincides with the result [@xu Corollary 2] of Xu *et al*. In particular if $\beta=0$, then above estimate becomes $|a_2|\leq \sqrt{2/3}\approx 0.816$ for functions $f\in \mathcal{R}_\sigma(0).$ Since the estimate on $|a_2|$ for $f\in \mathcal{R}_\sigma(0) $ is improved over the conjectured estimate $|a_2|\leq\sqrt{2}\approx 1.414$ for $f\in \sigma$, the functions in $ \mathcal{R}_\sigma(0) $ are not the candidate for the sharpness of the estimate in the class $\sigma$.
A function $f\in \sigma$ is in the class $\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\varphi)$, if it satisfies $$\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)}\prec\varphi(z)\quad \text{and}\quad \frac{wF'(w)}{F(w)}\prec\varphi(w).$$
Note that for a suitable choice of $\varphi$, the class $\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\varphi)$, reduces to the following well-known classes:
1. $\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma((1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z))=\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\beta) \quad(0\leq\beta<1).$
2. $\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\left((1+z)/(1-z)\right)^\alpha)
=\mathcal{S}^*_{\sigma,\alpha} \quad(0<\alpha\leq 1).$
\[th2\]If $f\in\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\varphi)$, then $$|a_2|\leq\min{\left\{\sqrt{B_1+|B_2-B_1|}, \sqrt{ \frac{B_1^2+B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{2}}, \frac{B_1\sqrt{B_1}}{\sqrt{B_1^2+|B_1-B_2|}}\right\}}$$ and $$|a_3|\leq\min{\left\{ B_1+|B_2-B_1|, \frac{B_1^2+B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{2}, R\right\}},$$ where $$R:= \frac{1}{4}\left(B_1+3B_1\max{\left\{1;\left|\frac{B_1-4B_2}{3B_1}\right|\right\}}\right).$$
Since $f\in \mathcal{S}^*_\sigma(\varphi)$, there are analytic functions $r, s:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$, with $r(0)=0=s(0)$, such that $$\label{p1.1}\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)}=\varphi(r(z))\;\text {and}\; \frac{wF'(w)}{F(w)} =\varphi(s(z)).$$ Let $p$ and $q$ be defined as in (\[pq\]), then it is clear from (\[p1.1\]), (\[p2\]) and (\[p3\]) that $$\label{p4.1}\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)}=\varphi\left(\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}\right)\;\;\text {and}\;\; \frac{wF'(w)}{F(w)}=\varphi\left(\frac{q(z)-1}{q(z)+1}\right).$$ It follows from (\[p4.1\]), (\[p5\]) and (\[p6\]) that $$\label{eq11.1}
a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{eq12.1}
2a_3 =\frac{B_1p_1}{2}a_2+\frac{1}{2}B_1\left(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$\label{eq15.1}
-a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1$$ and $$\label{eq16.1}
4a_2^2-2a_3=-\frac{B_1q_1}{2}a_2+
\frac{1}{2}B_1\left(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ The equations (\[eq11.1\]) and (\[eq15.1\]) yield $$\label{eq17.1}
p_1=-q_1,$$ $$\label{eq18.10}
8a_2^2=(p_1^2+q_1^2)B_1^2$$ and $$\label{eq18.1}
2a_2=\frac{B_1(p_1-q_1)}{2}.$$ From (\[eq12.1\]), (\[eq16.1\]) and (\[eq18.1\]), it follows that $$\label{eq19}
8a_2^2=2B_1(p_2+q_2)+(B_2-B_1)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ Further a computation using (\[eq12.1\]), (\[eq16.1\]), (\[eq11.1\]) and (\[eq17.1\]) gives $$\label{eq19.1}
16a_2^2=2B_1^2q_1^2+2B_1(p_2+q_2)+(B_2-B_1)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ Similarly a computation using (\[eq12.1\]), (\[eq16.1\]), (\[eq18.1\]) and (\[eq18.10\]) yields $$\label{eq19.10}
4(B_1^2-B_2+B_1)a_2^2=B_1^3(p_2+q_2).$$ Now (\[eq19\]), (\[eq19.1\]) and (\[eq19.10\]) yield the desired estimate on $a_2$ as asserted in the theorem. To find estimate for $a_3$ subtract (\[eq12.1\]) from (\[eq16.1\]), to get $$\label{eq19.2}
-4a_3=-4a_2^2+\frac{B_1(q_2-p_2)}{2}.$$ Now a computation using (\[eq19.1\]) and (\[eq19.2\]) leads to $$\label{eq19.31}
16a_3=2B_1^2q_1^2+4B_2p_2+(B_1-B_2)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ From (\[eq11.1\]), (\[eq12.1\]), (\[eq15.1\]) and (\[eq16.1\]), it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq19.33}
4a_3 &=& \frac{B_1}{2}(3p_2+q_2)+(B_2-B_1)p_1^2 \\ \label{eq19.3}
&=& \frac{B_1q_2}{2}+\frac{3B_1}{2}\left(p_2-\frac{2(B_1-B_2)}{3B_1}p_1^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
On applying the result of Keogh and Merkes [@koef69](see also [@ravi05]), that is for any complex number $v$, $|p_2-vp_1^2|\leq 2 \max\{1;|2v-1|\}$, along with $|q_2|\leq2$ in (\[eq19.3\]), we obtain $$\label{eq19.30}
4|a_3|\leq B_1+3B_1\max{\left\{1;\left|\frac{B_1-4B_2}{3B_1}\right|\right\}}.$$ Now the desired estimate on $a_3$ follows from (\[eq19.31\]), (\[eq19.33\]) and (\[eq19.30\]) at once.
If $f\in\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\beta)\;\;(0\leq\beta<1)$, then from Theorem \[th2\] it is evident that
[$$\label{1}
|a_2|\leq\min{\left\{\sqrt{2(1-\beta)}, \sqrt{(1-\beta)(3-2\beta)}\right\}}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{2(1-\beta)}, & \hbox{$0\leq\beta\leq1/2$;} \\
\sqrt{(1-\beta)(3-2\beta)}, & \hbox{$1/2\leq\beta<1$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$]{} Recall Brannan and Taha’s [@branan0 Theorem 3.1] coefficient estimate, $|a_2|\leq \sqrt{2(1-\beta)}$ for functions $f\in\mathcal{S^*}_\sigma(\beta),$ who claimed that their estimate is better than the estimate $|a_2|\leq 2(1-\beta)$, given by Robertson [@rob]. But their claim is true only when $0\leq\beta\leq 1/2.$ Also it may noted that our estimate for $a_2$ given in (\[1\]) improves the estimate given by Brannan and Taha [@branan0 Theorem 3.1].
Further if we take $\varphi(z)=((1+z)/(1-z))^\alpha,\;0<\alpha\leq1$ in Theorem \[th2\], we have $B_1=2\alpha$ and $B_2=2\alpha^2$. Then we obtain the estimate on $a_2$ for functions $f\in\mathcal{S^*}_{\sigma,\alpha}$ as: $$|a_2|\leq\min{\left\{\sqrt{4\alpha-2\alpha^2}, \sqrt{\alpha^2+2\alpha}, \frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha}}\right\}}=\frac{2\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha}}.$$ Note that Brannan and Taha [@branan0 Theorem 2.1] gave the same estimate $|a_2|\leq 2\alpha/\sqrt{1+\alpha}$ for functions $f\in\mathcal{S^*}_{\sigma,\alpha}.$
A function $f$ given by (\[eq1\]) is said to be in the class $K_{\sigma}(\varphi)$, if $f$ and $F$ satisfy the subordinations $$1+\frac{zf''(z)}{f'(z)}\prec \varphi(z)\;\;{\text {and}}\;\; 1+\frac{wF''(w)}{F'(w)}\prec \varphi(w).$$
Note that $K_{\sigma}((1+(1-2\beta)z)/(1-z)))=:K_\sigma(\beta)\;\;
(0\leq\beta<1).$
\[th3\] If $f\in K_{\sigma}(\varphi)$, then $$|a_2|\leq \min{{\left\{\sqrt\frac{ B_1^2+B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{6}, \frac{B_1}{2}\right\}}}$$ and $$|a_3|\leq \min{{\left\{\frac{ B_1^2+B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{6}, \frac{B_1(3B_1+2)}{12}\right\}}}.$$
Since $f\in K_{\sigma}(\varphi)$, there are analytic functions $r, s:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$, with $r(0)=0=s(0)$, satisfying $$\label{p1.12}1+\frac{zf''(z)}{f'(z)}=\varphi(r(z))\;\text {and}\; 1+\frac{wF''(w)}{F'(w)} =\varphi(s(z)).$$ Let $p$ and $q$ be defined as in (\[pq\]), then it is clear from (\[p1.12\]), (\[p2\]) and (\[p3\]) that $$\label{p4.12}1+\frac{zf''(z)}{f'(z)}=\varphi\left(\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}\right)\;\;\text {and}\;\; 1+\frac{wF''(w)}{F'(w)}=\varphi\left(\frac{q(z)-1}{q(z)+1}\right).$$ It follows from (\[p4.12\]), (\[p5\]) and (\[p6\]) that $$\label{eq11.12}
2a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{eq12.12}
6a_3 =B_1p_1a_2+\frac{1}{2}B_1\left(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$\label{eq15.12}
-2a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1$$ and $$\label{eq16.12}
6(2a_2^2-a_3)=-B_1q_1a_2+\frac{1}{2}B_1\left(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\right)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ Now (\[eq11.12\]) and (\[eq15.12\]) yield $$\label{eq17.12}
p_1=-q_1$$ and $$\label{eq18.12}
4a_2=\frac{B_1(p_1-q_1)}{2}.$$ From (\[eq12.12\]), (\[eq16.12\]), (\[eq17.12\]) and (\[eq11.12\]), it follows that $$\label{eq19.12}
48a_2^2=2B_1^2p_1^2+2B_1(p_2+q_2)+(B_2-B_1)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ In view of $|p_i|\leq2$ and $|q_i|\leq2$ together with (\[eq18.12\]) and (\[eq19.12\]) yield the desired estimate on $a_2$ as asserted in the theorem. In order to find $a_3$, we subtract (\[eq12.12\]) from (\[eq16.12\]) and use (\[eq17.12\]) to obtain $$\label{eq19.22}
-12a_3=-12a_2^2+\frac{B_1(q_2-p_2)}{2}.$$ Now a computation using (\[eq19.12\]) and (\[eq19.22\]) leads to $$\label{eq19.32}
-48a_3=2B_1^2p_1^2-4B_2p_2+(B_1-B_2)(p_1^2+q_1^2).$$ From (\[eq18.12\]) and (\[eq19.22\]), it follows that $$\label{eq19.42}
-12a_3=\frac{B_1(q_2-p_2)}{2}-\frac{3(p_1-q_1)^2B_1^2}{16}.$$ Now (\[eq19.32\]) and (\[eq19.42\]) yield the desired estimate on $a_3$ as asserted in the theorem.
If $f\in K_\sigma(\beta)\;\;(0\leq \beta<1),$ then theorem \[th3\] gives $$|a_2|\leq \min{{\left\{\sqrt\frac{ (1-\beta)(3-2\beta)}{3}, 1-\beta\right\}}}=1-\beta$$ and $$|a_3|\leq \min{{\left\{\frac{ (1-\beta)(3-2\beta)}{3}, \frac{(1-\beta)(4-3\beta)}{3}\right\}}}=\frac{(1-\beta)(3-2\beta)}{3},$$ which improves the Brannan and Taha’s [@branan0 Theorem 4.1] estimates $|a_2|\leq \sqrt{1-\beta} $ and $|a_3|\leq 1-\beta$ for functions $f\in K_\sigma(\beta)$.
\[th12\] Let $f\in\sigma$ be given by (\[eq1\]). If $f\in\mathcal{K}(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\varphi)$, then $$|a_2|\leq \sqrt \frac{3[B_1+|B_2-B_1|]}{8}$$ and $$|a_3|\leq\frac{5[B_1+|B_2-B_1|]}{12}.$$
Since $f\in\mathcal{K}(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\varphi)$, there exist two analytic functions $r, s:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$, with $r(0)=0=s(0)$, such that $$\label{p11.1}1+\frac{zf''(z)}{f'(z)}=\varphi(r(z))\;\text {and}\; F'(w)=\varphi(s(z)).$$ Let the functions $p$ and $q$ are defined by (\[pq\]). It is clear that $p$ and $q$ are analytic in $\mathbb{D}$ and $p(0)=1=q(0)$. Also $p$ and $q$ have positive real part in $\mathbb{D}$, and hence $|p_i|\leq2$ and $|q_i|\leq2$. Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[th1\] it follow from (\[p11.1\]), (\[p5\]) and (\[p6\]) that $$2a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{eq3}
6a_3-4a_2^2 =\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$-2 a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1$$ and $$\label{eq5}
3(2a_2^2-a_3)=\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ A computation using (\[eq3\]) and ([\[eq5\]]{}), leads to $$\label{eq7}
a_2^2=\frac{2(p_2+2q_2)B_1+(p_1^2+2q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{32}.$$ and $$\label{eq8} a_3=\frac{2(3p_2+2q_2)B_1+(3p_1^2+2q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{48}.$$ Now the desired estimates on $a_2$ and $a_3$, follow from (\[eq7\]) and (\[eq8\]) respectively.
If $f\in\mathcal{K}(\beta)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\beta)$, then from Theorem \[th12\] we see that $$|a_2|\leq \sqrt {3(1-\beta)}/2\;\;{\text{and}}\;\; |a_3|\leq 5(1-\beta)/6.$$ In particular if $f\in\mathcal{K}$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}$, then $|a_2|\leq \sqrt 3/2\approx 0.867\;\;{\text{and}}\;\; |a_3|\leq 5/6\approx0.833$.
\[th21\] Let $f\in\sigma$ be given by (\[eq1\]). If $f\in\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\varphi),$ then $$|a_2|\leq \frac{\sqrt {5[B_1+|B_2-B_1|]}}{3},\;\;{\text{and} }\;\; |a_3|\leq\frac{7[B_1+|B_2-B_1|]}{9}.$$
Since $f\in\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\varphi),$ there exist two analytic functions $r, s:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\mathbb{D}$, with $r(0)=0=s(0)$, such that $$\label{tp1}\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)}=\varphi(r(z))\;\text {and}\; F'(w)=\varphi(s(z)).$$ Let the functions $p$ and $q$ be defined as in (\[pq\]). Then [$$\label{tp4}\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)}=\varphi\left(\frac{p(z)-1}{p(z)+1}\right)\;\;\text {and}\;\; F'(w)=\varphi\left(\frac{q(w)-1}{q(w)+1}\right).$$]{} It follow from (\[tp4\]), (\[p5\]) and (\[p6\]) that $$a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{teq3}
2a_3-a_2^2 =\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$-2a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1,$$ $$\label{teq5}
3(2a_2^2-a_3)=\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ A computation using (\[teq3\]) and ([\[teq5\]]{}) leads to $$\label{teq7}
a_2^2=\frac{2(3p_2+2q_2)B_1+(3p_1^2+2q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{36}$$ and $$\label{teq8} a_3=\frac{2(6p_2+q_2)B_1+(6p_1^2+q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{36}.$$ Now the bounds for $a_2$ and $a_3$ are obtained from (\[teq7\]) and (\[teq8\]) respectively using the fact that $|p_i|\leq 2$ and $|q_i|\leq 2$.
If $f\in \mathcal{S}^*(\beta)$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}(\beta)$, then from Theorem \[th21\] it is easy to see that $$|a_2|\leq \sqrt{10(1-\beta)}/3 \;\;{\text{and}}\;\;|a_3|\leq 14(1-\beta)/9.$$ In particular if $f\in \mathcal{S}^*$ and $F\in\mathcal{R}$, then $|a_2|\leq \sqrt 10/3\approx1.054 \;\;{\text{and}}\;\;|a_3|\leq14/9\approx 1.56.$
\[th5\] Let $f\in\sigma$ given by (\[eq1\]). If $f\in\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{K}(\varphi),$ then $$|a_2|\leq \sqrt \frac{B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{2}$$ and $$|a_3|\leq\frac{B_1+|B_2-B_1|}{2}.$$
Assuming $f\in\mathcal{S}^*(\varphi)$ and $F\in\mathcal{K}(\varphi)$ and proceeding in the similar way as in the proof of Theorem \[th12\], it is easy to see that $$a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1p_1,$$ $$\label{te2}
3a_3-a_2^2 =\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(p_2-\frac{1}{2}p_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2p_1^2,$$ $$-2a_2=\frac{1}{2}B_1q_1,$$ $$\label{te4}
8a_2^2-6a_3=\frac{1}{2}B_1\Big(q_2-\frac{1}{2}q_1^2\Big)+\frac{1}{4}B_2q_1^2.$$ A computation using (\[te2\]) and (\[te4\]) leads to $$\label{te7}
a_2^2=\frac{2(2p_2+q_2)B_1+(2p_1^2+q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{24}$$ and $$\label{te8}
a_3=\frac{2(8p_2+q_2)B_1+(8p_1^2+q_1^2)(B_2-B_1)}{72}.$$ Now using the result $|p_i|\leq2$ and $|q_i|\leq2$, the estimates on $a_2$ and $a_3$ follow from (\[te7\]) and (\[te8\]) respectively.
Let $f\in\mathcal{S}^*(\beta)$ and $F\in\mathcal{K}(\beta),\;0\leq\beta<1$. Then from Theorem \[th5\], it is easy to see that $$|a_2|\leq \sqrt {1-\beta}\;\; {\text{and}}\;\; |a_3|\leq 1-\beta.$$ In particular if $f\in\mathcal{S}^*$ and $F\in\mathcal{K},$ then $|a_2|\leq 1\;\; {\text{and}}\;\; |a_3|\leq 1$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The research is supported by a grant from University of Delhi.
[99]{}
R. M. Ali, N. E. Cho, N. Jain and V. Ravichandran, Radii of starlikeness and convexity of functions defined by subordination with fixed second coefficients, Filomat, [**26**]{} (2012), no. 3, 553–-561.
R. M. Ali, S. K. Lee, V. Ravichandran and S. Supramaniam, Cofficient estimates for bi-univalent function Ma-Minda starlike and convex functions, Appl. Math. Lett., [**25**]{} (2012), 344–351.
R. M. Ali, S. Nagpal and V. Ravichandran, Second-order differential subordination for analytic functions with fixed initial coefficient, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) [**34**]{} (2011), no. 3, 611–629.
A. Brannan and J. G. Clunie, Aspects of contemporary complex analysis Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute held at the University of Durham, Durham, July 1–20, 1979, Academic Press New York, London, 1980.
D. A. Brannan and T. S. Taha, On some classes of bi-univalent functions, in [*Mathematical analysis and its applications (Kuwait, 1985)*]{}, 53–60, KFAS Proc. Ser., 3 Pergamon, Oxford.
D. A. Brannan and T. S. Taha, On some classes of bi-univalent functions, Studia Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Math. [**31**]{} (1986), no. 2, 70–77. D. Bshouty, W. Hengartner and G. Schober, Estimates for the Koebe constant and the second coefficient for some classes of univalent functions, Canad. J. Math. [**32**]{} (1980), no. 6, 1311–1324.
Sh. Chen, S. Ponnusamy and X. Wang, Coefficient estimates and Landau-Bloch’s constant for planar harmonic mappings, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) [**34**]{} (2011), no. 2, 255–265.
N. E. Cho and O. S. Kwon, A class of integral operators preserving subordination and superordination, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) [**33**]{} (2010), no. 3, 429–437.
B. A. Frasin and M. K. Aouf, New subclasses of bi-univalent functions, Appl. Math. Lett. [**24**]{} (2011), no. 9, 1569–1573.
A. W. Goodman, An invitation to the study of univalent and multivalent functions, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. [**2**]{} (1979), no. 2, 163–186. W. Janowski, Extremal problems for a family of functions with positive real part and for some related families, Ann. Polon. Math. [**23**]{} (1970/1971), 159–177. A. W. Kedzierawski, Some remarks on bi-univalent functions, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. A [**39**]{} (1985), 77–81 (1988).
A. W. Kedzierawski and J. Waniurski, Bi-univalent polynomials of small degree, Complex Variables Theory Appl. [**10**]{} (1988), no. 2-3, 97–100. F. R. Keogh and E. P. Merkes, A coefficient inequality for certain classes of analytic functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**20**]{} (1969), 8–12. M. Lewin, On a coefficient problem for bi-univalent functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**18**]{} (1967), 63–68.
J.-L. Liu, Certain sufficient conditions for strongly starlike functions associated with an integral operator, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) [**34**]{} (2011), no. 1, 21–30. W. C. Ma and D. Minda, A unified treatment of some special classes of univalent functions, in [*Proceedings of the Conference on Complex Analysis (Tianjin, 1992)*]{}, 157–169, Conf. Proc. Lecture Notes Anal., I Int. Press, Cambridge, MA. E. Netanyahu, The minimal distance of the image boundary from the origin and the second coefficient of a univalent function in $|z|<\,1$, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**32**]{} (1969), 100–112. V. Ravichandran, Y. Polatoglu, M. Bolcal, A. Sen, Certain subclasses of starlike and convex functions of complex order, Hacet. J. Math. Stat. [**34**]{} (2005), 9–15.
M. I. S. Robertson, On the theory of univalent functions, Ann. of Math. (2) [**37**]{} (1936), no. 2, 374–408.
H. V. Smith, Bi-univalent polynomials, Simon Stevin [**50**]{} (1976/77), no. 2, 115–122.
H. V. Smith, Some results/open questions in the theory of bi-univalent functions, J. Inst. Math. Comput. Sci. Math. Ser. [**7**]{} (1994), no. 3, 185–195.
H. M. Srivastava, A. K. Mishra and P. Gochhayat, Certain subclasses of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Appl. Math. Lett. [**23**]{} (2010), no. 10, 1188–1192.
D. Styer and J. Wright, Result on bi-univalent functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol.82, No 2, 1981, 243–248. T. J. Suffridge, A coefficient problem for a class of univalent functions, Michigan Math. J. 16(1969), 33-42. S. Supramaniam, R.M. Ali, S. K. Lee and V. Ravichandran, Convolution and differential subordination for multivalent functions, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. (2) [**32**]{} (2009), no. 3, 351–360.
D. L. Tan, Coefficient estimates for bi-univalent functions, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. A [**5**]{} (1984), no. 5, 559–568.
Q.-H. Xu, Y.-C. Gui and H. M. Srivastava, Coefficient estimates for a certain subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Appl. Math. Lett. [**25**]{} (2012), 990–994.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This work addresses the problem of providing and evaluating recommendations in data markets. Since most of the research in recommender systems is focused on the bipartite relationship between users and items (e.g., movies), we extend this view to the tripartite relationship between users, datasets and services, which is present in data markets. Between these entities, we identify four use cases for recommendations: (i) recommendation of datasets for users, (ii) recommendation of services for users, (iii) recommendation of services for datasets, and (iv) recommendation of datasets for services. Using the open Meta Kaggle dataset, we evaluate the recommendation accuracy of a popularity-based as well as a collaborative filtering-based algorithm for these four use cases and find that the recommendation accuracy strongly depends on the given use case. The presented work contributes to the tripartite recommendation problem in general and to the under-researched portfolio of evaluating recommender systems for data markets in particular.'
author:
- Dominik Kowald
- Matthias Traub
- Dieter Theiler
- Heimo Gursch
- Emanuel Lacic
- Stefanie Lindstaedt
- Roman Kern
- Elisabeth Lex
title: Using the Open Meta Kaggle Dataset to Evaluate Tripartite Recommendations in Data Markets
---
Introduction
============
Data-driven services are becoming an increasingly important aspect of the modern economy, with data markets playing a key role as broker between the stakeholders of the data-driven ecosystem. Various initiatives have been started to research the requirements and dynamics of data markets. To name two examples, the “Data Market Austria” (DMA)[^1] [@traub2017] is a national project in Austria, while “A European AI On Demand Platform and Ecosystem” (AI4EU)[^2] aims at creating a market platform for data and artificial intelligence solutions on the European level.
For successful collaborations in data markets, the different entities need to collaborate with each other in order to create new solutions and to be able to provide innovative data products [@Cavanillas2016; @curry2016big].
[**Problem and objective of this work.**]{} Recommender services thereby play a crucial role in data markets, since their suggestions allow to discover potential new combinations between users, datasets and services [@damiani2015applying]. This results in a more complex tripartite relationship comprising users, datasets and services, as well as an increased number of use cases, in comparison with a traditional recommender setting. The tripartite structure and use cases are depicted in Figure \[fig:dma-data\].
However, most of the research in recommender systems is focused on settings consisting only of users and items, like recommending new movies to viewers. Hence, these settings can be categorized as bipartite relationships. The work of [@Godoy2016] points out the research need for recommendations in tripartite relationship scenarios such as the data markets scenario investigated in the work at hand. Another issue is the lack of an open dataset for the evaluation of tripartite recommendations in data markets. Therefore, we propose the use of the open Meta Kaggle dataset of the well-known data science portal Kaggle.
![The tripartite relationship in a data market is spun between users, datasets and services. We identify four use cases for recommendations between these three identities, namely recommendation of datasets for users (UC1), recommendation of services for users (UC2), recommendation of datasets for services (UC3) and recommendation of services for datasets (UC4).[]{data-label="fig:dma-data"}](DMA-data_v2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
[**Contributions and findings.**]{} The contributions of our work are two-fold:
- We propose four use cases as well as a system architecture for recommendations in data markets (see Section \[s:approach\]).
- We provide evaluation results for a popularity-based as well as collaborative filtering-based algorithm for these four use cases using the open Meta Kaggle dataset (see Section \[s:eval\]).
{width="85.00000%"}
Our results show that the recommendation accuracy strongly depends on the given use case. For example, in settings in which we have a limited set of candidate entities to recommend, already the simple popularity-based approach (recommending the most popular (MP) entities) provides good results. However, in more complex settings, where it is required to link services and datasets, a personalized approach such as collaborative filtering (CF) should be favored.
Taken together, our work contributes to the under-researched portfolio of recommender systems for data markets and thus, should be of interest for both researchers and practitioners in this area.
Recommendations in Data Markets {#s:approach}
===============================
This section gives an a detailed overview of the four central data market use cases followed by the architecture of the proposed recommender system and all its components.
Use Cases {#s:use}
---------
As depicted in Figure \[fig:dma-data\], data markets create a tripartite relationship between their entities users, datasets and services, thus leading to more complex recommendation problems. We identify four use cases for recommendations in the setting of data markets, investigated in more detail in the remainder of this subsection.
[**UC1: Recommendation of datasets for users.**]{} In the first use case, we recommend datasets to users. Thus, this one reflects a rather classic item2user recommendation problem, in which we analyze past user interactions between the target user and datasets (e.g., clicks or purchases) in order to recommend other datasets that could be interesting for the user (e.g., by using CF).
[**UC2: Recommendation of services for users.**]{} The second use case also reflects a classic item2user recommendation problem but this time we aim to recommend services for users of the data market. Since typically there are more services than datasets available in a data market (see Section \[s:data\]), the set of potential candidate services is also larger, which makes this recommendation problem potentially harder than the one of UC1.
[**UC3: Recommendation of datasets for services.**]{} UC3 reflects a more complex recommendation problem, in which we aim to recommend datasets for services. As both entities are now item types, we do no longer have classic user interactions for CF as we have in UC1 and UC2. To overcome this, we could establish an indirect connection between a dataset and a service when a user has interacted with both, the dataset and the service (see Section \[s:data\]).
[**UC4: Recommendation of services for datasets.**]{} In the fourth and final use case, we recommend services for datasets. As mentioned in UC2, we typically have more services than datasets available in a data market, which makes this use cases more complex than UC3, where the set of candidate entities to recommend is smaller. Furthermore, in UC4, we want to link services and datasets, where we do not have direct user interactions available. Thus, we believe that this use case is the most complex one and therefore, we also expect the lowest recommendation accuracy for this one (see Section \[s:results\]).
System Architecture {#s:framework}
-------------------
The design of the system architecture of our recommender system for data markets is centred upon the scalable recommendation framework ScaR[^3] [@lacic2015scar; @lacic2014towards]. In Figure \[fig:dma-rec\], we illustrate our main modules and how they interact with each other as well as with users and administrators of a data market. Apache ZooKeeper[^4] is used for handling the communication between the modules and for load balancing (e.g., deploying multiple instances of a module).
[**Service Provider (SP).**]{} The SP acts as a proxy for data markets to interact with the recommender system. It provides REST-based Web services to enable users to query recommendations of datasets and services, and to add new data (e.g., user interactions, datasets or services) to the system.
[**Data Modification Layer (DML) & Apache Solr.**]{} The DML encapsulates all database-related CRUD operations (i.e., create, retrieve, update, delete) in one module and thus, enables easy access to the underlying data backend. As shown in Figure \[fig:dma-rec\], we utilize the high-performance search engine Apache Solr[^5]. This data backend solution not only guarantees scalability and (near) real-time recommendations but also the support of multiple entities like the users, datasets and services we encounter here.
[**Recommender Engine (RE).**]{} The RE is the main module of our recommender system for data markets as it is responsible for calculating recommendations. Here, we make use of Apache Solr’s build-in data structures for efficient similarity calculations. Currently, we focus on popularity and CF-based recommendation algorithms, but the RE module could be easily extended with further algorithms as well (e.g., content-based filtering).
[**Recommender Customizer (RC).**]{} The RC is used to change the parameters (e.g., the number of recommended entities $k$) of the recommendation approaches on the fly. Thus, it holds a so-called recommendation profile for each approach, accessible and changeable by the data market administrator. These changes are then broadcast to the RE to be aware of how a specific approach should be executed.
[**Recommender Evaluator (REV).**]{} The REV is responsible for evaluating the recommendation algorithms implemented in the RE. Hence, it can be executed to perform an offline evaluation with training/test set splits (see Section \[s:metric\]). In the future, it will also be possible to conduct online evaluations in data markets via A/B-tests.
Evaluation {#s:eval}
==========
In this section, we present our evaluation study, in which we compare popularity-based with CF-based recommendations for all four use cases defined in Section \[s:use\].
Data {#s:data}
----
For our evaluation, we use the open Meta Kaggle dataset[^6] (2017-11-15) of the well-known Kaggle data science portal in order to simulate a real-world data market. Here, we have 6,108 users and 45 datasets that are connected via 2,926 user/dataset interactions, where an interaction is given by a user writing about a dataset in a discussion thread. Furthermore, we have 3,334 services that are connected to the 6,108 users via 18,593 user interactions. These interactions are created by users voting for a service.
Finally, we establish a collaboration network between datasets and services (see e.g., [@hasani2018consensus]). Thus, we create a link between a dataset and a service when a user has interacted with both, the dataset and the service, which leads to 95,249 interactions. The full statistics of our dataset are summarized in Table \[tab:datasets\].
[l|c]{} Feature & \#\
Number of users & 6,108\
Number of datasets & 45\
Number of services & 3,334\
Number of user/dataset interactions & 2,962\
Number of user/service interactions & 18,593\
Number of dataset/service interactions & 95,249\
Evaluation Method {#s:metric}
-----------------
In this section, we describe the evaluation protocol, recommendation algorithms and evaluation metrics used for our study.
[**Evaluation protocol.**]{} For measuring the recommendation quality in the settings of the four use cases UC1 - UC4, we follow common practice in the area of recommender systems and split our Meta Kaggle dataset into training and test splits as suggested by [@herlocker2004evaluating].
Specifically, we extract all entities with at least eleven interactions from whom we withhold ten interactions for the test set and use the rest for training[^7] [@parra2009collaborative]. Thus, for UC1, this results into 17 users for whom we recommend datasets; for UC2, this results into 184 users for whom we recommend services; for UC3, this results into 2,338 services for whom we recommend datasets; for UC4, this results into 44 datasets for whom we recommend services.
[**Recommendation algorithms.**]{} We evaluate our four uses cases for recommendations in data markets with two algorithms, namely most popular (MP) and (ii) collaborative filtering (CF). The recommendations are calculated and evaluated using the recommender system presented in Section \[s:framework\].
MP is a non-personalized algorithm and is especially useful for new entities in a data market without any interactions so far, commonly referred as cold-start entities [@schein2002methods]. This approach recommends datasets or services, which are weighted and ranked by the number of interactions. As mentioned, the MP approach is non-personalized and thus, each entity will receive the same recommendations.
CF algorithms [@ricci2011introduction] analyze the interactions between users and entities, e.g., datasets and services alike. In CF methods two users are treated as similar if they have interacted with similar entities in the past. Hence, entities a similar user has interacted with in the past are candidates to recommend to a target user, who has not interacted with those entities yet. In the case of data markets, we do not only have interactions between users and entities but also between entities themselves when we consider UC3 and UC4. Here, we realize the CF approach in a similar way but instead of calculating user similarities, we calculate similarities between datasets and services, respectively.
[**Evaluation metrics.**]{} For measuring the accuracy of the recommendations in data markets, we use a rich set of metrics, namely Precision (P@$k$), F1-score (F1@$k$), Recall (R@$k$), Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR@$k$), Mean Average Precision (MAP@$k$) and normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG@$k$) [@jarvelin2002cumulated].
We report these metrics for different numbers of recommended entities (= $k$), i.e., P@1 for $k$ = 1, F1@5 for $k$ = 5[^8], R@10 for $k$ = 10, MRR@10 for $k$ = 10, MAP@10 for $k$ = 10 and nDCG@10 for $k$ = 10. Please note that we set the maximum number of $k$ to 10, which is a common value for the evaluation of recommender systems [@said2014comparative].
Results {#s:results}
-------
In this section, we present the results of our evaluation with respect to our four use cases. Table \[tab:results\] holds the resulting numbers achieved in our experiments.
[l|cccccc]{} Approach & P@1 & F1@5 & R@10 & MRR@10 & MAP@10 & nDCG@10\
UC1: MP & **0.823** & **0.470** & **0.717** & **0.217** & **0.597** & **0.729**\
UC1: CF & 0.705 & 0.431 & 0.611 & 0.192 & 0.484 & 0.635\
UC2: MP & 0.103 & 0.050 & 0.066 & 0.023 & 0.026 & 0.072\
UC2: CF & **0.137** & **0.086** & **0.114** & **0.037** & **0.054** & **0.121**\
UC3: MP & 1.000 & 0.411 & 0.707 & 0.232 & 0.580 & 0.750\
UC3: CF & **1.000** & **0.636** & **0.934** & **0.281** & **0.925** & **0.948**\
UC4: MP & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
UC4: CF & **0.022** & **0.006** & **0.006** & **0.003** & **0.004** & **0.009**\
[**UC1: Recommendation of datasets for users.**]{} This use case reflects the least complex one as we recommend from a quite limited set of candidate entities (i.e., 45 datasets) with a small number of connections to the target entities (i.e., 2,962 user interactions). This is also reflected in the recommendation accuracy results presented in Table \[tab:results\] as the unpersonalized MP approach provides better results than the personalized CF one. This behavior of MP outperforming CF can only be observed in this use case, which shows that personalized approaches are not always necessary.
[**UC2: Recommendation of services for users.**]{} When recommending services for users, we face a more complex problem since we have a much larger set of candidate entities (i.e., 3,334 services). Thus, the accuracy results in UC2 are much lower than the ones in UC1. Furthermore, in this case, the CF approach, which analyzes the 18,593 interactions between users and services in a personalized manner, provides better results than MP.
[**UC3: Recommendation of datasets for services.**]{} Similar to UC1, in UC3, we also recommend datasets but this time for services instead of users. For this use case, we also have a large set of 95,249 interactions between datasets and services available, leading to the overall best results for CF across all four use cases. Interestingly, both MP and CF provide a perfect score for P@1 of 1.000, which indicates that both algorithms rank a highly-connected dataset on the first position that is relevant for all 2,338 evaluated services.
[**UC4: Recommendation of services for datasets.**]{} UC4 reflects the most complex of our use cases since we have a large set of 3,334 candidates services available, which are linked via 95,249 interactions to a small set of 44 datasets being the evaluated entities. This is reflected in the results shown in Table \[tab:results\] as both algorithms, MP and CF, provide the worst results across all use cases. Here, the unpersonalized MP approach even reaches a recommendation accuracy of 0.000 for all metrics, thus not recommending a single relevant service.
Discussion {#s:disc}
----------
Our evaluation results show that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for recommendations in data markets. One particular finding of us is, that in cases having a limited set of candidate entities available like in UC1, popularity-based methods such as MP provide good results. Another finding is that personalized methods such as CF should be favored when the use cases get more complex, for example if we have a larger set of candidate entities as it is the case in UC2. The same holds for the recommendations of entities to other entities, like datasets to services in UC3.
However, our results also show that both MP and CF provide poor results for UC4 being the most complex use case. For such a setting, we need more sophisticated methods that incorporate also other data sources, e.g., content-based filtering (CBF) approaches [@lops2011content]. For overcoming sparsity problems, these approaches could also be combined with word embeddings [@kenter2015short; @mikolov2013word2vec].
Conclusion and Future Work {#s:conc}
==========================
In this paper, we presented our initial steps for providing and evaluating recommendations in data markets. Therefore, we first provided four potential use cases, which included recommendation of datasets for users (UC1), recommendation of services for users (UC2), recommendation of datasets for services (UC3), and recommendation of services for datasets (UC4). Then, we proposed a system architecture for a recommender system for data markets based on the scalable recommendation framework ScaR.
Finally, we provided an evaluation of these four uses using the Meta Kaggle dataset and our proposed recommender system. Here, we find that the unpersonalized most popular approach (MP) provides the best results for UC1 and the personalized collaborative filtering approach (CF) provides the best results for the more complex use cases UC2, UC3 and UC4.
[**Limitations and future Work.**]{} One limitation of our evaluation is that we have simulated a real-world data market using the Meta Kaggle dataset. Although, this dataset provides all relevant entities of data markets (i.e., users, datasets and services), we plan to also conduct evaluation studies in real-world data markets such as the ones created in the DMA and AI4EU initiatives.
Furthermore, so far, we have only evaluated the two algorithms MP and CF. Thus, we also plan to extend our study with more recommendation approaches such as content-based filtering (see Section \[s:disc\]).
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} This work was supported by the Know-Center GmbH, the FFG flagship project Data Market Austria (DMA) and the H2020 project AI4EU (GA: 825619). The Know-Center GmbH is funded within the Austrian COMET Program - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies - under the auspices of the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Ministry of Economics and Labor and by the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG).
[^1]: <https://datamarket.at/en/>
[^2]: <https://www.ai4eu.eu/>
[^3]: <http://scar.know-center.tugraz.at/>
[^4]: <https://zookeeper.apache.org/>
[^5]: <http://lucene.apache.org/solr/>
[^6]: <https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle/meta-kaggle>
[^7]: We only evaluate users with a minimum of eleven interactions to ensure that we have at least one interactions for training when using ten interactions for testing.
[^8]: For 10 recommended entities, Precision typically reaches its highest value for $k$ = 1 and F1 for $k$ = 5.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes TriPD, a new primal-dual algorithm for minimizing the sum of a Lipschitz-differentiable convex function and two possibly nonsmooth convex functions, one of which is composed with a linear mapping. We devise a randomized block-coordinate version of the algorithm which converges under the same stepsize conditions as the full algorithm. It is shown that both the original as well as the block-coordinate scheme feature linear convergence rate when the functions involved are either piecewise linear-quadratic, or when they satisfy a certain quadratic growth condition (which is weaker than strong convexity). Moreover, we apply the developed algorithms to the problem of multi-agent optimization on a graph, thus obtaining novel synchronous and asynchronous distributed methods. The proposed algorithms are fully distributed in the sense that the updates and the stepsizes of each agent only depend on local information. In fact, no prior global coordination is required. Finally, we showcase an application of our algorithm in distributed formation control.'
author:
- |
Puya Latafat, Nikolaos M. Freris, Panagiotis Patrinos [^1]\
[^2]
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '**A New Randomized Block-Coordinate Primal-Dual Proximal Algorithm for Distributed Optimization**'
---
=4
Primal-dual algorithms, block-coordinate minimization, distributed optimization, randomized algorithms, asynchronous algorithms.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A New Primal-Dual Algorithm {#subsec:NewPD}
===========================
Related Primal-Dual Algorithms {#subsec:VuCondat}
------------------------------
A Randomized Block-Coordinate Algorithm {#subsec:CD}
=======================================
Linear Convergence {#sec:linConv}
==================
Distributed Optimization {#sec:DistOpt}
========================
Application: Formation Control {#sec:Formation}
==============================
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
{#sec:appendix}
[^1]: Puya Latafat^1,2^ [email protected]
Nikolaos M. Freris ^3^ [email protected]
Panagiotis Patrinos^1^ [email protected]
[^2]: The work of the first and third authors was supported by: FWO PhD grant 1196818N; FWO research projects G086518N and G086318N; KU Leuven internal funding StG/15/043; Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS and the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen under EOS Project no 30468160.
The work of the second author, while with New York University Abu Dhabi and New York University Tandon School of Engineering, was supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant CCF-1717207.
^1^KU Leuven, Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-STADIUS), Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, 3001 Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium.
^2^IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Piazza San Francesco 19, 55100 Lucca, Italy.
^3^ University of Science and Technology of China, School of Computer Science and Technology, Hefei, 230000, China.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We calculate modified Urca neutrino emission rates in the dense nuclear matter in neutron star cores. We find that these rates are strongly enhanced in the beta-stable matter in regions of the core close to the direct Urca process threshold. This enhancement can be tracked to the use of the in-medium nucleon spectrum in the virtual nucleon propagator. We describe the in-medium nucleon scattering in the non-relativistic Bruckner-Hartree-Fock framework taking into account two-body as well as the effective three-body forces, although the proposed enhancement does not rely on a particular way of the nucleon interaction treatment. Finally we suggest a simple approximate expression for the emissivity of the neutron branch of the modified Urca process that can be used in the neutron stars cooling simulations with any nucleon equation of state of dense matter.'
address:
- 'Ioffe Institute, Politekhnicheskaya 26, 194021 St. Petersburg, Russia'
- 'Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sez. di Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy'
- 'N. Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, Bartycka 18, PL-00-716 Warszawa, Poland'
author:
- 'Peter S. Shternin'
- Marcello Baldo
- Pawel Haensel
title: 'In-medium enhancement of the modified Urca neutrino reaction rates'
---
neutron stars ,dense matter ,neutrino emission
97.60.Jd ,26.60.-c ,21.65.-f
Introduction {#S:intro}
============
Neutron stars (NSs) are the densest stars in the Universe. Their cores contain cold superdense matter with densities reaching several times the nuclear saturation density $n_0=0.16$ fm$^{-3}$. NSs occupy the unique location in the QCD phase diagram, currently unreachable by the modern ground-based experimental studies, and as such the composition and equation of state (EOS) in NS interiors is largely unknown [@HPY2007Book]. On the other hand, NSs have extremely large diversity of astrophysical manifestations spanning the whole electromagnetic [@Degenaar2018arXiv], and, recently, gravitational wave spectrum [@Abbott2017ApJ; @Abbott2017PhRvL]. It is believed that confronting the observational data with the results of theoretical modeling of various processes in NSs one can constrain uncertain properties of their interiors and, as a consequence, increase the knowledge about the fundamental interactions in dense matter. That is why NS studies attract constant attention.
One of a few insights into the uncertain physics of the NS interiors comes from the study of the thermal evolution of these objects, either isolated or in binary systems, see, e.g. [@YakovlevPethick2004ARA; @Degenaar2018arXiv]. One of the main cooling regulators, alongside with the surface electromagnetic emission, is the neutrino emission from the NS bulk. For sufficiently hot NSs the latter is in fact the main ingredient of the NS cooling theory [@YakovlevPethick2004ARA].
There is a big diversity of neutrino generation processes inside NSs, with the liquid stellar core being the source of the strongest ones [@Yakovlev2001physrep]. Operation of these processes and their rates inevitably depend on the NS EOS and composition. For instance, the most powerful mechanism of the neutrino emission in nucleon cores of NSs, the so-called direct Urca process, consists of a pair of charged weak current reactions ${\rm n}\to {\rm p}+\ell+\bar{\nu}_\ell,\, {\rm
p}+\ell\to {\rm n}+\nu_\ell$, where $\ell$ is a lepton, electron or muon, and $\nu_\ell$ is the corresponding neutrino. Strong degeneracy of the NS matter puts a fundamental restriction on the direct Urca process requiring that $p_{\mathrm{F}n}<p_{\mathrm{F}p}+p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}$, where $p_{\mathrm{F}i}$ is the Fermi momentum of the $i$ species. This suggests that the proton fraction should be sufficiently high for the direct Urca process to operate. Therefore, the direct Urca process can proceed in sufficiently heavy NSs with central density larger than some threshold density $n_\mathrm{dU}$. Different EOSs predict different $n_\mathrm{dU}$. In lighter NSs and for some EOSs in all NSs up to maximally massive ones, direct Urca processes are forbidden and other reactions come into a play. In this case, the basic neutrino emission mechanisms in the (non-superfluid) NSs involve nucleon collisions. The strongest process of this type is the modified Urca process which also proceeds via the charged weak current and is given by a pair of reactions: $${\rm n}+{\rm N}\to {\rm p}+{\rm N}+\ell+\bar{\nu}_\ell,\quad
{\rm p}+{\rm N}+\ell\to {\rm n}+{\rm
N}+\nu_\ell.\label{eq:murca}$$ Here N is the additional nucleon which relaxes the momenta restrictions. The companion nucleon bremsstrahlung processes which involve neutral weak currents are order of magnitude less powerful [@Yakovlev2001physrep].
The standard benchmark for the treatment of modified Urca reactions in NS physics is the work by Friman and Maxwell [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ]. It is based on the free one-pion exchange (OPE) model and the central part (nuclear correlations) is described by a certain set of Landau parameters. Several studies expand results of Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ], basically focusing on the improvement of the in-medium effects treatment, see, e.g., Ref. [@Schmitt17]. In particular, Ref. [@Blaschke1995MNRAS] estimated the effect of the replacement of the free one-pion exchange interaction with the in-medium $T$-matrix and found some reduction of the emissivity. Recent study [@Niri2016PhRvC] employed independent pair approximation extending Ref. . They calculated pair correlation function in the variational approach accounting for two-body as well as three-body forces. The final result turned out to be not so far from those of Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ].
In a series of papers staring from Ref. [@Voskresensky1986JETP] the scenario named ‘medium modified Urca’ was developed, see Refs. [@Voskresensky2001LNP; @Migdal1990PhR] for review. The basis of this scenario is the pion-exchange model of the interaction with a strong softening of the in-medium pion (medium-modified one-pion exchange, or MOPE). This leads to the strong enhancement of the modified Urca rates. Moreover, it was argued that the strongest subprocess involving charged weak current is the conversion of the virtual charged pion to virtual neutral pion with the emission of the lepton pair. However these results are strongly dependent on a particular choice of the model paramaters. In some cases a strong softening of the pion mode is the precursor of the real pion condensation at higher density [@Voskresensky2001LNP].
In this letter we show that all previous studies missed an important piece of a picture. Specifically, we argue that the account of the nucleon potential energy in the medium amplifies considerably the modified Urca rates. The proposed amplification is universal, resulting only from the requirement of the beta-equilibrium, and the importance of this amplification increases when the density gradually approaches $n_\mathrm{dU}$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[S:formalism\] we briefly present the standard formalism for the calculations of the modified Urca rates. The in-medium nucleon propagator is discussed in Sec. \[S:prop\]; this section contains the main result of our work. In Sec. \[S:Gmat\] we outline the adopted model for in-medium scattering. We describe the nucleon interaction by means of the $G$-matrix of the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory constructed on top of the realistic nucleon potential with inclusion of the effective three-body forces. We discuss our results and illustrate their effect on the model cooling calculations in Sec. \[S:discuss\] and conclude in Sec. \[S:conclusion\].
For concreteness, we focus on the neutron branch of the modified Urca process, where $N=n$ in Eq. (\[eq:murca\]), although the obtained results are qualitatively applicable to the proton branch ($N=p$) as well. Effects of superfluidity and magnetic fields are not considered. Unless otherwise is indicated, we use the natural unit system with $k_B=\hbar=c=1$.
Formalism {#S:formalism}
=========
In the conditions appropriate for the NS cores below the direct Urca threshold, it is enough to describe nucleons in the non-relativistic quasi-particle approximation. The modified Urca emission rate can then be found from the Fermi golden rule for each of the reactions (\[eq:murca\]). The detailed derivation is given, for instance, in the review [@Yakovlev2001physrep]. Under the conditions of beta-equilibrium, the rates of forward and reverse reactions are equal, so one can consider one reaction of the pair \[we focus on the first reaction in (\[eq:murca\])\] and double the result. The neutrino emissivity is then $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(\ell)}_\mathrm{MU}&=& 2\int \prod\limits_{j=1}^4 \frac{{\rm d}
\mathbf{p}_j}{(2\pi)^3}\int \frac{{\rm d} \mathbf{p}_\ell}{(2\pi)^3}
\int \frac{{\rm d} \mathbf{p}_\nu}{(2\pi)^3}\; \varepsilon_\nu
(2\pi)^4\nonumber\\
&&\times \delta(E_f-E_i)\delta(\mathbf{P}_f-\mathbf{P}_i){\cal F} s {\cal
M}_{fi},\label{eq:golden}\end{aligned}$$ where $j$ enumerate nucleons, ${\cal F}=f_1 f_2(1-f_3)(1-f_4) (1-f_\ell)$ is the Pauli blocking factor with $f_i=\left[1+{\rm
exp}\left((\varepsilon_i-\mu_i)/T\right)\right]^{-1}$ being the Fermi-Dirac function, $\varepsilon_i$, $\mathbf{p}_i$, and $\mu_i$ are the quasiparticle energy, momentum, and chemical potential, respectively, $T$ is the temperature, ${\cal M}_{fi}\equiv\sum_{\rm spins}
|M_{fi}|^2$ is the squared matrix element of the process, summed over the spin states, $s=2^{-1}$ is the symmetry factor that accounts for the double-counting of the same collision events, $(E_f,\mathbf{P}_f)$ and $(E_i,\mathbf{P}_i)$ are the total energy and momentum of the final and initial particles, respectively.
Since neutron star matter is strongly degenerate, all fermions except neutrinos in Eq. (\[eq:golden\]) are placed at the respective Fermi surfaces. The neutrino momentum is small (of the order of $T$), therefore it can be neglected in the momentum conservation and in the matrix element. These facts allow to decompose energy and angular integrations in Eq. (\[eq:golden\]) which greatly simplifies the calculations. As a result, the phase space averaging of the matrix element contains only four non-trivial angular integrations, see, e.g., .
[![ Direct external leg Feynmann diagrams A (left) and B (right) contributing to the modified Urca process. []{data-label="fig:nn"}](nnA2.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}]{} [![ Direct external leg Feynmann diagrams A (left) and B (right) contributing to the modified Urca process. []{data-label="fig:nn"}](nnB2.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}]{}
In the non-relativistic $V-A$ approximation, the weak interaction Lagrangian is $$\label{eq:WeakL}
{\cal L}=\frac{G_F\cos\theta_C}{\sqrt{2}} l^\mu \Psi_p^\dag\left(g_V\delta_{\mu,0}-g_A \delta_{\mu,i}\sigma_i\right)\Psi_n,$$ where $G_F=1.17\times10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $\cos\theta_C=0.975$ is the cosine of the Cabibbo angle, $\Psi_p$ and $\Psi_n$ are the proton and neutron spinors, respectively, $\sigma_{i}$, $i=1\dots 3$, are the Pauli matrices, $g_V=1$ and $g_A\approx 1.26$ are nucleon weak vector and axial vector coupling constants, respectively. Lepton charged current is $l_\mu=\bar{l}\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)\nu$, where $l$ and $\nu$ are lepton and antineutrino Dirac spinors, $\gamma_\mu$ and $\gamma_5$ are Dirac matrices. Here we neglect additional contributions from the weak magnetism or induced pseudoscalar interactions [@Timmermans2002PhRvC].
The basic direct diagrams which contribute to the modified Urca processes are given in Fig. \[fig:nn\] where the hatched blocks represent the nucleon interaction. The amplitude corresponding to diagrams in Fig. \[fig:nn\] is (neglecting neutrino momentum) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Mdir}
M_{fi}^{\mathrm{dir}}&=&l^\nu\left(\hat{\Gamma}_\nu {\cal G}_p(\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_\ell,\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_\ell) G_{pn}\right.\\
&&\left.+ G_{nn} {\cal G}_n(\varepsilon_3+\varepsilon_\ell,\mathbf{p_3}+\mathbf{p}_\ell)\hat{\Gamma}_\nu\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\Gamma}_\nu$ is the weak vertex, which follows from (\[eq:WeakL\]), ${\cal G}_{n(p)}$ is the neutron (proton) propagator, and $G_{pn}$ and $G_{nn}$ are the scattering matrices corresponding to the proton-neutron interaction for the diagram A and neutron-neutron interaction for the diagram B, respectively. The exchange diagrams correspond to the interchange of initial states $\{1\leftrightarrow 2\}$. In addition to the external-leg emission diagrams shown in Fig. \[fig:nn\], there are other diagrams that can contribute to the modified Urca process, see, e.g., Refs. [@Blaschke1995MNRAS; @Hanhart2001PhLB; @Schmitt17]. These diagrams correspond to intermediate state processes and generally are of the next order in the emitted pair momentum. We do not consider these diagrams now and discuss them later in Sec. \[S:discuss\].
The medium enters Eq. (\[eq:Mdir\]) via the mean field in the nucleon propagators and the in-medium scattering matrices. Below we consider these effects separately.
Nucleon propagator {#S:prop}
------------------
The quasi-particle propagator associated with the intermediate line in Fig. \[fig:nn\] is $${\cal G}_N(E,k)=\left(E-\varepsilon_N(k)\right)^{-1},\label{eq:prop}$$ where $\varepsilon_N(k)$ is the nucleon in-medium spectrum. Traditionally, after the work by Friman and Maxwell [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ], one approximates ${\cal G}_N(E,k)\approx \pm\mu_\ell^{-1}$ where the sign depends on whether the emission occurs before scattering (diagram A) or after scattering (diagram B). However, this approximation misses the softening of the intermediate nucleon line that occurs in the beta-equilibrium nuclear matter. Consider, for instance, the A diagram, where the intermediate line corresponds to the virtual proton. Neglecting neutrino energy and placing all quasiparticles in external lines on the respective Fermi surfaces, one finds for the A diagram $E_\mathrm{A}=\mu_n-\mu_\ell=\mu_p$, where the second equality is due to the beta-equilibrium condition. At the densities above the direct Urca threshold, the intermediate line contains the pole in the allowed phasespace which opens the direct Urca process. Momentum conservation implies $\mathbf{k}_\mathrm{A}=\mathbf{p}_1-\mathbf{p}_\ell$, hence $p_{\mathrm{F}n}-p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}\leq k_\mathrm{A} \leq p_{\mathrm{F}n}+p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}$. Therefore, below the direct Urca threshold, $k_\mathrm{A}$ is always above the proton Fermi surface $p_{\mathrm{F}p}$. In case of the backwards emission, however, $k_\mathrm{A}$ can be sufficiently close to $p_{\mathrm{F}p}$ or, in other words, to the pole of the propagator, $\varepsilon_p(k)=\mu_p$, leading to the enhancement of the emission amplitude in that part of the phasespace. Similar arguments hold for the B diagram, where the intermediate nucleon is a neutron and it is propagating below the Fermi surface. We stress, that the enhancement arises from the proper use of the single nucleon spectrum, in whatever approximation it is calculated provided the consistency with beta equilibrium is kept. This results in a large difference between potential energies of the neutron and proton quasiparticles in NS matter which can not be neglected.
In order to quantify the enhancement that comes from the use of the beta-equilibrium propagator instead of the usual approximation, it is instructive to consider the factors $$R_{\rm dir}=\left\langle\left|\frac{\mu_\ell}{\mu_{\rm N}-\varepsilon_{\rm
N}(k)}\right|^2\right\rangle,$$ where the angular brackets denote the phasespace averaging. These factors will describe the modification of the emission corresponding to the direct diagram A (with $N=p$) or B (with $N=n$) if the scattering amplitude weakly depends on the angular variables. In order to calculate these factors we need the quasiparticle spectrum. We adopt the following non-relativistic expression $$\varepsilon_N(k)-\mu_N=\frac{k^2}{2 m_N^*}-\frac{p_{\mathrm{F}N}^2}{2m_N^{*}},$$ where $m_N^*$ is the nucleon effective mass at the Fermi surface. This approximation may not be very accurate far off-shell, however as discussed, the main contribution to the rate is expected near the Fermi surface, where this form is sufficient. The phasespace averaging for the direct diagrams reduces to the integration over the allowed absolute values of intermediate momentum leading to $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm dir}^{(A)}&=&
\frac{2 m_p^{*2} \mu_\ell^2}{p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}\int\limits_{p_{\mathrm{F}n}-p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}^{p_{\mathrm{F}n}+p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}
\frac{{\rm d} k_\mathrm{A}}{(p_{\mathrm{F}p}^2-k_\mathrm{A}^2)^2},\label{eq:RdirA}\\
R_{\rm dir}^{(B)}&=&
\frac{2 m_n^{*2} \mu_\ell^2}{p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}p_{\mathrm{F}p}}\int\limits_{p_{\mathrm{F}p}-p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}^{p_{\mathrm{F}p}+p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}
\frac{k_\mathrm{B}\, {\rm d} k_\mathrm{B}}{(p^2_{\mathrm{F}n}-k_\mathrm{B}^2)^2}.\label{eq:RdirB}\end{aligned}$$ These integrals can be easily taken analytically; we do not give explicit expressions here for brevity. Both $R$-factors have the asymptotic behavior $R_\mathrm{dir} \propto (p_{\mathrm{F}n}-p_{\mathrm{F}p}-p_{\mathrm{F}\ell})^{-1}$ in the vicinity of the direct Urca threshold. This result shows that there is a general density dependence of the modified Urca rate that leads to significant enhancement near the direct Urca threshold. In addition to the direct contributions from the diagrams A and B, the final expression contains also the interference term between these diagrams and also the interference term with the exchange contribution. In these terms, the intermediate nucleon softening occurs in different parts of the phasespace for two interfering amplitudes. As a consequence, the enhancement of the interference terms is weaker, being of the logarithmic order in momenta difference. Calculations show that the interference terms can be neglected in practice, see below.
Nucleon interaction {#S:Gmat}
-------------------
We choose to treat the in-medium nucleon scattering in the framework of the non-relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) approach [@Baldo1999Book]. The in-medium scattering matrix, or $G$-matrix, is found from the solution of the Bethe-Goldstone equation. In what follows we omit nucleon isospin indices for the sake of simplicity, and refer to Sec. 3.2 of Ch. 8 of Ref. [@Baldo1999Book] for a complete form of the relevant equations. Bethe-Goldstone equation reads $$\label{eq:BBG}
G[n_\mathrm{B};\omega]=V+\sum\limits_{k_a,k_b} V \frac{|k_a k_b\rangle{\cal Q}\langle k_a k_b|}{\omega-e(k_a)-e(k_b)} G[n_\mathrm{B};\omega],$$ where $V$ is the bare nucleon interaction, $\omega$ is the starting energy, ${\cal Q}$ is the Pauli operator. Single-particle energy $e(k)$ in turn depends on the $G$-matrix[^1]: $$\label{eq:SPP}
e(k)=\frac{k^2}{2 m_N} + \mathrm{Re}\sum\limits_{k'\leq p_\mathrm{F}} \langle kk'|G[n_\mathrm{B}; e(k)+e(k')]|kk'\rangle_a,$$ where subscript $a$ means antisymmetrization of the wavefunction, therefore Bethe-Goldstone equation needs to be solved iteratively. In Eqs. (\[eq:BBG\])–(\[eq:SPP\]) the so-called continuous choice of the single-particle potential is adopted [@Baldo1999Book].
For the bare nucleon interaction on the two-body level we use Argonne $v18$ potential [@Wiringa1995PhRvC]. We also include three-body forces which are necessary in the non-relativistic theory to reproduce the empirical saturation point of the symmetric nuclear matter. Three body forces are included in the effective way to the two-body interaction via averaging over the third particle [@Grange1989]. Specifically, here we use the phenomenological Urbana IX model [@Carlson1983NuPhA] adjusted to give the correct saturation point with the $v18$ potential [@Baldo2008PhLB]. Bethe-Goldstone equation was solved in a partial wave representation with inclusion of the total nucleon pair angular momenta up to $J=12$. In Eq. (\[eq:Mdir\]) half-on-shell $G$-matrix is needed, where the starting energy is equal to the energy of one – incoming or outcoming – pair of the nucleons, but not to another.
Results and discussion {#S:discuss}
======================
![Dimensionless rate $\alpha_{\rm U}$ for the modified Urca processes with electrons (thick lines) and muons (thin lines). Dashed lines show the results calculated using the in-medium $G$-matrix for the nucleon scattering, but the standard expression for the nucleon propagator. Dash-dotted lines show the simple approximation (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]). Double-dot-dashed line represents the result in the free OPE model. Vertical dotted lines show the direct Urca threshold densities for electrons and muons. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig:alpha_e"}](alpha.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}0.4cm
It is convenient [@Yakovlev2001physrep], after Friman and Maxwell [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ], to normalize emissivity as $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(\ell)}_{21}&=&8.1\, \frac{m_n^{*3} m_p^*}{m_u^4}
\left(\frac{p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}}{\mu_\ell}\right)\left(\frac{n_p}{n_0}\right)^{1/3}
T_9^8\, \alpha_U^{(\ell)},
\label{eq:Qn}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q^{(\ell)}_{21}\equiv Q^{(\ell)}_\mathrm{MU}/\left(10^{21}~{\rm erg}~{\rm s}^{-1}~{\rm cm}^{-3}\right)$, $T_9\equiv T/\left(10^9~\mathrm{K}\right)$, $m_u$ is the nuclear mass unit, and dimensionless amplitudes $\alpha_U^{(\ell)}$ are proportional to phasespace-averaged squared matrix element of the process, $\langle {\cal M}_{fi}\rangle$. The normalization is governed by the free OPE interaction model adopted in Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ] and, specifically, is $$\langle {\cal M}_{fi}\rangle=64 G_F^2\cos^2\theta_C\left(\frac{f_\pi}{m_\pi}\right)^4 \frac{g_A^2}{\mu_\ell^2}\alpha^{(\ell)}_U,$$ where $f^2_\pi\approx 0.08$ is the pion-nucleon coupling constant, $m_\pi=139.6$ MeV is the charged pion mass. Calculations of the dimensionless amplitudes $\alpha_U^{(e)}$ (for mUrca process with electrons) and $\alpha_U^{(\mu)}$ (for mUrca process with muons) are shown in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\] by thick and thin lines, respectively. Double-dot dashed line shows simplified free OPE result $\alpha_U^\mathrm{OPE}= 21 p_{\mathrm{F}n}^4/[16 (p_{\mathrm{F}n}^2+m_\pi^2)^2]\approx 1$, which is the same for electron and muon processes [@Yakovlev2001physrep]. Dashed lines show the results of the present calculations where the $G$-matrix is used for the interaction, but the traditional nucleon propagator is used. Notice the small difference between the electron and muon lines as well. Solid lines include both the $G$-matirix and the nucleon propagator as described in Sec. \[S:prop\]. For the latter, we use the effective masses calculated from the BHF single-particle potential [@Baldo2014PhRvC]. One observes significant enhancement of the emissivity near the direct Urca thresholds, in agreement with the discussion in Sec. \[S:prop\]. In the present model, direct Urca threshold for electrons occurs at baryon density $n_\mathrm{B}=n_{\mathrm{dU}e}=0.515$ fm$^{-3}$ that correspond to a proton fraction of $x_p=0.137$ and at slightly higher density for muons, $n_{\mathrm{dU}\mu}=0.598$ fm$^{-3}$, $x_p=0.158$ . Moreover, the emissivity is enhanced by a factor of few for all densities, even far from the threshold (compare solid and dashed lines). This is due to a large numerical values of the prefactors in Eqs. (\[eq:RdirA\])–(\[eq:RdirB\]). The curves for muons in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\] start from $n_\mathrm{B}=0.136$ fm$^{-3}$, the density of the muon appearance in our model.
[{width="40.00000%"}]{}
The scattering amplitudes needed for the modified Urca calculations are half on-shell. However, the divergent structure of the propagator selects those parts of the phasespace where the closest to on-shell $G$-matrix is most important. Hence, close to the threshold, modified Urca rates are regulated by the non-radiative scattering rates. In this respect, our results resemble the soft electroweak bremsstrahlung theorem extensively discussed in the context of the nucleon bremsstrahlung neutrino emission in Refs. [@Hanhart2001PhLB; @Timmermans2002PhRvC], see also the reviews [@Sedrakian2007PrPNP; @Schmitt17] and references therein. Soft electroweak bremsstrahlung theorem (SBT) states in analogy with the soft electromagnetic bremsstrahlung theorem that the emission rate in the leading (determined by the diagrams in Fig. \[fig:nn\]) and the first subleading order relates to the non-radiative scattering amplitudes. This theorem holds in the soft regime, where the radiated energy is small, therefore it is not strictly applicable to the modified Urca rates, where the radiated energy is basically the lepton energy $\mu_\ell$. Therefore SBT for the modified Urca processes is questionable [@Hanhart2001PhLB; @Timmermans2002PhRvC; @VanDalen2003PhRvC]. The present results point that at least in the leading order, the relations analogous to the SBT hold for the modified Urca rates close to the direct Urca threshold. It would be interesting to reveal to what extent this analogy holds.
Beyond SBT regime, next-order diagrams with respect to those in Fig. \[fig:nn\] can be important. These are, for instance, rescattering diagrams where the lepton pair emission occurs in the intermediate nucleon line between two scatterings and the emission from the two-body axial vector current [@Hanhart2001PhLB; @Migdal1990PhR]. The rescattering diagrams effectively are included in Refs. via the pair correlation functions. The results of these authors are not dramatically far from the standard results of Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ] although the isolation of the rescattering contribution in their approach is not straightforward.
In the medium-modified Urca approach reviewed, e.g., in Ref. [@Voskresensky2001LNP], the third class of the diagrams where the emission comes from the intermediate pion line was found to dominate over the ‘external leg’ emission described by the diagrams analogous to Fig. \[fig:nn\] (with the in-medium pion exchange line in place of the scattering matrix). The calculations of the external leg diagrams in their approach were also based on the standard nucleon propagators. Therefore the inclusion of the results presented here may change this conclusion. We note, that the general MOPE enhancement would survive, since it is based on the softening of the intermediate pion which amplifies the external leg emission as well, as seen for the MOPE bremsstrahlung rates. Since, as discussed above, reinstall of the SBT can be expected in certain sense, it is not clear if the dominance of the intermediate pion emission would survive. Furthermore, the softening of the pion in the medium is at least questionable [@BrownRho2004]. Modification of the MOPE rates with account for the effects described in the present paper deserves future studies.
Dong et al. [@Dong2016ApJ] discussed the modification (suppression) of the modified Urca rates by the quasiparticle Fermi surface depletion quantified by the quasiparticle strength $z$. Modified Urca rates are proportional to the fourth power of $z$ leading to a certain reduction of the rates. At our level of the BHF theory, there is no depletion, i.e. $z=1$. Inclusion of the rearrangement contributions leads to $z<1$, however in this case, the nuclear scattering needs to be modified consistently. Moreover, the Fermi surface depletion is counter-balanced in a certain way by the corresponding increase in the nucleon effective masses [@Schwenk2003NuPhA; @Schwenk2004PhLB]. Therefore, in the present study we do not account for the $z$-factors and accordingly use the effective masses of the lowest order Brueckner theory.
Returning to the present results, the modest density dependence of the dashed curves in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\] allows to construct a simplistic approximate practical expression for the mUrca rate $$\label{eq:alpha_appr}
\alpha_U^\mathrm{approx} = 0.6 R_\mathrm{dir}^{(A)} + 0.2 R_\mathrm{dir}^{(B)}$$ shown with dash-dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:nn\]. The difference between the results of the full calculations and the approximate expression does not exceed 20 percent at $n_\mathrm{B}>0.1$ fm$^{-3}$ for electrons and at $n_\mathrm{B}>0.3$ fm$^{-3}$ for muons which is fairly enough for practical applications. Notice, that the approximation (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]) contains only the ‘direct’ $R$-factors. This is because the contribution from the exchange diagrams is suppressed by weaker (logarithmic) propagator enhancement.
Very close to the direct Urca threshold, the difference $\varepsilon_N-\mu_N$ can become so small that the neutrino energy can not be neglected. In this region the treatment of the modified Urca rates becomes more involved. The size of this special care region is nevertheless rater small and can be neglected in the first approximation.
To finish the discussion, we illustrate the effect of the reconsidered modified Urca rates on the cooling of the non-superfluid neutron stars. The models of the NSs with non-superfluid nucleon cores which cool via the modified Urca process form the basis of the so-called standard cooling scenario of the NS cooling theory, e.g., [@YakovlevPethick2004ARA; @Yakovlev2011MNRAS]. Weak density dependence of the modified Urca rates in the free OPE model of Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ] leads to a consequent weak dependence of the cooling on the neutron star mass. Inclusion of the nuclear correlations does not change this conclusion appreciably. Results of the present work show that the modified Urca emissivity is higher than in the model of Ref. [@FrimanMaxwell1979ApJ] and in fact strongly depends on density, therefore one expects faster cooling with pronounced dependence on the NS mass. To perform simulations, we use the general relativistic cooling code described in Ref. [@Gnedin2001MNRAS]. In the left panel of the Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\] we show the results of cooling simulations for the NS models with the equation of state consistent with our BHF calculations . For this EOS, the direct Urca process start to operate at $M_\mathrm{dU}\approx 1.3M_\odot$. We plot cooling curves – the dependencies of the surface temperature $T_s^\infty$ as seen by a distant observer on the NS age $t$ – for NS models with masses from $1 M_\odot$ to $M_\mathrm{dU}$ stepped by $0.05M_\odot$. Group of black lines labelled ‘std’ gives the old standard cooling results, while the group of red curves labelled ‘new’ incorporates the rates calculated in the present work. Older curves are almost indistinguishable from each other, while the calculations in the present model show faster cooling and cooling curves fill broader region on the $T_s^\infty-t$ plane. Some cooling simulations, which were based on our preliminary results, can be also found in Ref. .
The direct Urca threshold for BHF EOS is relatively low, therefore the moderately massive non-superfluid NSs with such EOS cool fast. There are EOSs that predict higher direct Urca thresholds, so that NSs with broader range of masses cool down via the modified Urca process. Strictly speaking, it is not possible to use the rates calculated here with the different EOS, since the EOS and rate should be constructed self-consistently, based on the same nucleon interaction. However, the main effect pointed out here stems from the modification of the nucleon propagator that can be described in a universal way via the $R$-factors. As the results of the Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\] show, the effect of the modification of the nucleon interaction is smaller than the effect of the in-medium nucleon propagation. Based on that, we performed the model cooling calculations for another EOS using Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]) for the rate. Specifically, we employed the model APR I from Ref. [@Gusakov2005MNRAS] which is based on the analytical parameterization of the APR EOS [@Akmal1998PhRvC] proposed in Ref. [@Heiselberg1999ApJ]. Direct Urca process for this EOS opens in relatively high-mass stars with $M_\mathrm{dU}=1.83 M_\odot$. The results of the cooling simulations are shown in the right panel in Fig. \[fig:cool\]. As expected, one observes much broader region filled by the cooling curves.
The broadening of the cooling curves region results from the strong increase in the modified Urca rates especially for the stars with masses lower, but close to $M_\mathrm{dU}$. However, Fig. \[fig:cool\] shows that the cooling is faster even for less massive stars, where central density is relatively far from the threshold density $n_\mathrm{dU}$. This decrease in the temperature can be roughly estimated from the approximate expression (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]) using the fact that the surface temperature scales as a neutrino emissivity in power of $\approx -1/12$, see, e.g., Ref. [@Yakovlev2011MNRAS]. Far from the threshold the density dependence of the modified Urca rate is modest (cf. Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\]) and one can estimate the decrease of the temperature relative to the standard cooling scenario as $\left(T_s^\infty\right)_{\mathrm{new}}/\left(T_s^\infty\right)_{
\mathrm{old}}\approx\left({\alpha_U^{\mathrm{approx}}}\right)^{-1/12}$, where $\alpha_U^{\mathrm{approx}}$ is taken at some typical intermediate density point (remember that $\alpha_U^{\mathrm{OPE}}\approx 1$). Therefore, typical values of $\alpha_U^{\mathrm{approx}}\sim 5-10$ (see Fig. \[fig:alpha\_e\]) translate to 15–20% decrease in the surface temperature of low-mass stars, which is indeed seen in Fig. \[fig:cool\].
Conclusions {#S:conclusion}
===========
We calculated the emissivity of the neutron branch of the modified Urca process in the non-superfluid neutron star cores based on the in-medium scattering matrix and taking into account the modification of the nucleon propagator in the beta-stable matter. We employed the non-relativistic quasiparticle approximation and $V-A$ model of the weak interaction. In-medium nucleon scattering was described in the BHF approach with account for the effective three-body forces. Our main conclusions are the following
- In the beta-stable matter, the modified Urca rates are strongly enhanced when the density approaches the direct Urca threshold density $n_\mathrm{dU}$. Sufficiently close to $n_\mathrm{dU}$, the modified Urca emissivity is inversely proportional to the distance from the dUrca threshold, $p_{\mathrm{F}n}-p_{\mathrm{F}p}-p_{\mathrm{F}\ell}$, measured in terms of momenta.
- The use of the in-medium scattering matrix results in a certain reduction of the emissivities as compared to the free OPE model. However, in combination with the effect of the propagator amplification, the net result is by a factor of several higher than the free OPE one for all densities.
- We constructed the simple practical expression (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]) that can be used in simulations for NS models employing any nuclear EOS.
- NS cooling curves based on the updated rates differ significantly from the standard cooling curves. The cooling is faster, and shows more prominent dependence on the NS mass.
Our main conclusion is based solely on the beta-equilibrium condition and the quasi-particle approximation. We neglected the relativistic corrections, second-order processes, and the possible effects beyond the quasi-particle approximation. Nevertheless we think that this result survives more elaborated treatment, and it demonstrates that the inclusion of the potential energy of the nucleons in the medium mean field can have crucial impact on the resulting flavor changing reaction rates. Notice, that in the context of the charged current opacity in the hot supernova matter, the potential energy difference between neutron and proton quasipartcles was shown to be important for the charged current neutrino emissivities and opacities from the dUrca processes in dense and hot supernova matter (see Ref. [@RobertsReddy2017PhRvC], where previous work is critically reviewed).
Here we discussed only the neutron branch of the modified Urca process. The similar modifications are expected for the weaker proton branch \[$N=p$ in (\[eq:murca\])\]. In a first approximation, one can use a simple scaling relations (see eq. (142) in Ref. [@Yakovlev2001physrep]) to find p-branch mUrca emissivity from the n-branch emissivity. The detailed consideration of the proton branch, as well as of the effects of different nuclear potentials and/or the models of three-body forces is left for the future studies.
Our results can be important not only for the cooling of the isolated neutron stars, but also for the thermal states of NSs in low-mass X-ray binaries (soft X-ray transients) [@YakovlevPethick2004ARA; @Fortin2018MNRAS]. Flavor-changing reactions also contribute to the bulk viscosity of the matter (e.g., [@Schmitt17]) that can be important in the evolution of the NS oscillations. Finally, these reactions are important in regulating the magnetic field evolution in the NSs where some degree of the compositional asymmetry induced by the magnetic field can be expected, e.g., [@Gusakov2017PhRvD].
Finally, here we neglected the effects of the nucleon superfluidity. There is currently a little doubt that the nucleons in the NS cores can be in the paired state. However, the critical temperatures calculated in various approaches are strongly density dependent and these dependencies are highly uncertain. At temperature sufficiently lower than either the neutron (triplet) or the proton (singlet) critical temperature, both direct and modified Urca rates are suppressed exponentially due to the gap-restricted phasespace, and the processes which involve ungapped species dominate. Only in the region of the star where the superfluidity is not well-developed, the modified Urca process is important and the enhancement found here needs to be taken into account. In this case, however, the situation becomes more complicated since the single particle spectrum of superfluid species contains the gap which shifts the position of the direct Urca pole from the Fermi surface. Fortunately, in the discussed regions, the gap value(s) are of the order of temperature and as such they can be neglected in the first approximation in the quasiparticls propagators and in the scattering matrices so that Eq. (\[eq:alpha\_appr\]) can still be used supplied with the superfluid suppression factors [@Yakovlev2001physrep]. Notice, that in the same region, the situation is further complicated by the appearance of the neutrino emission associated with the Cooper pair formation processes . The detailed treatment of the superfluid case is outside the scope of the present paper and we plan to address the effects of superfluidity in the future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of PS was supported by RFBR, grant No. 16-32-00507 mol$\_$a and the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics “BASIS”. The part of this work was completed during the STSM mission ECOST-STSM-MP1304-061014-049724 of the COST NewCompstar project. This work was partially supported by the Polish NCN research grant OPUS7 no. 2014/13/B/ST9/02621. We thank A. D. Kaminker, E. E. Kolomeitsev, S. Reddy, and A. D. Sedrakian for valuable discussions.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
P. [Haensel]{}, A. Y. [Potekhin]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, [Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure]{}, Vol. 326 of Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Springer Science+Buisness Media, New York, 2007.
N. [Degenaar]{}, V. F. [Suleimanov]{}, [Testing the equation of state of neutron stars with electromagnetic observations]{}, ArXiv e-prints (2018) 1806.02833.
B. P. [Abbott]{}, R. [Abbott]{}, T. D. [Abbott]{}, F. [Acernese]{}, K. [Ackley]{}, C. [Adams]{}, T. [Adams]{}, P. [Addesso]{}, R. X. [Adhikari]{}, V. B. [Adya]{}, et al., [Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger]{}, 848 (2017) L12.
B. P. [Abbott]{}, R. [Abbott]{}, T. D. [Abbott]{}, F. [Acernese]{}, K. [Ackley]{}, C. [Adams]{}, T. [Adams]{}, P. [Addesso]{}, R. X. [Adhikari]{}, V. B. [Adya]{}, et al., [GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral]{}, Physical Review Letters 119 (16) (2017) 161101.
D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, C. J. [Pethick]{}, [Neutron Star Cooling]{}, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 42 (2004) 169–210.
D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, A. D. [Kaminker]{}, O. Y. [Gnedin]{}, P. [Haensel]{}, [Neutrino emission from neutron stars]{}, Phys. Rep. 354 (2001) 1–155.
B. L. [Friman]{}, O. V. [Maxwell]{}, [Neutrino emissivities of neutron stars]{}, 232 (1979) 541–557.
A. [Schmitt]{}, P. [Shternin]{}, [Reaction rates and transport in neutron stars]{}, ArXiv e-prints (2017) 1711.06520.
D. [Blaschke]{}, G. [Ropke]{}, H. [Schulz]{}, A. D. [Sedrakian]{}, D. N. [Voskresensky]{}, [Nuclear in-medium effects and neutrino emissivity of neutron stars]{}, 273 (1995) 596–602.
A. [Dehghan Niri]{}, H. R. [Moshfegh]{}, P. [Haensel]{}, [Nuclear correlations and neutrino emissivity from the neutron branch of the modified Urca process]{}, 93 (4) (2016) 045806.
P. [Haensel]{}, A. J. [Jerzak]{}, [Mean free paths of non-degenerate neutrinos in neutron star matter]{}, 179 (1987) 127–133.
D. N. [Voskresensky]{}, A. V. [Senatorov]{}, [Neutrino emission by neutron stars]{}, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 63 (1986) 885.
D. N. [Voskresensky]{}, [Neutrino Cooling of Neutron Stars: Medium Effects]{}, in: D. [Blaschke]{}, N. K. [Glendenning]{}, A. [Sedrakian]{} (Eds.), Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, Vol. 578 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, 2001, p. 467.
A. B. [Migdal]{}, E. E. [Saperstein]{}, M. A. [Troitsky]{}, D. N. [Voskresensky]{}, [Pion degrees of freedom in nuclear matter]{}, Phys. Rep. 192 (1990) 179–437.
A. D. [Kaminker]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, P. [Haensel]{}, [Theory of neutrino emission from nucleon-hyperon matter in neutron stars: angular integrals]{}, 361 (2016) 267.
R. G. [Timmermans]{}, A. Y. [Korchin]{}, E. N. [van Dalen]{}, A. E. [Dieperink]{}, [Soft electroweak bremsstrahlung: Theorems and astrophysical relevance]{}, 65 (6) (2002) 064007.
C. [Hanhart]{}, D. R. [Phillips]{}, S. [Reddy]{}, [Neutrino and axion emissivities of neutron stars from nucleon-nucleon scattering data]{}, 499 (2001) 9–15.
M. Baldo (Ed.), Nuclear Methods and the Nuclear Equation of State, Vol. 8 of International Review of Nuclear Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, 1999.
R. B. [Wiringa]{}, V. G. J. [Stoks]{}, R. [Schiavilla]{}, [Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking]{}, 51 (1995) 38–51.
P. [Grang[é]{}]{}, A. [Lejeune]{}, M. [Martzolff]{}, J.-F. [Mathiot]{}, [Consistent three-nucleon forces in the nuclear many-body problem]{}, 40 (1989) 1040–1060.
J. [Carlson]{}, V. R. [Pandharipande]{}, R. B. [Wiringa]{}, [Three-nucleon interaction in 3-, 4- and [$\infty$]{}-body systems]{}, Nuclear Physics A 401 (1983) 59–85.
M. [Baldo]{}, A. E. [Shaban]{}, [Dependence of the nuclear equation of state on two-body and three-body forces]{}, Physics Letters B 661 (2008) 373–377.
M. [Baldo]{}, G. F. [Burgio]{}, H.-J. [Schulze]{}, G. [Taranto]{}, [Nucleon effective masses within the Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory: Impact on stellar neutrino emission]{}, 89 (4) (2014) 048801.
B. K. [Sharma]{}, M. [Centelles]{}, X. [Vi[ñ]{}as]{}, M. [Baldo]{}, G. F. [Burgio]{}, [Unified equation of state for neutron stars on a microscopic basis]{}, 584 (2015) A103.
A. [Sedrakian]{}, [The physics of dense hadronic matter and compact stars]{}, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 58 (2007) 168–246. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.02.002).
E. N. [van Dalen]{}, A. E. [Dieperink]{}, J. A. [Tjon]{}, [Neutrino emission in neutron stars]{}, 67 (6) (2003) 065807.
G. E. [Brown]{}, M. [Rho]{}, [Matching the QCD and hadron sectors and medium-dependent meson masses; hadronization in relativistic heavy ion collisions]{}, 398 (2004) 301–325. [](http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0206021), [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.05.006).
J. M. [Dong]{}, U. [Lombardo]{}, H. F. [Zhang]{}, W. [Zuo]{}, [Role of Nucleonic Fermi Surface Depletion in Neutron Star Cooling]{}, 817 (2016) 6.
A. [Schwenk]{}, B. [Friman]{}, G. E. [Brown]{}, [Renormalization group approach to neutron matter: quasiparticle interactions, superfluid gaps and the equation of state]{}, 713 (2003) 191–216.
A. [Schwenk]{}, P. [Jaikumar]{}, C. [Gale]{}, [Neutrino bremsstrahlung in neutron matter from effective nuclear interactions]{}, 584 (2004) 241–250.
D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, W. C. G. [Ho]{}, P. S. [Shternin]{}, C. O. [Heinke]{}, A. Y. [Potekhin]{}, [Cooling rates of neutron stars and the young neutron star in the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant]{}, 411 (2011) 1977–1988.
O. Y. [Gnedin]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, A. Y. [Potekhin]{}, [Thermal relaxation in young neutron stars]{}, 324 (2001) 725–736.
A. Y. [Potekhin]{}, G. [Chabrier]{}, [Magnetic neutron star cooling and microphysics]{}, 609 (2018) A74.
M. E. [Gusakov]{}, A. D. [Kaminker]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, O. Y. [Gnedin]{}, [The cooling of Akmal-Pandharipande-Ravenhall neutron star models]{}, 363 (2005) 555–562.
A. [Akmal]{}, V. R. [Pandharipande]{}, D. G. [Ravenhall]{}, [Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure]{}, 58 (1998) 1804–1828.
H. [Heiselberg]{}, M. [Hjorth-Jensen]{}, [Phase Transitions in Neutron Stars and Maximum Masses]{}, 525 (1999) L45–L48.
L. F. [Roberts]{}, S. [Reddy]{}, [Charged current neutrino interactions in hot and dense matter]{}, 95 (4) (2017) 045807.
M. [Fortin]{}, G. [Taranto]{}, G. F. [Burgio]{}, P. [Haensel]{}, H.-J. [Schulze]{}, J. L. [Zdunik]{}, [Thermal states of neutron stars with a consistent model of interior]{}, 475 (2018) 5010–5022.
M. E. [Gusakov]{}, E. M. [Kantor]{}, D. D. [Ofengeim]{}, [Evolution of the magnetic field in neutron stars]{}, 96 (10) (2017) 103012.
D. [Page]{}, J. M. [Lattimer]{}, M. [Prakash]{}, A. W. [Steiner]{}, [Minimal Cooling of Neutron Stars: A New Paradigm]{}, 155 (2004) 623–650.
M. E. [Gusakov]{}, A. D. [Kaminker]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, O. Y. [Gnedin]{}, [Enhanced cooling of neutron stars via Cooper-pairing neutrino emission]{}, 423 (2004) 1063–1071.
P. S. [Shternin]{}, D. G. [Yakovlev]{}, [Self-similarity relations for cooling superfluid neutron stars]{}, 446 (2015) 3621–3630.
[^1]: Notice, that the true quasiparticle spectrum $\varepsilon_N(k)$ in Eq. (\[eq:prop\]) in general differs from the BHF lowest-order single-particle potential $e(k)$ [@Baldo1999Book].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Structural order parameters of a smectic liquid crystal confined into the columnar form of porous silicon are studied using neutron scattering and optical spectroscopic techniques. It is shown that both the translational and orientational anisotropic properties of the confined phase strongly couple to the one-dimensional character of the porous silicon matrix. The influence of this confinement induced anisotropic local structure on the molecular reorientations occuring in the picosecond timescale is discussed.'
author:
- |
R. Lefort, D. Morineau, R. Guégan, A. Moréac, C. Ecolivet, [^1]$^\ast$\
Groupe Matière Condensée et Matériaux, CNRS-UMR 6626, Université de Rennes 1, F-35042 Rennes cedex, France\
and M. Guendouz\
Laboratoire d’Optronique, FOTON, CNRS-UMR 6082, Université de Rennes 1, F-22302 Lannion cedex, France\
title: |
Structure and relaxation processes of an anisotropic molecular fluid\
confined into 1D nanochannels
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
One of the very early motivations for introducing confinement in experimental studies of liquids and glass formers was the general agreement that there might exist a typical lengthscale measuring the dynamical molecular cooperativity [@confit2003]. This quantity is suspected to increase with decreasing temperature, and to contribute to the observed anomalous properties of the structural relaxation such as super-arrhenian slowing-down in fragile compounds. Introducing a maximum size to the system by means of a porous matrix gives the opportunity to emphasize experimental evidence of those dynamical cooperative clusters. Up to now, most theoretical expectations and more or less direct experimental studies converge to state that the characteristic size of these cooperative rearranging regions (CRR) does not exceed a few molecular sizes. Confinement effects have been mostly scrutinized in porous materials presenting cavities of nanometric dimension. A large variety of materials has been used, often silicates within different geometries, either isotropic (fractal aerogels, interconnected vycors, aerosils or gelsils) or template-controlled (MCM-41, SBA-15). Several experimental difficulties are encountered in such studies due to the unavoidable powder averaging of the measured observables and to the huge surface to volume ratio that is reached. Indeed, the surface contribution to the free energy of the confined liquid cannot be ignored anymore, and the awaited ultimate finite-size effects can be masked by dominant interfacial solid-liquid interactions [@Gubbins-JCP-2003]. Experimental evidence of such surface contribution was reported on simple liquids like toluene [@Denistol], as a stretching of the dynamical self-correlation functions toward longer times, and a non-vanishing static contribution within experimental resolution. These data were interpreted by a very large distribution of correlation times, starting from very slow reorientations imposed by a pinning at the pore surface, to bulk-like dynamics at the center. Such a broadening of molecular dynamics frequencies over several decades is supported by numerical simulations [@Denistol]. This onset of glass-like dynamics in simple liquids appears as an essential consequence of confinement, but is not the only one, for also the structure and the thermodynamical stable and metastable states are affected [@Christenson-2001]. These interrelated effects remain partly misunderstood even for simple fluids. A large effort towards a better understanding of more complex confined fluids is timely, for they are introduced in an increasing number of innovative applications of nanosciences (lab-on-chip, nanofluidics...). Liquid crystals (LC) are test-systems in order to investigate fluids with an increasing degree on complexity. Their structure is characterized by anisotropic order parameters giving rise to typical sequences of nematic or smectic phases. However, their molecular nature allows one to confidently assign dynamical contributions in terms of rotations, translational diffusion or librations, accessible to a large number of techniques like dielectric spectroscopy [@sinhaaliev], neutron quasielastic scattering or light scattering (photon correlation spectroscopy, optical Kerr effect [@FayerTg; @Fayercomp]). Both these structural and dynamical aspects have been widely studied on bulk samples, and make LC’s model systems particularly suited to experimental investigations of confinement effects on complex fluids. Like more simple liquids, the thermodynamics of confined LC’s is also profoundly modified. One of the most striking effect is the instability of the translational smectic ordering with respect to the quenched disorder field introduced by an irregular solid/LC interface [@bellinisci; @Lehenypre]. This leads to a very important depression of the melting temperature of the confined crystalline phase, and the suppression of the nematic to smectic continuous transition, replaced by a frustrated short-range (nanometric) smectic ordering [@regispre].
We report in this paper new experimental data depicting structural and dynamical features of a confined LC in a nanoporous material of very low dimensionality.
Experimental Details
====================
Sample
------
Fully hydrogenated liquid crystal (LC) 4-octyl-4-cyanobiphenyl (8CB) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich and used without further purification. Columnar porous silicon (pSi) matrices were obtained from a heavily doped (100) oriented silicon substrate by electrochemical etching [@fabripSi; @Lehmann-MS-00]. A porosity of 60 %, made of a parallel arrangement of not-connected channels (diameter $\approx$ 300 ) is obtained, aligned in a layer of thickness $\approx$ 30 $\mu$m. This very large aspect ratio induces a quasi one-dimensional character of the porous structure, preferentially aligned on the macroscopic lengthscale. Thermal oxidation of the structure can be further performed, leading to a transparent layer well suited to investigations by optical techniques. 8CB was confined into pSi by capillary wetting from the liquid phase under vapour pressure in a vaccuum chamber and at a temperature of 60C, well above the N-I transition temperature. The excess of LC was then removed by squeezing the wafers between Whatman filtration papers. The complete filling of the pores was characterized by confocal microRaman spectroscopy [@quenselas].
Neutron Scattering
------------------
Neutron diffraction experiments were performed on the G6.1 double-axis diffractometer (cold neutron guide) at the Laboratoire Léon Brillouin (LLB, CNRS/CEA, Saclay), with an incident wavelength of 4.71 . Quasielastic incoherent neutron scattering experiments were carried out on the time-of-flight (TOF) spectrometer G6.2 at the LLB, with a resolution of 107 $\mu$eV FWHM. The covered momentum transfer (Q) range was about 0.4 to 1.9 $^{-1}$. The temperature was controlled to better than 0.1 K over a range from 100 K to 340 K using a cryoloop. Numerical deconvolution of TOF spectra were carried out following standard procedures using the “QENSH” software provided by the LLB. For both diffraction and TOF experiments, eight filled porous silicon wafers were stacked parallel to each other in a cylindrical aluminium cell, representing a total amount of confined LC of about 20 mg.
Spectroscopic Ellipsometry {#expellipso}
--------------------------
Ellipsometry experiments were carried out with a Horiba Jobin-Yvon UVISEL spectrometer, in the visible range ($\lambda$ from 410 to 830 nm). The measured ellipsometric angles $\Psi$ and $\Delta$ are related respectively to the amplitude ratio and to the phase difference between the complex reflexion coefficients ($r_{p}$ and $r_{s}$) of the sample (resp. parallel or perpendicular to the incident plane). From these two angles, new quantities are defined according to :
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:one}
I_{s}=sin(2\Psi)sin(\Delta) ; I_{c}=sin(2\Psi)cos(\Delta)\end{aligned}$$
These functions $I_{s}$ and $I_{c}$ were fitted versus the wavelength using the Horiba “DELTAPSI2” software provided with the apparatus. The sample was modelled as a porous silica layer top of a silicon substrate. The dielectric dispersions of silicon and silica were described using standard library data. The dielectric dispersion of the organic liquid crystal was modeled by a uniaxial anisotropic single oscillator. The porosity of the layer was described using a classical anisotropic Bruggeman model [@Bruggeman] mixing silica and void dispersions for the empty matrix, or silica and 8CB dispersions for the filled matrix.
Brillouin Scattering {#expbri}
--------------------
Brillouin scattering was performed with a triple pass tandem of Fabry-Perot (Sandercock model) with a Kr$^{+}$ ion laser (Coherent) at a wavelength of 647 nm. Laser power was kept at a few tens of mW in order to avoid a too big heating due to absorption of the bulk silicon supporting the film. At too high counting rates a shutter obturates the photomultiplier inducing discontinuities in the spectra. Typical spectra were accumulated during several hours. Spectra were fitted by an apparatus function convoluted to damped oscillator profiles (Brillouin lines) and a Debye relaxor.
Results and Discussion {#resdis}
======================
All results presented hereafter were obtained close to room temperature, in the smectic phase of 8CB (bulk or confined) [@Ocko-ZPB-86]. In this temperature range, the liquid crystal 8CB confined in pSi experiences smectic ordering that remains short-range (SRO, $\xi\approx150$ ) due to quenshed disorder effects imposed by solid-liquid interfacial interactions [@regispre; @Lehmann-MS-00]. These effects destroy the bulk second order nematic to smectic phase transition. As a consequence, the Bragg peak associated to this smectic SRO and appearing at $2\theta_{B}\approx8.6$ (at a working wavelength of 4.7 ) is significantly broader than the experimental resolution.
One-dimensional ordering {#1do}
------------------------
![Visible light ellipsometric spectra of (a) an empty porous silica layer, and (b) a porous silica layer filled with 8CB. Experimental data (filled circles) are compared to the fitted model (solid line).[]{data-label="ellipso"}](ellipsoBW.eps)
Figure \[ellipso\] displays ellipsometric spectra measured on empty porous silica and porous silica filled with 8CB. The interference fringes are due to multiple reflections at interfaces of the porous layer. It is therefore possible to deduce an estimation of the layer thickness, and typical values between 2.5 and 5 $\mu$m (depending on the sample) were found, in good agreement with independent SEM results. A simple comparison of both curves shows strong differences in the amplitude modulation of those fringes, as a consequence of the dispersion of the optical index of the confined liquid crystalline phase. This observation can be used as a direct characterization of a proper filling of the porous layer with 8CB. A semi-quantitative analysis was performed using the model described in section \[expellipso\]. Best fits agree with an optical uniaxial birefringence of the filled porous layer of about $\Delta n\approx0.15$, with an optical axis aligned with the direction of the nanopores. The important differences in the ellipsometric data allow to separate unambiguously this additional birefrengence due to the liquid crystal from the natural optical anisotropy of the empty porous layer. These two contributions can be further more distinguished through the temperature dependence of the liquid crystal contribution. From the orientation of this measured optical anisotropy, it can be concluded that the orientational order parameter of the confined 8CB strongly couples to the one-dimensional character of the porous matrix.
![Neutron cross section diffracted at the smectic Bragg position ($Q = 0.19$ $^{-1}$) by 8CB confined into porous silicon. The inset sketches the experimental setup. The sample macroscopic orientation is defined by the angle $\theta_{S}$ between the silicon wafer plane and the incident beam.[]{data-label="mosa"}](mosaic_p.eps)
Figure \[mosa\] shows the intensity of the Bragg peak associated to the smectic SRO measured at constant $q_{B}\approx0.19$ $^{-1}$, while rotating the sample plane by an angle $\theta_{S}$ with respect to the neutron incident beam. The best fit using an arbitrary lorentzian form indicates that the maximum of the Bragg reflexion is peaked at $\theta_{0}\approx4.6$, which corresponds to the sample orientation $\theta_{S}\approx\theta_{B}$ where the $Q$ vector is parallel to the nanochannels of the porous silicon layer. The linewidth is about 17HWHM. Within this rather small mosaicity, the director of the smectic layers is obviously well aligned with the silicon channels axis.
Rotational dynamics {#rota}
-------------------
Both ellipsometry and neutron diffraction results show that 8CB confined in porous silicon displays in the meantime orientational and translational order parameters that are macroscopically one-dimensionally oriented through a strong coupling with the peculiar low dimensionality of the matrix. Accordingly, the molecular dynamics of the confined phase might be also affected by this anisotropic ordering. Whereas translational diffusion should in some extent depend on the local properties of the smectic SRO domains, the rotational molecular relaxations should be more sensitive to orientational parameters. In this section, we report Brillouin and quasielastic neutron scattering results, that complementary probe the molecular relaxations in the picosecond time range.
![Brillouin spectra measured on (a) bulk 8CB (b) empty porous silica, and (c) porous silica filled with 8CB.[]{data-label="brillouin"}](briBW.eps)
Figure \[brillouin\] shows the comparison of Brillouin spectra obtained on porous silica filled with 8CB or on the separated constituents. The black line is the best fit according to the procedure detailed in section \[expbri\]. The Brillouin doublets appearing on the spectra have different origins : the one at the lowest frequency is a longitudinal mode propagating tangentially to the surface, whereas at the highest frequency appears a longitudinal mode propagating mainly along the pores perpendicular to the surface. The response of the bulk liquid crystal consists in a single quasielastic lorentzian line of about 5 GHz HWHM (i.e. $\tau_{c}\approx30$ ps). The symmetry of the experimental setup suggests to assign this line to uniaxial rotation of the molecules around their long axis. The response of an empty porous silica matrix reveals strong Brillouin modes, sitting on a very broad quasielastic contribution (more than 35 GHz). Comparatively, the Brillouin spectrum of a filled porous layer can be described by a weighted linear combination of these individual responses, assuming a broadening of the acoustic modes. This damping is due to the coupling of the solid matrix to the viscosity of the liquid crystal (poroelasticity effect). A quasielastic contribution of about the same width as for the bulk 8CB can be seen on the data, suggesting that the uniaxial molecular rotations are only weakly affected by the confinement. Quasielastic neutron scattering experiments were performed, in order to probe additional relaxations. Figure \[mibemol\] shows the TOF spectra measured on bulk 8CB and 8CB/pSi. Spectra were fitted using one lorentzian plus one elastic (resolution limited) components. For bulk 8CB, the quasielastic contribution has a linewidth of about 0.25 meV ($\tau_{c}\approx3$ ps). Its occurence at large values of momentum transfer together with the presence of an elastic contribution would suggest that it also reflects localized reorientations (rotations, end-chain relaxations...).
![Quasielastic spectra measured by time-of-flight neutron scattering at 295 K and $Q = 1.83$ $^{-1}$, on (a) bulk 8CB, and (b) 8CB confined in porous silicon.[]{data-label="mibemol"}](figMIBBW.eps)
For 8CB confined in porous silicon, figure \[mibemol\](b) reports a significant increase of the elastic contribution, together with a decrease of the quasielastic linewidth down to 0.16 meV. This moderate slowing down of the fast reorientational motions agrees with the Brillouin results, and confirms that rotational molecular dynamics seem to be only weakly disturbed by the anisotropic confinement in porous silicon. On the other hand, the increase of the elastic contribution suggests that slow relaxations (slower than the TOF energy resolution) or long range translational diffusion might be much more affected. This is expected from a heterogeneous propagation of a surface induced slowing-down through the inner pore volume.
Conclusion
==========
We report in this note new experimental results on a smectic liquid crystal confined into a low dimensional, macroscopically oriented porous silicon layer, which has been introduced recently [@regispre; @quenselas]. The combination of a large panel of complementary techniques allows one to probe in parallel the structural and dynamical behavior of the confined molecules. It is shown that both orientational and translational order parameters of the confined liquid crystal couple to the anisotropy of the silicon matrix, and give rise to unusual structural properties reminiscent for some aspects of electric or magnetic field effects on bulk liquid crystals. The picosecond molecular dynamics of this oriented short-range ordered confined smectic phase were probed by light and neutron scattering techniques, suggesting that mainly large amplitude motions like long axis tumbling or long range translational diffusion, should be affected by anisotropic confinement effects.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors are thankful to J.-M. Zanotti and B. Frick, for expert advice on neutron scattering experiments and fruitful discussion, and also M. Stchakovsky for precious help on spectroscopic ellipsometry measurements.
[15]{}
[*Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Dynamics in Confinement*]{}, edited by B. Frick, M. Koza and R. Zorn E. P. J. E [**12(1)**]{} pp. 1–194 (2003).
R. Radhakrishnan, K. Gubbins, and M. Sliwinska-Bartkowiak, **116**, 1147 (2003).
C. Alba-Simionesco, G. Dosseh, E. Dumont, B. Frick, B. Geil, D. Morineau, V. Teboul and Y. Xia, E. P. J. E [**12(1)**]{} 19 (2003).
H. K. Christenson, **13**,R95 (2001).
G. P. Sinha and F. M. Aliev, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{} 2001 (1998).
H. Cang, J. Lie, V. N. Novikov and M. D. Fayer, J. Chem. Phys. [**119(19)**]{} 10421 (2003).
H. Cang, J. Lie, V. N. Novikov and M. D. Fayer, J. Chem. Phys. [**118(20)**]{} 9303 (2003).
T. Bellini, L. Radzihovsky, J. Toner and N.A. Clark, Science [**294**]{} 1074 (2001).
R. L . Leheny, S. Park, R. J. Birgeneau, J.-L. Gallani, C. W. Garland and G. S. Iannachione, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{} 021703 (2003).
R. Guégan, D. Morineau, W. Béziel and M. Guendouz, Phys. Rev. E [**73(1)**]{} 011707-6 (2006).
M. Guendouz, N. Pedrono, R. Etessea, P. Joubert, J.-F. Bardeau, A. Bulou and M. Kloul, Phys. Stat. Sol. A [**197**]{} 414 (2003).
V. Lehmann, R. Stengl, and A. Luigart, **B69-70**, 11 (2000).
R. Guégan, D. Morineau, R. Lefort, A. Moreac, W. Béziel, M. Guendouz, J.-M. Zanotti and B. Frick, [*in press*]{} (cond-mat 0604353).
D. A. G. Bruggeman, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**24**]{}, 636 (1935).
B. M. Ocko, R. J. Birgeneau, and J. D. Litster, **62**, 487 (1986).
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: $^\ast$Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Let $G$ be an $n$-node simple directed planar graph with nonnegative edge weights. We study the fundamental problems of computing (1) a global cut of $G$ with minimum weight and (2) a cycle of $G$ with minimum weight. The best previously known algorithm for the former problem, running in $O(n\log^3 n)$ time, can be obtained from the algorithm of [Łcki]{}, Nussbaum, Sankowski, and Wulff-Nilsen for single-source all-sinks maximum flows. The best previously known result for the latter problem is the $O(n\log^3 n)$-time algorithm of Wulff-Nilsen. By exploiting duality between the two problems in planar graphs, we solve both problems in $O(n\log n\log\log n)$ time via a divide-and-conquer algorithm that finds a shortest non-degenerate cycle. The kernel of our result is an $O(n\log\log
n)$-time algorithm for computing noncrossing shortest paths among nodes well ordered on a common face of a directed plane graph, which is extended from the algorithm of Italiano, Nussbaum, Sankowski, and Wulff-Nilsen for an undirected plane graph.
author:
- 'Hung-Chun Liang[^1]'
- 'Hsueh-I Lu[^2]'
title: 'Minimum Cuts and Shortest Cycles in Directed Planar Graphs via Noncrossing Shortest Paths[^3]'
---
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be an $n$-node $m$-edge simple graph with nonnegative edge weights. $G$ is [*unweighted*]{} if the weights of all edges of $G$ are identical. Let $C$ be a subgraph of $G$. The [*weight*]{} $w(C)$ of $C$ is the sum of edge weights of $C$. Let $G\setminus C$ denote the graph obtained from $G$ by deleting the edges of $C$. Paths are allowed to repeat nodes throughout the paper. For nodes $s$ and $t$, an [*$st$-path*]{} of $G$ is a path of $G$ from $s$ to $t$ and an [*$st$-cut*]{} of $G$ is a subgraph $C$ of $G$ such that there are no $st$-paths in $G\setminus C$. A [*(global) cut*]{} of $G$ is an $st$-cut of $G$ for some nodes $s$ and $t$ of $G$. A [*cycle*]{} of $G$ is an $ss$-path of $G$ for some node $s$ of $G$.
- The [*minimum-cut problem*]{} on $G$ seeks a cut of $G$ with minimum weight. For instance, the $v_1v_3$-cut consisting of edge $v_2v_3$ is the minimum cut of the graph in Figure \[figure:figure1\](a). The best known algorithm on directed $G$, due to Hao and Orlin [@Hao94], runs in $O(mn\log\frac{n^2}{m})$ time. On undirected $G$, Nagamochi and Ibaraki [@Naga92] and Stoer and Wagner [@Stoer97] solved the problem in $O(mn+n^2\log n)$ time and Karger [@Karg00] solved the problem in expected $O(m\log^3 n)$ time. Kawarabayashi and Thorup [@KawarabayashiT15] recently announced the first known $o(mn)$-time algorithm on undirected unweighted $G$, improving upon the algorithm of Gabow [@Gabow95] designed twenty years ago.
- The [*shortest-cycle problem*]{} on $G$ seeks a cycle of $G$ with minimum weight. For instance, cycle $v_2v_3v_2$ with weight $6$ is the shortest cycle of the graph in Figure \[figure:figure1\](a). Since a shortest directed cycle containing edge $ts$ is obtainable from a shortest $st$-path, the problem on directed graphs can be reduced to computing all-pairs shortest paths in, e.g., $O(mn+n^2\log
n)$ time [@clr]. Vassilevska Williams and Williams [@will10] argued that finding a truly subcubic algorithm for the problem might be hard. For directed (respectively, undirected) unweighted $G$, Itai and Rodeh [@itai78] solved the problem in $O(\mu(n)\log n)$ (respectively, $O(\min(mn,\mu(n)))$) time, where $\mu(n)=O(n^{2.373})$ [@will12] is the time for multiplying two $n\times n$ matrices.
If $G$ is undirected and planar, Chalermsook, Fakcharoenphol, and Nanongkai [@chal] showed that the time complexity of both aforementioned problems on $G$ is $O(\log n)$ times that of finding an $st$-cut of $G$ with minimum weight for any given nodes $s$ and $t$. Plugging in the $O(n\log n)$-time algorithms, e.g., of Frederickson [@Frederickson87], Borradaile and Klein [@borr09], and Erickson [@Erickson10], the reduction of Chalermsook et al. solved both problems in $O(n\log^2 n)$ time. Plugging in the $O(n\log\log n)$-time algorithm of Italiano, Nussbaum, Sankowski, and Wulff-Nilsen [@ital], the reduction of Chalermsook et al. solved both problems in $O(n\log n\log\log n)$ time. The best known result for both problems on $G$ is the $O(n\log\log n)$-time algorithm of [Łcki]{}and Sankowski [@lacki], relying upon the $st$-cut oracle of Italiano et al. [@ital].
This paper addresses both problems for the case that $G$ is directed and planar. While the minimum-cut problem has been thoroughly studied for undirected planar graphs, surprisingly no prior work is specifically for directed planar graphs. Djidjev [@djid10] claimed that his technique for unweighted undirected planar graphs solves the shortest-cycle problem on unweighted directed planar $G$ in $O(n^{3/2})$ time and left open the problem of finding a shortest cycle in unweighted directed planar $G$ in $o(n^{3/2})$ time. Weimann and Yuster [@weim] gave an $O(n^{3/2})$-time algorithm for the shortest-cycle problem, which should be adjustable to solve the minimum-cut problem also in $O(n^{3/2})$ time (via similar techniques to our proof for Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.2\] in §\[section:section4\] to handle degeneracy in shortest cycles). Wulff-Nilsen [@wulff09] reduced the time for the shortest-cycle problem on $G$ to $O(n\log^3 n)$, but it is unclear how to adjust his algorithm to solve the minimum-cut problem without increasing the required time by too much. The algorithm of [Łcki]{}, Nussbaum, Sankowski, and Wulff-Nilsen [@lacki12] for single-source all-sinks maximum flows solves the minimum-cut problem on directed planar $G$ in $O(n\log^3 n)$ time. Below is our result:
\[theorem:theorem1\] It takes $O(n\log n\log\log n)$ time to solve the minimum-cut and shortest-cycle problems on an $n$-node simple directed planar graph with nonnegative edge weights.
As pointed out by anonymous reviewers, Mozes, Nikolaev, Nussbaum, and Weimann [@MozesNNW15] recently announced an $O(n\log\log n)$-time algorithms for the minimum-cut problem. However, unlike our Theorem \[theorem:theorem1\], their algorithm requires the condition that there is a unique shortest path between any two nodes. For general directed planar graphs with nonnegative edge weights, they apply an isolation lemma [@MotwaniR95; @MulmuleyVV87] to perturb the edge weights to meet the condition with high probability. Thus, their results are Monte Carlo randomized algorithms.
Related work {#related-work .unnumbered}
------------
The only known nontrivial linear-time algorithm for the shortest-cycle problem, due to Chang and Lu [@Chang13], works on undirected unweighted planar graphs. For undirected $G$, if $G$ is embedded on an orientable surface of genus $g$, Erickson, Fox, and Nayyeri [@eric12] solved the problem in $g^{O(g)}n\log{\log{n}}$ time, based on the algorithm of [Łcki]{} and Sankowski [@lacki] for undirected planar graphs. If $G$ is undirected and unweighted and is $2$-cell embedded on an orientable surface of genus $g=O(n^{\alpha})$ with $0<\alpha<1$, Djidjev [@djid10] solved the problem in $O(g^{3/4}n^{5/4}\log{n})$ time. On undirected unweighted $O(1)$-genus $G$, Weimann and Yuster [@weim] solved the problem in $O(n\log n)$ time. For directed planar $G$, even if $G$ is unweighted, our Theorem \[theorem:theorem1\] remains the best known algorithm. If $G$ is unweighted and embedded on a genus-$g$ surface, the technique of Djidjev [@djid10] solved the problem in $O(g^{1/2}n^{3/2})$ time. The shortest-cycle problem on $G$ with negative edge weights can be reduced to one with nonnegative edge weights using the standard reweighting technique via a shortest-path tree in $G$ (e.g., [@fr; @GabowT89; @Goldberg95; @KleinMW10; @MozesW10]). Cygan, Gabow, and Sankowski [@cygan12] studied the problem on graphs whose edge weights are bounded integers. Yuster [@yust11] studied the version on undirected $G$ asking for each node a shortest cycle containing the node. See e.g., [@cabe09; @cabe13; @cabe10; @ericH02; @worah10; @fox13; @fox14] for algorithms that compute shortest cycles with prescribed topological properties. See, e.g., [@itai78; @ling09; @moni83; @rodi11; @rodi12; @yust97] for approximation algorithms of the shortest-cycle problem.
The closely related problem that seeks a minimum $st$-cut for given nodes $s$ and $t$ and its dual problem that seeks a maximum $st$-flow have been extensively studied even for only planar graphs (see, e.g., [@borr09; @Erickson10; @KhullerN93; @Weihe97]). A minimum $st$-cut of $G$ can be obtained in $O(m+n)$ time from a maximum $st$-flow $f$ of $G$ by identifying the edges from the nodes of $G$ reachable from $s$ to the nodes of $G$ not reachable from $s$ in the residual graph of $G$ with respect to $f$. No efficient reductions for the other direction are known. Orlin [@Orlin13] gave the only known $O(mn)$-time algorithms for the maximum $st$-flow problem on general graphs with integral edge weights. For undirected planar $G$, Reif [@reif] gave an $O(n\log^2
n)$-time algorithm for the minimum $st$-cut problem. Frederickson [@Frederickson87] improved the time complexity of Reif’s algorithm to $O(n\log n)$. The best known algorithms for both problems, due to Italiano et al. [@ital], run in $O(n\log\log n)$ time. The attempt of Janiga and Koubek [@JanigaK92] to generalize Reif’s algorithm to directed planar $G$ turned out to be flawed [@EricksonN11a; @KaplanN11; @MozesNNW15]. Borradaile and Klein [@borr09] and Erickson [@Erickson10] gave $O(n\log n)$-time algorithms for both problems on directed planar graphs. On directed planar unweighted $G$, Brandes and Wagner [@bran00] and Eisenstat and Klein [@eise13] solved both problems in $O(n)$ time. The algorithm of Kaplan and Nussbaum [@KaplanN11] is capable of exploiting the condition that nodes $s$ and $t$ are close. For directed planar $G$, the $O(n\log^3 n)$-time algorithm of [Łcki]{} et al. [@lacki12] obtains the minimum weights of $st$-cuts for any given $s$ and all nodes $t$ of $G$. For any given node subsets $S$ and $T$ of directed planar $G$, the $O(n\log^3 n)$-time algorithm of Borradaile, Klein, Mozes, Nussbaum, and Wulff-Nilsen [@borr11] computes a subgraph $C$ of $G$ with minimum weight such that there is no $st$-path in $G\setminus C$ for any $s\in S$ and $t\in T$. On undirected planar $G$, Borradaile, Sankowski, and Wulff-Nilsen [@BorradaileSW15] gave an $O(n\log^4 n)$-time algorithm to compute a Gomory-Hu cut-equivalent tree [@gomo61], a compact representation of $st$-cuts with minimum weights for all nodes $s$ and $t$.
The kernel of our result is an $O(n\log\log n)$-time algorithm for computing noncrossing shortest paths among nodes well ordered on a common face of a directed plane graph, which is extended from the algorithm of Italiano et al. [@ital] for an undirected plane graph. A closely related NP-hard [*shortest-noncrossing-paths problem*]{} seeks noncrossing paths between $k$ given terminal pairs on $h$ faces with minimum total weight in a plane graph. Takahashi, Suzuki, and Nishizeki [@TakahashiSN96] solved the problem for undirected plane graphs with $h\leq 2$ in $O(n\log k)$ time. Papadopoulou [@Papadopoulou99] addressed the geometric version of the problem, where the terminal pairs are on the boundaries of $h$ polygonal obstacles in the plane with complexity $n$ and gave an $O(n)$-time algorithm for the case $h\leq 2$. Erickson and Nayyeri [@EricksonN11] generalized the result of Takahashi *et al.*, solving the problem for undirected planar graphs in $2^{O(h^2)}n\log k$ time. They also generalized the result of Papadopoulou to solve the geometric version in $2^{O(h^2)}n$ time. Each of these algorithms computes an implicit representation of the answers, which may have total size $\Omega(kn)$. Polishchuk and Mitchell [@PolishchukM07] addressed the problem of finding noncrossing thick paths with minimum total weight. Takahashi, Suzuki, and Nishizeki [@TakahashiSN93] also considered the rectilinear version of the problem.
Technical overview and outline {#technical-overview-and-outline .unnumbered}
------------------------------
Our proof for Theorem \[theorem:theorem1\] consists of a series of reductions. Based upon the duality between simple cycles and minimal cuts in plane graphs, Section \[section:section2\] gives an $O(n)$-time reduction from the minimum-cut and shortest-cycle problems in an $n$-node planar graph to the problem of finding a shortest non-degenerate cycle in an $n$-node $O(1)$-degree plane graph $G$ (Lemma \[lemma:lemma2.1\]). Let $C$ be a balanced separator of $G$ that corresponds to a fundamental cycle with respect to a shortest-path tree of $G$. A shortest non-degenerate cycle that does not cross $C$ can be recursively computed from the subgraphs of $G$ separated by $C$. Although we cannot afford to compute a shortest non-degenerate cycle that crosses $C$, Section \[section:section3\] reduces the problem of finding a shortest non-degenerate cycle to finding a $C$-short cycle, i.e., a non-degenerate cycle that crosses $C$ with the property that if it is not shortest, then a shortest non-degenerate cycle that does not cross $C$ has to be a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ (Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.1\]). This reduction is a divide-and-conquer recursive algorithm using the balanced separator $C$ and thus introduces an $O(\log n)$-factor overhead in the running time. A cycle of $G$ that crosses a shortest path $P$ of $G$ can be shortcutted into a non-degenerate cycle that crosses $P$ at most once. Section \[section:section4\] reduces the problem of finding a $C$-short cycle to that of finding a $(C,P)$-short cycle, i.e., a non-degenerate cycle whose weight is no more than that of any non-degenerate cycle that crosses a shortest path $P$ of $G$ in $C$ exactly once (Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.2\]). By the technique of Reif [@reif] that incises $G$ along $P$, Section \[section:section4\] further reduces the problem of finding a $(C,P)$-short cycle to that of finding shortest noncrossing paths among nodes well ordered on the boundary of external face (Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\]). As a matter of fact, this shortest-noncrossing-paths problem can be solved by the $O(n\log n)$-time algorithm of Klein [@mssp], already yielding improved $O(n\log^2
n)$-time algorithms for the minimum-cut and shortest-cycle problems. (Mozes et al. [@MozesNNW15] also mentioned that $O(n\log^2
n)$-time algorithms can be obtained by plugging in the $O(n\log n)$-time minimum $st$-cut algorithm of Borradaile and Klein [@borr09] into a directed version of the reduction algorithm of Chalermsook et al. [@chal].) To achieve the time complexity of Theorem \[theorem:theorem1\], Section \[section:section5\] solves the problem in $O(n\log\log n)$ time by extending the algorithm of Italiano et al. [@ital] for an undirected plane graph. Section \[section:section6\] concludes the paper.
Reduction to finding shortest non-degenerate cycles {#section:section2}
===================================================
Directed graph $G$ is [*bidirected*]{} if, for any two nodes $s$ and $t$ of $G$, $st$ is an edge of $G$ if and only if $ts$ is an edge of $G$. The graph in Figure \[figure:figure1\](a) is not bidirected. The [*degree*]{} of node $v$ in bidirected $G$ is the number of neighbors of $v$ in $G$. The [*degree*]{} of bidirected $G$ is the maximum degree of the nodes in $G$. A [*bidirected plane*]{} graph is a bidirected planar graph equipped with a plane embedding in which edges between two adjacent nodes are bundled together. Figures \[figure:figure1\](b) and \[figure:figure1\](c) show two bidirected plane graphs $G_\vartriangle$ and $G_\vartriangle^*$. A cycle passing each node at most once is [*simple*]{}. A cycle is [*degenerate*]{} if it is a node or passes both edges $st$ and $ts$ for two nodes $s$ and $t$. A cycle not simple (respectively, degenerate) is [ *non-simple*]{} (respectively, [*non-degenerate*]{}). Cycle $C_1$ in Figure \[figure:figure2\](a) is non-degenerate and non-simple. In the graph $G$ of Figure \[figure:figure1\](a), cycle $v_2v_3v_2$ is degenerate and simple, cycle $v_2v_3v_4v_2$ is non-degenerate and simple, and cycle $v_1v_2v_4v_2v_3v_1$ is degenerate and non-simple. The shortest degenerate cycle of $G$ is $v_2v_3v_2$ with weight $6$. The shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ is $v_2v_3v_4v_2$ with weight $16$. Theorem \[theorem:theorem1\] can be proved by the following lemma:
\[lemma:lemma2.1\] It takes $O(n\log n\log\log n)$ time to compute a shortest non-degenerate cycle in an $n$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights.
Adding edges with weights $0$ (respectively, $\infty$) to the input graph does not affect the weight of minimum cuts (respectively, shortest cycles). Hence, we may assume without loss of generality that the input graph $G_\vartriangle$ has at least four nodes and is a simple bidirected plane graph such that each face of $G_\vartriangle$ is a triangle. See Figures \[figure:figure1\](a) and \[figure:figure1\](b) for examples. Let the [*dual*]{} $G_\vartriangle^*$ of $G_\vartriangle$ be the simple bidirected plane graph on the $2n-4$ faces of $G_\vartriangle$ sharing the same set of $6n-12$ edges with $G_\vartriangle$ that is obtainable in $O(n)$ time from $G_\vartriangle$ as follows: For any two adjacent nodes $s$ and $t$ of $G_\vartriangle$, there are directed edges $fg=st$ and $gf=ts$ in $G_\vartriangle^*$, where $f$ and $g$ are the two faces of $G_\vartriangle$ incident with the bundled edges between $s$ and $t$ such that face $g$ immediately succeeds face $f$ in clockwise order around node $s$ of $G_\vartriangle$. See Figure \[figure:figure1\](c) for an example. Observe that $C$ is a minimal cut of $G_\vartriangle$ if and only if $C$ is a simple non-degenerate cycle of $G_\vartriangle^*$. By nonnegativity of edge weights, a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G_\vartriangle^*$ is a minimum cut of $G_\vartriangle$. For instance, the shortest non-degenerate cycle of the graph $G_\vartriangle^*$ in Figure \[figure:figure1\](c) is $f_1f_4f_3f_1$ with weight $5$. It corresponds to the $v_1v_3$-cut $\{v_1v_3,v_2v_3,v_4v_3\}$ of $G_\vartriangle$, which in turn corresponds to the minimum cut $\{v_2v_3\}$ of $G$. Although the degenerate cycle $f_1f_4f_1$ is a shortest cycle of $G_\vartriangle^*$, it does not correspond to a cut of $G$ in the above manner. Since each node of $G_\vartriangle^*$ has exactly three neighbors, the statement of the theorem for the minimum-cut problem follows from applying Lemma \[lemma:lemma2.1\] on $G_\vartriangle^*$.
By nonnegativity of edge weights, it takes $O(n)$ time to obtain a shortest degenerate cycle of $G_\vartriangle$ by examining the $O(n)$ degenerate cycles of $G_\vartriangle$ on exactly two nodes. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma2.1\], the statement of the theorem for the shortest-cycle problem is immediate from the following claim:
> [*It takes $O(n)$ time to obtain from $G_\vartriangle$ an $O(n)$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph $G$ such that a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G_\vartriangle$ can be computed from a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ in $O(n)$ time.*]{}
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be simple bidirected plane graphs with nonnegative edge weights such that $G_2$ is obtained from $G_1$ by the following $O(d)$-time operation on a degree-$d$ node $v$ of $G_1$ with $d\geq
4$: If $u_1,\ldots,u_d$ are the neighbors of $v$ in $G_1$ in clockwise order around $v$, then $\mbox{\sc Split}(v)$
- adds zero-weight path $v_1v_2\cdots v_{d-1} v_d v_{d-1}\cdots
v_2 v_1$ with new nodes $v_1,\ldots,v_d$,
- replaces edge $u_iv$ by edge $u_iv_i$ with the same weight for each $i=1,\ldots, d$,
- replaces edge $vu_i$ by edge $v_iu_i$ with the same weight for each $i=1,\ldots, d$, and
- deletes $v$.
See Figure \[figure:figure2\] for an example of $G_1$ and $G_2$. An $O(n)$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph $G$ can be obtained in $O(n)$ time from $G_\vartriangle$ by iteratively applying $\mbox{\sc Split}$ on each node $v$ of $G_\vartriangle$ with degree $d \geq
4$. To prove the claim, it suffices to ensure the following statement:
> [*A shortest non-degenerate cycle $C_1$ of $G_1$ is obtainable in $O(d)$ time from a shortest non-degenerate cycle $C^*_2$ of $G_2$.* ]{}
For each $u_iu_j$-path $P$ of $C^*_2$ with $1\leq i\ne j\leq d$ such that $P$ has at least two edges and all internal nodes of $P$ are in $\{v_1,\ldots,v_d\}$, we replace $P$ by path $u_ivu_j$. By $w(P)=w(u_ivu_j)$, we have $w(C_1)=w(C^*_2)$. Since $C^*_2$ is non-degenerate, so is the resulting $O(d)$-time obtainable cycle $C_1$ of $G_1$. Since $C_1$ may pass $v$ more than once, $C_1$ could be non-simple. See Figure \[figure:figure2\] for an example of $C^*_2$ and $C_1$. It remains to show $w(C_1)=w(C^*_1)$ for any shortest simple non-degenerate cycle $C^*_1$ of $G_1$. By nonnegativity of edge weights, we have $w(C_1)\geq w(C^*_1)$ even if $C_1$ is non-simple. Let $C_2$ be the cycle of $G_2$ that is obtained from $C^*_1$ as follows: If there is a path $u_ivu_j$ with $1\leq i\ne j\leq d$ in $C^*_1$, then replace it by path $u_iv_i\cdots v_ju_j$. By $w(u_ivu_j)=w(u_iv_i\cdots v_ju_j)$, we have $w(C_2)=w(C^*_1)$. Otherwise, let $C_2=C^*_1$. Since $C^*_1$ is simple, there is at most one path $u_ivu_j$ in $C^*_1$. Since $C^*_1$ is non-degenerate, so is $C_2$. See Figure \[figure:figure2\] for an example of $C^*_1$ and $C_2$. By $w(C_1)=w(C^*_2)\leq w(C_2)=w(C^*_1)$, $C_1$ is a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G_1$.
The rest of the paper proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma2.1\].
Divide-and-conquer via balanced separating cycles {#section:section3}
=================================================
Let $C$ be a simple non-degenerate cycle of a bidirected plane graph $G$ with nonnegative edge weights. Let $\textit{int}_G(C)$ (respectively, $\textit{ext}_G(C)$) denote the subgraph of $G$ consisting of the nodes and edges on the boundary of the faces of $G$ inside (respectively, outside) of $C$. A non-degenerate cycle $C_3$ of $G$ is [*$C$-short*]{} if one of $C_1$, $C_2$, and $C_3$ is a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$, where $C_1$ (respectively, $C_2$) is a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $\textit{int}_G(C)$ (respectively, $\textit{ext}_G(C)$). We say that $C$ is [*segmented*]{} if it consists of the following three paths in order: (1) a shortest path $P_1$, (2) an edge, and (3) the reverse of a shortest path $P_2$, where one of $P_1$ and $P_2$ is allowed to be a node. Let shortest paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ be the [*segments*]{} of $C$. See Figure \[figure:figure3\](a) for an example. This section proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma2.1\] using Lemmas \[lemma:lemma3.1\], \[lemma:lemma3.2\], and \[lemma:lemma3.3\]. Section \[section:section4\] proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.1\].
\[lemma:lemma3.1\] Let $G$ be an $n$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. Given a segmented simple non-degenerate cycle $C$ of $G$ together with its segments, it takes $O(n\log \log n)$ time to compute a $C$-short non-degenerate cycle of $G$.
\[lemma:lemma3.2\] It takes $O(n)$ time to compute a shortest-path tree rooted at any given node of an $n$-node connected simple directed planar graph with nonnegative edge weights.
\[lemma:lemma3.3\] Let $G_\vartriangle$ be an $n$-node simple undirected plane triangulation with nonnegative face weights summing to $1$ such that the weight of each face of $G_\vartriangle$ is at most $\frac{1}{4}$. Given any spanning tree $T$ of $G_\vartriangle$, it takes $O(n)$ time to obtain an edge $e$ of $G_\vartriangle\setminus T$ such that the total weight of the faces of $G_\vartriangle$ inside (respectively, outside) of the simple cycle in $T\cup\{e\}$ is no more than $\frac{3}{4}$.
We give a divide-and-conquer recursive algorithm on the input graph $H$, which can be assumed to be connected without loss of generality. For each degree-$2$ node $y$ whose neighbors $x$ and $z$ are non-adjacent, we replace $y$ and its incident edges by edges $xz$ and $zx$ with weights $w(xy)+w(yz)$ and $w(zy)+w(yx)$, respectively. The resulting graph $G$ obtainable in $O(n)$ time from $H$ remains an $O(1)$-degree simple connected bidirected plane graph. See Figure \[figure:figure3\] for an example of $H$ and $G$. Let $\ell$ be the number of faces in $G$. Since each maximal simple path on the degree-$2$ nodes of $G$ has $O(1)$ edges, $G$ has $O(\ell)$ nodes. A shortest non-degenerate cycle of $H$ can be obtained in $O(n)$ time from a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$, which can be found in $O(1)$ time for the case with $\ell\leq 4$.
To obtain a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ for the case with $\ell\geq 5$, let $T$ be an $O(n)$-time obtainable shortest-path tree of $G$ rooted at an arbitrary node as ensured by Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\]. For each face $f$ of the simple undirected unweighted version $G_0$ of $G$ having size $k\geq 3$, (1) let $f$ be triangulated into $k-2$ faces via adding $k-3$ edges without introducing multiple edges, (2) let an arbitrary one of the $k-2$ faces be assigned weight $\frac{1}{\ell}$, and (3) let the remaining $k-3$ faces be assigned weights $0$. Let $G_\vartriangle$ be the resulting simple plane triangulation. The undirected version $T_0$ of $T$ is a spanning tree of $G_0$ and $G_\vartriangle$. See Figure \[figure:figure4\] for an example. Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.3\] ensures an edge $xy$ of $G_\vartriangle\setminus
T_0$ obtainable in $O(n)$ time such that the face weights of $G_\vartriangle$ inside (respectively, outside) of the simple cycle of $T_0\cup \{xy\}$ sum to at most $\frac{3}{4}$. For instance, such an edge $xy$ in the example in Figure \[figure:figure4\] is $v_3v_4$. If $x$ and $y$ are adjacent in $G$, then let $E=\varnothing$; otherwise, let $E$ consist of edges $xy$ and $yx$ with weights $\infty$. We union $G$ and $E$ to obtain a simple bidirected plane graph $G^*$. Let $s$ be the least common ancestor of $x$ and $y$ in $T$. Let $C$ be the segmented simple non-degenerate cycle of $G^*$ consisting of (1) the $sx$-path of $T$, (2) edge $xy$, and (3) the reverse of the $sy$-path of $T$. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.1\], it takes $O(n\log\log n)$ time to compute a $C$-short cycle $C_3$ of $G^*$. Let $H_1=\textit{int}_{G^*}(C)\setminus E$ and $H_2=\textit{ext}_{G^*}(C)\setminus E$. No matter $E=\varnothing$ or not, $H_1$ and $H_2$ are subgraphs of $G$ . We recursively compute a shortest non-degenerate cycle $C_1$ (respectively, $C_2$) in $H_1$ (respectively, $H_2$), which is also a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $\textit{int}_{G^*}(C)$ (respectively, $\textit{ext}_{G^*}(C)$). By definition of $C_3$, a cycle $C^*$ in $\{C_1,C_2,C_3\}$ with minimum weight is a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G^*$. If $C^*$ passes an edge in $E\ne\varnothing$, then the weight of each non-degenerate cycle of $G^*$ and $G$ is $\infty$. Otherwise, we return $C^*$ as a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$. The algorithm runs in $O(n\log\log n)$ time without accounting for the time for its subsequent recursive calls. By $\ell\geq 5$, the number $\ell_1$ (respectively, $\ell_2$) of faces in $H_1$ (respectively, $H_2$) is at most $\frac{3}{4}\ell+1\leq \frac{19}{20}\ell$, implying that there are $O(\log n)$ levels of recursion. By $\ell_1+\ell_2\leq \ell+2$, the overall number of faces in each recursion level is $O(n)$, implying that the overall number of nodes in each recursion level is $O(n)$. The algorithm runs in $O(n\log n\log\log n)$ time.
Non-degenerate cycles that cross the separating cycle {#section:section4}
=====================================================
This section proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.1\] by Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.2\], which is proved by Lemmas \[lemma:lemma3.2\] and \[lemma:lemma4.1\]. Section \[section:section5\] proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\]. If graph $G$ has $uv$-paths, then let $d_G(u,v)$ denote the weight of a shortest $uv$-path of $G$. If $G$ has no $uv$-paths, then let $d_G(u,v)=\infty$.
\[lemma:lemma4.1\] Let $G$ be an $n$-node simple connected bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. Let $u_1,\ldots,u_\ell,v_\ell,\ldots,v_1$ be $O(n)$ nodes on the boundary of the external face of $G$ in order. It takes overall $O(n\log\log n)$ time to compute $d_G(u_i,v_i)$ for each $i=1,\ldots,\ell$.
Let $G$ be a simple bidirected plane graph. A simple path $Q$ of $G$ [*aligns*]{} with subgraph $H$ of $G$ if $Q$ or the reverse of $Q$ is a path of $H$. A simple path $Q$ of $G$ passing at least one edge [*deviates*]{} from subgraph $H$ of $G$ if the edges and the internal nodes of $Q$ are not in $H$. For any simple path $P$ of $G$, a non-degenerate cycle of $G$ is a [*$P$-cycle*]{} if it consists of a path aligning with $P$ and a path deviating from $P$. For any simple non-degenerate cycle of $G$ and any path $P$ of $G$ aligning with $C$, a $P$-cycle is a [*$(C,P)$-cycle*]{} if the first edge of its path deviating from $P$ is in $\textit{int}_G(C)$ if and only if the last edge of its path deviating from $P$ is in $\textit{ext}_G(C)$. For instance, the $C^*$ in Figure \[figure:figure3\](a) is a $P_1$-cycle of $G$ whose path aligning with $P_1$ is node $v_2$. The first edge $v_2v_6$ (respectively, last edge $v_5v_2$) of its path deviating from $P_1$ is in $\textit{ext}_G(C)$ (respectively, $\textit{int}_G(C)$), so $C^*$ is a $(C,P_1)$-cycle of $G$. $C^*$ is also a $(C,P_2)$-cycle. A non-degenerate cycle of $G$ is [*$(C,P)$-short*]{} if its weight is no more than that of any $(C,P)$-cycle of $G$.
\[lemma:lemma4.2\] Let $G$ be an $n$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. Let $C$ be a simple non-degenerate cycle of $G$. Given a path $P$ of $G$ aligning with $C$, it takes $O(n\log\log n)$ time to compute a $(C,P)$-short cycle of $G$.
Let $C^*$ be a $(C,P)$-cycle of $G$ with minimum weight. For instance, the red and blue cycles in Figure \[figure:figure5\](a) are two $(C,P)$-cycles with minimum weight $2$. Let $C_0$ be a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ passing at least one endpoint of $P$, which can be obtained in $O(n)$ time via examining shortest $uv$-paths in $G\setminus \{uv,vu\}$ by Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\] for all $O(1)$ edges $uv$ of $G$ incident to at least one endpoint of $P$. If $C^*$ passes some endpoint of $P$, then $w(C_0)\leq w(C^*)$, implying that $C_0$ is a cycle ensured by the lemma. The rest of the proof assumes that $C^*$ does not pass any endpoint of $P$. Thus, $P$ has internal nodes. Let $H$ be an $O(n)$-node $O(1)$-degree simple bidirected plane graph obtainable in $O(n)$ time as follows: Suppose that $u_0,\ldots,u_{\ell+1}$ with $\ell\geq 1$ are the nodes of $P$ in order. Let $s=v_0=u_0$ and $t=v_{\ell+1}=u_{\ell+1}$. We [ *incise*]{} $G$ along $P$ by
- adding new nodes $v_1,\ldots,v_\ell$, a new path $P'=sv_1\cdots
v_\ell t$ and the reverse of $P'$,
- for each $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, letting each edge $vu_i$ (respectively, $u_iv$) incident to $u_i$ in $\textit{int}_G(C)\setminus P$ be replaced by $vv_i$ (respectively, $v_iv$) with the same weight,
- letting the weight of each edge in $P'$ and the reverse of $P'$ be $\infty$, and
- embedding the resulting graph $H$ such that $P$ and $P'$ are on the external face.
See Figure \[figure:figure5\] for an example. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\], it takes overall $O(n\log\log n)$ time to compute $d_H(u_i,v_i)$ and $d_H(v_i,u_i)$ for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$. Let $i_1$ (respectively, $i_2$) be an $i\in\{1,\ldots,\ell\}$ that minimizes $d_H(u_i,v_i)$ (respectively, $d_H(v_i,u_i)$). By Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\], it takes $O(n)$ time to obtain a simple shortest $u_{i_1}v_{i_1}$-path $P_1$ of $H$ and a simple shortest $v_{i_2}u_{i_2}$-path $P_2$ of $H$. The weight of $P_1$ (respectively, $P_2$) is minimum over all $u_iv_i$-paths (respectively, $v_iu_i$-paths) of $H$ with $1\leq i\leq \ell$. Let $C_1$ (respectively, $C_2$) be the non-degenerate cycle of $G$ corresponding to $P_1$ (respectively, $P_2$). Let $Q$ be the path of $C^*$ that deviates from $P$. Let $u_i$ and $u_j$ with $1\leq i,j\leq\ell$ be the first and last nodes of $Q$, respectively. If the first edge of $Q$ is in $\textit{int}_G(C)$, then $C^*$ corresponds to a $v_iu_i$-path of $H$, implying $w(C_2)\leq w(C^*)$. If the last edge of $Q$ is in $\textit{int}_G(C)$, then $C^*$ corresponds to a $u_jv_j$-path of $H$, implying $w(C_1)\leq w(C^*)$. For instance, the red (respectively, blue) cycle of $G$ in Figure \[figure:figure5\](a) corresponds to the red $u_1v_1$-path (respectively, blue $v_1u_1$-path) of $H$ in Figure \[figure:figure5\](b). Thus, one of $C_0$, $C_1$, and $C_2$ with minimum weight is a cycle ensured by the lemma.
Let $G_1=\textit{int}_G(C)$ and $G_2=\textit{ext}_G(C)$. Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be the given segments of $C$. Let $C^*$ be a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ whose number of edges not in $P_1\cup P_2$ is minimized over all shortest non-degenerate cycles of $G$. If $C^*$ is a cycle of $G_1$ or $G_2$, then any cycle of $G$ is $C$-short, including the one ensured by Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.2\]. The rest of the proof assumes that neither $G_1$ nor $G_2$ contains $C^*$. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.2\], it suffices to ensure that $C^*$ is a $(C,P_1)$-cycle. We need the following claim:
> [*For each $i\in\{1,2\}$, if $C^*\cap P_i\ne\varnothing$, then $C^*$ is a $P_i$-cycle of $G$.*]{}
By the claim, $C^*$ intersects both $P_1$ and $P_2$ or else $C^*$ would be a cycle of $G_1$ or $G_2$, as illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure6\](a), contradicting the assumption. Since $C^*$ is a $P_1$-cycle and a $P_2$-cycle, $C^*$ consists of four paths $Q_1$, $R_1$, $Q_2$, and $R_2$ in order such that $Q_i$ aligns with $P_i$ and $R_i$ deviates from $P_1\cup P_2$ for each $i\in\{1,2\}$. By the assumption, if $R_1\subseteq G_i$ and $R_2\subseteq G_j$, then $\{i,j\}=\{1,2\}$. Thus, $C^*$ is a $(C,P_1)$-cycle. See Figure \[figure:figure6\](b) for an illustration. It remains to prove the claim. Assume for contradiction that $C^*$ intersects $P_i$ but is not a $P_i$-cycle for an index $i\in\{1,2\}$. There are nodes $u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2$ of $P_i$ with $u_1\ne v_1$ and $u_2\ne v_2$ such that
- $u_1$ precedes $v_1$ in $P_i$,
- $u_2$ succeeds $v_2$ in $P_i$,
- the $u_1v_1$-path and the $u_2v_2$-path of $C^*$ deviate from $P_i$, and
- the $u_1v_1$-path of $C^*$ deviates from the $u_2v_2$-path of $C^*$.
Let $C'$ be the cycle of $G$ obtained from $C^*$ by replacing the $u_1v_1$-path of $C^*$ with the $u_1v_1$-path of $P_i$. Since $P_i$ is a shortest path of $G$, $w(C')\leq w(C^*)$. Since $C^*$ is non-degenerate, the reverse of each of the $u_2v_2$-path of $C'$ is not in $C'$. Thus, even if $C'$ is degenerate, there is a non-degenerate cycle $C''$ in $C'$. See Figure \[figure:figure6\](c) for an illustration. By nonnegativity of edge weights, $w(C'')\leq w(C')$. By $w(C'')\leq w(C^*)$, $C''$ is a shortest non-degenerate cycle of $G$ whose number of edges not in $P_1\cup P_2$ is fewer than the number of edges of $C^*$ not in $P_1\cup P_2$, contradicting the definition of $C^*$.
Noncrossing shortest paths among nodes on external face {#section:section5}
=======================================================
This section proves Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\] via extending techniques of Reif [@reif] and Italiano et al. [@ital] for undirected planar graphs. Algorithms for $r$-divisions (Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.1\]) and dense-distance graphs (Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.2\]) are reviewed in §\[subsection:subsection5.1\]. Data structures for fast-Dijkstra algorithm (Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.5\]) are given in §\[subsection:subsection5.2\]. Data structures that enables efficient partition of boundary nodes via noncrossing paths (Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.6\]) are given in §\[subsection:subsection5.3\]. Tools involving noncrossing shortest paths (Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\]) are given in §\[subsection:subsection5.4\]. Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\] is proved by Lemmas \[lemma:lemma3.2\], \[lemma:lemma5.1\], \[lemma:lemma5.2\], \[lemma:lemma5.5\], \[lemma:lemma5.6\], and \[lemma:lemma5.8\] in §\[subsection:subsection5.5\].
Dense-distance graph {#subsection:subsection5.1}
--------------------
Let $G$ be a simple bidirected plane graph. A [*division*]{} $D$ of $G$ is an edge-disjoint partition of $G$ into bidirected plane subgraphs, each of which is a [*piece*]{} of $D$. The [*multiplicity*]{} of node $v$ of $G$ in $D$ is the number of pieces of $D$ containing $v$. A node of $G$ with multiplicity two or more in $D$ is a [*boundary*]{} node of $D$. A face of a piece of $D$ is a [*hole*]{} of the piece if it is not a face of $G$. For any $r>0$, an [*$r$-division*]{} (see, e.g., [@Frederickson87; @henz; @ital; @r-divi; @lacki]) of $G$ is a division of $G$ with $O(n/r)$ pieces, each having $O(r)$ nodes, $O(\sqrt{r})$ boundary nodes, and $O(1)$ holes.
\[lemma:lemma5.1\] For any $r>0$, it takes $O(n)$ time to compute an $r$-division for an $n$-node simple bidirected plane graph each of whose faces contains at most three nodes.
Let $D$ be an $r$-division of $G$. For any connected component $H$ of any piece of $D$, let $K(H)$ denote the complete directed graph on the boundary nodes of $D$ in $H$ in which $w(uv)=d_H(u,v)$. See Figure \[figure:figure7\] for an example. The [*dense distance graph*]{} (see, e.g., [@ital]) $K(D)$ of $D$ is the $O(n)$-edge simple directed graph on the $O(n/\sqrt{r})$ boundary nodes of $D$ [*simplified*]{} from the union of $K(H)$ over all connected components $H$ of all pieces of $D$ by keeping exactly one copy of parallel edges with minimum weight. For any edge $uv$ of $K(D)$, an [*underlying $uv$-path*]{} is a $uv$-path in some connected component $H$ of some piece of $D$ with weight equal to $w(uv)$ in $K(D)$. For any path $\Pi$ of $K(D)$, an [*underlying path*]{} of $\Pi$ consists of an underlying $uv$-path for each edge $uv$ of $\Pi$.
\[lemma:lemma5.2\] For any given $r$-division $D$ of an $n$-node simple bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights, it takes $O(n\log r)$ time to compute $K(D)$ and a data structure from which, for any path $\Pi$ of $K(D)$, the first $c$ edges of an underlying path of $\Pi$ can be obtained in $O(c\log\log r)$ time.
Fast-Dijkstra algorithm {#subsection:subsection5.2}
-----------------------
Consider the following equation $$\label{equation:equation2}
w(u_1v_1)+w(u_2v_2)\leq w(u_1v_2)+w(u_2v_1)$$ for distinct nodes $u_1,u_2,v_1,v_2$ of a simple directed graph $H$ with edge weights. A [*type-$1$ Monge unit*]{} is a complete $H$ equipped with a cyclic ordering for the nodes of $H$ such that Equation (\[equation:equation2\]) holds for any distinct nodes $u_1,u_2,v_2,v_1$ of $H$ in order. A [*type-$2$ Monge unit*]{} is a complete bipartite $H$ equipped with an ordering for each of the two maximal independent sets of $H$ such that Equation (\[equation:equation2\]) holds for any distinct nodes $u_1$ and $u_2$ of one independent set in order and any distinct nodes $v_1$ and $v_2$ of the other independent set in order.
A [*Monge decomposition*]{} of a simple directed graph $K$ with edge weights is a set $M$ of Monge units on node subsets of $K$ such that $K$ is the graph simplified from the union of the Monge units in $M$. The [*multiplicity*]{} of a node $v$ of $K$ in $M$ is the number of Monge units in $M$ that contain $v$. The [*size*]{} of $M$ is the sum of the multiplicities of all nodes of $K$ in $M$. An equivalent form of the following lemma is proved by Mozes and Wulff-Nilsen [@MozesW10 §4.4] using the algorithm of Klein [@mssp] and used by Kaplan, Mozes, Nussbaum, and Sharir [@monge §5.2]. Specifically, for any hole $C$ of a piece $H$ of $D$, the complete graph on the nodes of $C$ with $w(uv)=d_H(u,v)$ for any nodes $u$ and $v$ in $C$ equipped with the cyclic ordering of $C$ is a type-$1$ Monge unit. For instance, the subgraphs of $K(H)$ in Figure \[figure:figure7\](b) induced by $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ and $\{y_1,y_2\}$ equipped with their cyclic orders on the holes are two type-$1$ Monge units. For any two holes $C_1$ and $C_2$ of a piece $H$ of $D$, Mozes et al. showed that the complete bipartite graph on the nodes of $C_1$ and $C_2$ with $w(uv)=d_H(u,v)$ for nodes $u$ and $v$ such that each of $C_1$ and $C_2$ contains exactly one of $u$ and $v$ can be simplified from the union of $O(1)$ type-$2$ Monge units. For instance, the subgraph of $K(H)$ in Figure \[figure:figure7\] consisting of edges between $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ and $\{y_1,y_2\}$ can be simplified from the union of the graphs in Figures \[figure:figure8\](a) and \[figure:figure8\](b). The edges of the graph in Figure \[figure:figure8\](a) from $\langle x_1,x_2,x_3\rangle$ (respectively, $\langle y_2,y_1\rangle$) to $\langle y_1,y_2\rangle$ (respectively, $\langle x_3,x_1,x_2\rangle$) form a type-$2$ Monge unit. The edges of the graph in Figure \[figure:figure8\](b) from $\langle x_3,x_1,x_2\rangle$ (respectively, $\langle y_1,y_2\rangle$) to $\langle y_1,y_2\rangle$ (respectively, $\langle
x_3,x_1,x_2\rangle$) form a type-$2$ Monge unit.
\[lemma:lemma5.3\] For any given $r$-division $D$ of an $n$-node simple bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights, it takes $O(n\log r)$ time to obtain a Monge decomposition $M(D)$ of $K(D)$ such that the multiplicity of a node of $K(D)$ in $M(D)$ is $O(1)$ times its multiplicity in $D$.
As summarized in the following lemma, given a size-$m$ Monge decomposition of graph $K$, there are $O(m\log^2 m)$-time obtainable data structures for range minimum queries (see, e.g., Kaplan et al. [@monge] and Gawrychowski, Mozes, and Weimann [@GawrychowskiMW15]) with which the fast-Dijkstra algorithm of Fakcharoenphol and Rao [@fr] outputs a shortest-path tree of $K$ in $O(m\log^2 m)$ time.
\[lemma:lemma5.4\] Given a size-$m$ Monge decomposition of a simple strongly connected directed graph $K$ with nonnegative edge weights, it takes $O(m\log^2
m)$ time to compute a shortest-path tree of $K$ rooted at any given node.
\[lemma:lemma5.5\] Let $D$ be a given $r$-division of an $n$-node simple plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. It takes $O(n\log r)$ time to compute a data structure from which, for any subset $X$ of the boundary nodes of $D$ such that the subgraph $K$ of $K(D)$ induced by $X$ is strongly connected, it takes $O(m\log^2 m)$ time to compute a shortest-path tree of $K$ rooted at any given node, where $m$ is the sum of the multiplicities of the nodes of $X$ in $D$.
Let $M(D)$ be a Monge decomposition of $K(D)$ as ensured by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.3\]. Let $M$ consist of the subgraph $H[X]$ of $H$ induced by $X$ for each Monge unit $H$ in $M(D)$. Each $H[X]$ remains a Monge unit with the induced cyclic ordering (respectively, orderings) of the nodes in $H[X]$ for the first (respectively, second) type. Thus, $M$ is a Monge decomposition of $K$ preserving the property that the multiplicity of a node of $K$ in $M$ is $O(1)$ times its multiplicity in $D$, implying that the size of $M$ is $O(m)$. It takes overall $O(m)$ time to obtain the induced cyclic ordering or the two induced orderings of the nodes of $H[X]$ from $H$ for each Monge unit $H$ in $M(D)$. Since the weight of each edge of $H[X]$ can be obtained in $O(1)$ time from its weight in $H$, we have an implicit representation of $M$ in $O(m)$ time. The lemma follows from Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.4\].
Noncrossing paths {#subsection:subsection5.3}
-----------------
Let $G$ be a simple connected bidirected plane graph. Let $u_1,u_2,v_2,v_1$ be distinct nodes on the boundary of the external face of connected plane graph $G$ in order. A simple $u_1v_1$-path $P_1$ and a simple $u_2v_2$-path $P_2$ of $G$ are [*noncrossing*]{} if $P_1\cap P_2$ is empty or is a path. For instance, in Figure \[figure:figure9\], $P_1$ in red and $P_2$ in blue are noncrossing. For noncrossing $P_1$ and $P_2$, let $G[P_1,P_2]$ denote the connected bidirected plane subgraph of $G$ enclosed by $P_1$, $P_2$, and the $u_1u_2$-path and $v_2v_1$-path on the boundary of the external face of $G$ following the order of $u_1,u_2,v_2,v_1$. See Figure \[figure:figure9\] for an example.
Let $D$ be an $r$-division of $G$. Our proof of Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\] needs a data structure $B(D)$ with the following property: For distinct nodes $u_1,u_2,u_3,v_3,v_2,v_1$ on the external face of $G$ in order, any disjoint simple $u_1v_1$-path $P_1$ and $u_3v_3$-path $P_3$ of $G$, and any simple $u_2v_2$-path $P_2$ of $G[P_1,P_3]$ such that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are noncrossing, given $X(1,3)$ and $P_2\setminus P_1$, it takes $O((m_1+m_2)\log r)$ time to obtain $X(1,2)$ and $X(2,3)$, where $X(i,j)$ with $1\leq
i<j\leq 3$ consists of the boundary nodes of $D$ in $G[P_i,P_j]$, $m_1$ is the sum of multiplicities of the nodes of $X(1,3)$ in $D$, and $m_2$ is the number of edges in $P_2\setminus P_1$. See Figure \[figure:figure10\] for an illustration.
\[lemma:lemma5.6\] It takes $O(n)$ time to compute a data structure $B(D)$ for any given $r$-division $D$ of any $n$-node simple connected bidirected plane graph.
Given $X(1,3)$ and the edge set $E$ of $P_2\setminus P_1$, it takes $O(m_1+m_2)$ time to obtain the nodes of $X(1,3)$ in $E$, which belongs to $X(1,2)\cap X(2,3)$. Let $X$ consist of the nodes of $X(1,3)$ not in $E$. If $X=\varnothing$, then $X(1,2)=X(2,3)=X(1,3)$. The rest of the proof assumes $X\ne\varnothing$. Let $\mathbbmsl{H}_0$ (respectively, $\mathbbmsl{H}_1$) consist of the pieces $H$ of $D$ such that $H$ contains nodes of $X$ and no (respectively, some) edges of $E$. We have $\mathbbmsl{H}_1\ne\varnothing$, since $G[P_1,P_3]$ is connected and $E\ne\varnothing$. Let $A$ be the $O(m_1+m_2)$-time obtainable undirected bipartite graph on the nodes $x$ in $X$ and the pieces $H$ of $D$ in $\mathbbmsl{H}_0$ such that $H$ and $x$ are adjacent in $A$ if and only if $H$ contains $x$ in $G$. The nodes of $X$ in the same connected component of $A$ either all belong to $X(1,2)$ or all belong to $X(2,3)$. Since $G[P_1,P_3]$ is connected, each connected component of $A$ contains a node of $X$ that belongs to a piece of $H\in \mathbbmsl{H}_1$ in $G$. It takes overall $O(m_1+m_2)$ time to obtain $H\cap E$, $C\cap E$, and $C\cap X$ for each hole $C$ of each piece $H$ of $D$ in $\mathbbmsl{H}_1$. Since each piece of $D$ has $O(1)$ holes, it remains to show that with the $B(D)$ defined below, for each hole $C$ of each piece $H$ of $D$ in $\mathbbmsl{H}_1$, it takes $O(m\log r)$ time to determine the nodes of $C\cap X$ in $X(1,2)$, where $m$ is the number of nodes in $H\cap
X$ plus the number of edges in $H\cap E$.
Assume without loss of generality that the external face of each piece $H$ of $D$ is a hole of $H$. The $O(n)$-time obtainable data structure $B(D)$ consists of (1) the cyclic ordering of the incident edges around each node of $G$ and (2) the following items for each hole $C$ of each piece $H$ of $D$:
- An arbitrary simple path $Q$ of $H$ from a node of $C$ to a node $q$ on the external face of $H$.
- The ordering indices of the nodes on $Q$.
- The cyclic ordering indices of the nodes on $C$.
It takes overall $O(m_1+m_2)$ time to obtain $Q\cap E$ for each hole $C$ of each piece $H$ of $D$ in $\mathbbmsl{H}_1$. With the first part of $B(D)$, if $uv$ is an edge of $G[P_1,P_3]$ with $u\in P_2$ and $v\notin P_2$, then it takes $O(1)$ time to determine whether $v\in G[P_1,P_2]$. With the second part of $B(D)$, for any $k$-node subset $U$ of any piece $H$ of $D$ and any hole $C$ of $H$, it takes $O(k)$ time to determine the ordering indices of the nodes of $U\cap Q$ in $Q$ and the cyclic ordering indices of the nodes of $U\cap C$ in $C$.
Case 1: $C\cap E\ne\varnothing$. As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure11\](a), it takes overall $O(m\log r)$ time via sorting their ordering indices to compute, for each node $x$ of $C\cap X$, the first node $u\in E$ in the traversal of $C$ starting from $x$ following the order of $u_1,u_3,v_3,v_1$ and the node $v$ of $C$ preceding $u$ in the traversal. We have $x\in X(1,2)$ if and only if $v\in G[P_1,P_2]$, which can be determined in $O(1)$ time.
Case 2: $C\cap E=\varnothing$. As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure11\](b), if $Q\cap E\ne\varnothing$, then let $v$ be the node preceding the first node $u$ of $Q$ in $E$. Let $C'$ be the boundary of the external face of $H$. As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure11\](c), if $Q\cap E=\varnothing$, then let $v$ be the node of $C'$ preceding the first node $u$ of $C'$ in $E$ on the traversal of $C'$ starting from $q$ following the order of $u_1,u_3,v_3,v_1$. Either way, it takes $O(m)$ time to obtain $v$ and determine whether $v\in G[P_1,P_2]$. If $v\in G[P_1,P_2]$, then $C\cap X\subseteq X(1,2)$. Otherwise, $C\cap X\subseteq X(2,3)$.
Noncrossing shortest paths {#subsection:subsection5.4}
--------------------------
\[lemma:lemma5.7\] Let $G$ be a simple connected bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. If nodes $u_1,u_2,v_2,v_1$ are on the boundary of the external face of $G$ in order, then for any shortest $u_1v_1$-path $P_1$ of $G$, there is a shortest $u_2v_2$-path $P_2$ of $G$ such that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are noncrossing.
As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure12\], suppose that $P'_2$ is a shortest $u_2v_2$-path of $G$ with $P_1\cap P'_2\ne\varnothing$. Let $u$ (respectively, $v$) be the first (respectively, last) node of $P'_2$ in $P_1$. Let $P_2$ be obtained from $P'_2$ by replacing its $uv$-path with the $uv$-path of $P_1$. By the order of $u_1,u_2,v_2,v_1$ on the boundary of the external face of $G$, $P_2$ is well defined and is a shortest $u_2v_2$-path of $G$ such that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are noncrossing.
\[lemma:lemma5.8\] Let $G$ be an $n$-node simple connected bidirected plane graph with nonnegative edge weights. Let $u_1,\ldots,u_k,v_k,\ldots,v_1$ be $2k$ distinct nodes on the boundary of the external face of $G$ in order. For each $i\in\{1,k\}$, let $P_i$ be a simple shortest $u_iv_i$-path of $G$ such that $P_1$ and $P_k$ are noncrossing. Let $h$ be the number of nodes of $G[P_1,P_k]$ not in $P_1\cap P_k$. Given $P_1\setminus P_k$ and $P_k\setminus P_1$, consider the problem of computing $d_G(u_i,v_i)$ for all $i=1,\ldots,k$.
1. \[statement:lemma5.8(1)\] If $P_1\cap P_k=\varnothing$, then the problem can be solved in $O(h\log k)$ time.
2. \[statement:lemma5.8(2)\] If $P_1\cap P_k=\varnothing$ and we are given a set $Z$ of $O(1)$ nodes such that for each $i=1,\ldots,k$ at least one shortest $u_iv_i$-path passes at least one node of $Z$, then the problem can be solved in $O(h)$ time.
3. \[statement:lemma5.8(3)\] If $P_1\cap P_k\ne\varnothing$ and we are given $w(P_1\cap P_k)$, then the problem can be solved in $O(h)$ time.
Since $P_1\setminus P_k$ and $P_k\setminus P_1$ are given, it takes $O(h)$ time to obtain $G[P_1,P_k]$ excluding the edges and internal nodes of $P_1\cap P_k$. Statements \[statement:lemma5.8(2)\] and \[statement:lemma5.8(3)\] follow from Lemmas \[lemma:lemma3.2\] and \[lemma:lemma5.7\]. As for Statement \[statement:lemma5.8(1)\], under the assumption that a simple shortest $u_av_a$-path $P_a$ and a simple shortest $u_bv_b$-path $P_b$ of $G$ are given and disjoint, below is the recursive algorithm $\textsc{Measure}(a,b)$ with $1\leq a<b\leq k$ for solving the [*$(a,b)$-subproblem*]{} of computing $d_G(u_i,v_i)$ for all indices $i$ with $a<i<b$:
> Let $i=\lfloor (a+b)/2\rfloor$. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\], it takes time linear in the number of nodes in $G[P_a,P_b]$ to obtain $d_G(u_i,v_i)$ and a simple shortest $u_iv_i$-path $P_i$ of $G[P_a,P_b]$ that is noncrossing with both $P_a$ and $P_b$. For the $(a,i)$-subproblem, if $P_a\cap P_i=\varnothing$, then call $\textsc{Measure}(a,i)$; otherwise, apply Statement \[statement:lemma5.8(2)\] with $Z$ consisting of an arbitrary node in $P_a\cap P_i$. For the $(i,b)$-subproblem, if $P_i\cap P_b=\varnothing$, then call $\textsc{Measure}(i,b)$; otherwise, apply Statement \[statement:lemma5.8(2)\] with $Z$ consisting of an arbitrary node in $P_i\cap P_b$.
The algorithm for the statement obtains $d_G(u_1,v_1)$ and $d_G(u_k,v_k)$ from $P_1$ and $P_k$ and calls $\textsc{Measure}(1,k)$. Since each $d_G(u_i,v_i)$ with $1< i<k$ is computed by Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\] or Statement \[statement:lemma5.8(2)\], the correctness holds trivially. By the choice of $i$, $\textsc{Measure}(1,k)$ runs in $O(\log k)$ levels of recursion. Since $P_a\cap P_b=\varnothing$ holds for each call to $\textsc{Measure}(a,b)$, each node of $G[P_1,P_k]$ appears in at most two subgraphs $G[P_a,P_b]$ in the same level of recursion. Thus, the overall running time for each level of recursion is $O(h)$. The algorithm runs in $O(h\log k)$ time.
Proving Lemma \[lemma:lemma4.1\] {#subsection:subsection5.5}
--------------------------------
For each $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, let $d_i=d_G(u_i,v_i)$. With the modification below, each $d_i$ with $1\leq i\leq \ell$ equals the weight of a shortest $u'_iv'_i$-path in the resulting $G$, which remains an $O(n)$-node simple connected bidirected plane graph: (1) for each $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, add new nodes $u'_i$ and $v'_i$ in the external face, zero-weighted edges $u'_iu_i$ and $v_iv'_i$, and $\infty$-weighted edges $u_iu'_i$ and $v'_iv_i$, (2) contract each zero-weighted strongly connected subgraph into a single node, (3) delete all self-loops, and (4) delete all except one copy of each set of multiple edges with minimum weight. Thus, the rest of the proof assumes that $u_1,\ldots,u_\ell,v_\ell,\ldots,v_1$ are distinct and $G$ does not have any zero-weighted cycles, implying that all shortest paths of $G$ are simple.
Let $G_\vartriangle$ be an $O(n)$-node bidirected plane graph obtainable in $O(n)$ time from $G$ by identifying nodes $u_i$ and $v_i$ into a new node $z_i$ for each $i=1,\ldots,\ell$ and then triangulating each face of size larger than $3$. Let $$\label{equation:equation1}
r=\max(1,\lceil \log^6_2 n\rceil).$$ By Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.1\], an $r$-division $D_0$ for $G_\vartriangle$ can be computed in $O(n)$ time. Let $D_1$ be the division of $G$ induced by $D_0$: Each piece of $D_1$ is obtained from a piece of $D_0$ by deleting the edges added to triangulate faces of size larger than $3$. Each piece of $D_0$ has $O(r)$ nodes, $O(\sqrt{r})$ boundary nodes, and $O(1)$ holes, so does each piece of $D_1$. Let $I$ consist of indices $1$ and $\ell$ and the indices $i$ such that at least one of $u_i$ and $v_i$ is a boundary node of $D_1$. Since each $z_i$ with $i\in I\setminus\{1,\ell\}$ is a boundary node in $D_0$, the cardinality of $I$ is $O(n/\sqrt{r})$. To turn both of $u_i$ and $v_i$ with $i\in I$ into boundary nodes, we introduce $O(n/r)$ new $O(\sqrt{r})$-node pieces, which form a partition of the nodes $u_i$ and $v_i$ with $i\in I$. Let $D$ be the resulting division of $G$. Each new piece of $D$ has $O(\sqrt{r})$ nodes and no edges, so it has $O(\sqrt{r})$ boundary nodes and $O(1)$ holes. Thus, $D$ is an $r$-division of $G$ such that each $u_i$ with $1\leq i\leq
\ell$ is a boundary node in $D$ if and only if so is $v_i$. Let $G'$ be the simple bidirected plane graph with edge weights obtained from $G$ by reversing the direction of each edge. Let $D'$ be the $r$-division of $G'$ corresponding to $D$. By Equation (\[equation:equation1\]), it takes $O(n\log\log n)$ time to compute $K(D)$ and $K(D')$ and the data structures ensured by Lemmas \[lemma:lemma5.2\] and \[lemma:lemma5.5\].
For any nodes $x$ and $y$ in a shortest path $P$ of $G$, let $P[x,y]$ denote the $xy$-path of $P$. We need a subroutine $\textsc{Label}(P)$ to compute label $\phi(z)$ for each node $z$ of a shortest path $P$ of $G$ under the assumption that $\phi(z)$ for at most one node of $P$ is pre-computed:
> Let $z^*$ be the node with pre-computed $\phi(z^*)$. If there is no such a node, then let $z^*$ be an arbitrary node of $P$ and let $\phi(z^*)=0$. For each node $z$ that precedes $z^*$ in $P$, let $\phi(z)=\phi(z^*)-w(P[z,z^*])$. For each node $z$ that succeeds $z^*$ in $P$, let $\phi(z)=\phi(z^*)+w(P[z,z^*])$.
Subroutine $\textsc{Label}(P)$ runs in $O(1)$ time per node of $P$ and does not overwrite $\phi(z)$ for any $z$ with pre-computed $\phi(z)$. After running $\textsc{Label}(P)$, for any nodes $x$ and $y$ of $P$, $w(P[x,y])$ can be obtained from $\phi(y)-\phi(x)$ in $O(1)$ time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subroutine $\textsc{Solve}(a,b)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If $I(a,b)=\varnothing$, then solve the $(a,b)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(1)\]) and return.
If $I(a,b)\ne \varnothing$, then let $i$ be a median of $I(a,b)$ and let $P$ (respectively, $P'$) be a shortest $u_iv_i$-path whose first (respectively, last) $c$ edges can be obtained in $O(c\log\log r)$ time.
Case 1: $P\cap (P_a\cup P_b)=\varnothing$. Let $P_i=P$. Call $\textsc{Label}(P_i)$, $\text{\sc Solve}(a,i)$, and $\text{\sc
Solve}(i,b)$. Return.
Case 2: $P\cap (P_a\cup P_b)\ne\varnothing$.
- Call $\textsc{Label}(P[u_i,x])$, where $x$ is the first node of $P$ in $P_a\cup P_b$.
- Call $\textsc{Label}(P'[y,v_i])$, where $y$ is the last node of $P'$ in $P[u_i,x]\cup P_a\cup P_b$.
Case 2(1): $y\in P_a\cup P_b$. Let $j$ be the index in $\{a,b\}$ with $x\in P_j$.
- If $y\notin P_j$, then solve the $(a,b)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) with $Z=\{x,y\}$. Return.
- If $y\in P_j$, then let $P_i=P[u_i,x]P_j[x,y]P'[y,v_i]$, implying $w(P_i\cap P_j)=\phi(y)-\phi(x)$.
- If $x\in P_a$, then solve the $(a,i)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(3)\]) and call $\text{\sc Solve}(i,b)$. Return.
- If $x\in P_b$, then solve the $(i,b)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(3)\]) and call $\text{\sc Solve}(a,i)$. Return.
Case 2(2): $y\notin P_a\cup P_b$, implying $y\in P[u_i,x]$ and $y\ne
x$. Let $P_i=P[u_i,y]P'[y,v_i]$. Let $Z=\{x\}$.
- If $x\in P_a$, then solve the $(a,i)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) and call $\text{\sc Solve}(i,b)$. Return.
- If $x\in P_b$, then solve the $(i,b)$-subproblem by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) and call $\text{\sc Solve}(a,i)$. Return.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any indices $a$ and $b$, let set $I(a,b)$ consist of the indices $i\in I$ with $a< i< b$. For each $i\in\{1,\ell\}$, let $P_i$ be a shortest $u_iv_i$-path of $G$ obtainable in $O(n)$ time by Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\]. If $P_1\cap P_{\ell}\ne\varnothing$, then the lemma follows from Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) with $Z=\{x\}$ for an arbitrary node $x\in P_1\cap P_\ell$. The rest of the proof assumes $P_1\cap P_\ell=\varnothing$. The algorithm proving the lemma calls $\textsc{Label}(P_1)$, $\textsc{Label}(P_k)$, and $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$, where the main subroutine $\textsc{Solve}(a,b)$, as defined in Figure \[figure:figure13\] and elaborated below, solves the [ *$(a,b)$-subproblem*]{} of computing $d_i$ for all indices $i$ with $a\leq i\leq b$ under the condition that
- shortest $u_av_a$-path $P_a$ of $G$ and shortest $u_bv_b$-path $P_b$ of $G$ are disjoint,
- $\phi(z)$ is pre-computed for each node $z\in P_a\cup P_b$, and
- the set $X(a,b)$ of boundary nodes of $D$ in $G[P_a,P_b]$ is given.
By Equation (\[equation:equation1\]), it remains to prove that $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$ correctly solves the $(1,\ell)$-subproblem in $O(n\log r)$ time. If $I(a,b)=\varnothing$, then all $u_i$ with $a<i<b$ are not boundary nodes in $D$. Since these $u_i$ induce a connected subgraph of $G$, they belong to a common piece of $D$, implying $b-a=O(r)$. The $(a,b)$-subproblem can be solved by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(1)\]) in $O(h(a,b)\log r)$ time, where $h(a,b)$ is the number of nodes in $G[P_a,P_b]$ that are not in $P_a\cap P_b$.
For the case with $I(a,b)\ne\varnothing$, we cannot afford to directly compute a shortest $u_iv_i$-path $P_i$ of $G$ for a median $i$ of $I(a,b)$ by Lemma \[lemma:lemma3.2\]. Instead, in the subgraph of $K(D)$ induced by the given set $X(a,b)$ of boundary nodes of $D$ in $G[P_a,P_b]$, we compute a shortest $u_iv_i$-path $\Pi$ (respectively, $\Pi'$) of $K(D)$ (respectively, $K(D')$), the first (respectively, last) $c$ edges of whose underlying path $P$ (respectively, $P'$) can be obtained in $O(c\log\log r)$ time by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.2\]. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.7\], $G[P_a,P_b]$ contains at least one shortest $u_iv_i$-path of $G$, implying that the subgraph of $K(D)$ induced by $X(a,b)$ contains at least one shortest $u_iv_i$-path of $K(D)$. Therefore, $P$ and $P'$ are shortest $u_iv_i$-paths of $G$ in $G[P_a,P_b]$. If $P$ does not intersect $P_a\cup P_b$, then it takes $O(\log\log r)$ time per node to obtain $P$. As in Case 1 of Figure \[figure:figure13\], the subroutine lets $P_i=P$ and calls $\textsc{Label}(P_i)$, $\textsc{Solve}(a,i)$, and $\textsc{Solve}(i,b)$. If $P$ intersects $P_a\cup P_b$, it takes $O(\log\log r)$ time per node to obtain $P[u_i,x]$ and $P'[y,v_i]$, where $x$ is the first node of $P$ in $P_a\cup P_b$ and $y$ is the last node of $P'$ in $P[u_i,x]\cup P_a\cup P_b$, as stated by the first two bullets in Case 2 of Figure \[figure:figure13\]. The subroutine calls $\textsc{Label}(P[u_i,x])$ and $\textsc{Label}(P'[y,v_i])$.
- As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure14\](a), if each of $P_a$ and $P_b$ contains exactly one of $x$ and $y$, then the $(a,b)$-subproblem is solved in $O(h(a,b))$ time by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) with $Z=\{x,y\}$, as stated by the first bullet in Case 2(1) of Figure \[figure:figure13\].
- As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure14\](b), if $x,y\in P_a$, then let $P_i=P[u_i,x]P_a[x,y]P'[y,v_i]$. The $(i,b)$-subproblem is solved by calling $\textsc{Solve}(i,b)$. The $(a,i)$-subproblem is solved by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(3)\]) with $w(P_a\cap P_i)=\phi(y)-\phi(x)$ in $O(h(a,b))$ time. The case with $x,y\in P_b$ is similar. The second bullet of Case 2(1) in Figure \[figure:figure13\] states these two cases.
- As illustrated by Figure \[figure:figure14\](c), if $x\in P_a$ and $y\notin P_a\cup P_b$, then the shortest $u_iv_i$-path $P_i=P[u_i,y]P'[y,v_i]$ is disjoint with $P_a\cup P_b$. The $(i,b)$-subproblem is solved by calling $\textsc{Solve}(i,b)$. Since at least one shortest $u_iv_i$-path of $G[P_a,P_i]$ passes $x$, the $(a,i)$-subproblem can be solved in $O(h(a,b))$ time by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]) with $Z=\{x\}$. The case with $x\in P_b$ and $y\notin P_a\cup P_b$ is similar. Case 2(2) in Figure \[figure:figure13\] states these two cases.
The correctness holds trivially, since each $d_i$ with $1\leq
i\leq\ell$ is computed somewhere during the execution of $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$ by Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.8\]. Since $i$ is chosen to be a median of $I(a,b)$ in each subroutine call to $\textsc{Solve}(a,b)$, there are $O(\log n)$ levels of recursion in executing $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$. Let $m(a,b)$ be the sum of the multiplicities of the nodes of $X(a,b)$ in $D$. By Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.5\], the time for computing $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ is $O(m(a,b)\log^2 m(a,b))$. In order to maintain the condition that $X(a,b)$ is given whenever $\textsc{Solve}(a,b)$ is called, we apply Lemma \[lemma:lemma5.6\] to obtain $X(a,i)$ and $X(i,b)$ in $O((m(a,b)+m_i)\log r)$ time before calling $\textsc{Solve}(a,i)$ or $\textsc{Solve}(i,b)$, where $m_i$ is the number of edges in $P_i\setminus(P_a\cup P_b)$. Since $P_a$ and $P_b$ are disjoint, each boundary node of $D$ is contained by one or two subgraphs $G[P_a,P_b]$ of the same recursion level. Since there are $O(n/r)$ pieces of $D$ and each piece of $D$ has $O(\sqrt{r})$ boundary nodes, the sum of $m(a,b)$ over all subgraphs $G[P_a,P_b]$ at the same recursion level is $O(n/\sqrt{r})$. Since each edge of $G$ appears in at most one $P_i\setminus(P_a\cup
P_b)$ for all subroutine calls to $\textsc{Solve}(a,b)$, the sum of all $m_i$ throughout the execution of $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$ is $O(n)$. By Equation (\[equation:equation1\]), the overall time for computing $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ is $$O\left(\log n\cdot
\frac{n}{\sqrt{r}}\log^2 n\right)=O(n).$$ The overall time of finding all paths $P$, $P[u_i,x]$, and $P'[y,v_i]$ is $O(n\log\log r)$, since their edges are disjoint and all of them are obtainable in $O(\log\log r)$ time per node. Therefore, the running time of $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$ is dominated by the sum of the $O(h(a,b)\log r)$ time for solving the $(a,b)$-subproblems by Lemmas \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(1)\]), \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(2)\]), and \[lemma:lemma5.8\](\[statement:lemma5.8(3)\]) at the bottom of recursion. Since the sum of $h(a,b)$ over all these $(a,b)$-subproblems is $O(n)$, the running time of $\textsc{Solve}(1,\ell)$ is $O(n\log r)$. The lemma is proved.
Concluding remarks {#section:section6}
==================
We give the first known $O(n\log n\log\log n)$-time algorithms for finding a minimum cut and a shortest cycle in an $n$-node simple directed planar graph $G$ with nonnegative edge weights. For the case that $G$ is restricted to be unweighted, our shortest-cycle algorithm remains the best known result for the shortest-cycle problem. The best algorithm for the minimum-cut problem, running in $O(n\log
n)$ time, is obtained by plugging in the $O(n)$-time minimum $st$-cut algorithm of, e.g., Brandes and Wagner [@bran00] and Eisenstat and Klein [@eise13] to a directed version of the reduction algorithm of Chalermsook et al. [@chal]. Thus, an interesting future direction is to further reduce the running time of our algorithms on both problems for this special case. Extending our results to bounded-genus graphs is also of interest.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.
[10]{}
G. Borradaile and P. N. Klein. An [$O(n\log n)$]{} algorithm for maximum $st$-flow in a directed planar graph. , 56(2):9.1–9.30, 2009.
G. Borradaile, P. N. Klein, S. Mozes, Y. Nussbaum, and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Multiple-source multiple-sink maximum flow in directed planar graphs in near-linear time. In [*Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 170–179, 2011.
G. Borradaile, P. Sankowski, and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Min $st$-cut oracle for planar graphs with near-linear preprocessing time. , 11(3):16.1–16.29, 2015.
U. Brandes and D. Wagner. A linear time algorithm for the arc disjoint [M]{}enger problem in planar directed graphs. , 28(1):16–36, 2000.
S. Cabello. Finding shortest contractible and shortest separating cycles in embedded graphs. , 6(2):24.1–24.18, 2010.
S. Cabello, E. W. Chambers, and J. Erickson. Multiple-source shortest paths in embedded graphs. , 42(4):1542–1571, 2013.
S. Cabello, [É]{}. Colin de Verdière, and F. Lazarus. Finding shortest non-trivial cycles in directed graphs on surfaces. In [*Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry*]{}, pages 156–165, 2010.
P. Chalermsook, J. Fakcharoenphol, and D. Nanongkai. A deterministic near-linear time algorithm for finding minimum cuts in planar graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 828–829, 2004.
H.-C. Chang and H.-I. Lu. Computing the girth of a planar graph in linear time. , 42(3):1077–1094, 2013.
T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein. . MIT Press, 3rd edition, 2009.
M. Cygan, H. N. Gabow, and P. Sankowski. Algorithmic applications of [Baur]{}-[Strassen]{}’s theorem: Shortest cycles, diameter and matchings. In [*Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 531–540, 2012.
H. Djidjev. A faster algorithm for computing the girth of planar and bounded genus graphs. , 7(1):3.1–3.16, 2010.
D. Eisenstat and P. N. Klein. Linear-time algorithms for max flow and multiple-source shortest paths in unit-weight planar graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 45th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 735–744, 2013.
J. Erickson. Maximum flows and parametric shortest paths in planar graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 794–804, 2010.
J. Erickson, K. Fox, and A. Nayyeri. Global minimum cuts in surface embedded graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 1309–1318, 2012.
J. Erickson and S. Har-Peled. Optimally cutting a surface into a disk. , 31(1):37–59, 2004.
J. Erickson and A. Nayyeri. Minimum cuts and shortest non-separating cycles via homology covers. In [*Proceedings of the 22nd Annual [ACM-SIAM]{} Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 1166–1176, 2011.
J. Erickson and A. Nayyeri. Shortest non-crossing walks in the plane. In [*Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 297–208, 2011.
J. Erickson and P. Worah. Computing the shortest essential cycle. , 44(4):912–930, 2010.
J. Fakcharoenphol and S. Rao. Planar graphs, negative weight edges, shortest paths, and near linear time. , 72(5):868–889, 2006.
K. Fox. Shortest non-trivial cycles in directed and undirected surface graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 352–364, 2013.
K. Fox. . PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014.
G. N. Frederickson. Fast algorithms for shortest paths in planar graphs, with applications. , 16(6):1004–1022, 1987.
H. N. Gabow. A matroid approach to finding edge connectivity and packing arborescences. , 50(2):259–273, 1995.
H. N. Gabow and R. E. Tarjan. Faster scaling algorithms for network problems. , 18(5):1013–1036, 1989.
P. Gawrychowski, S. Mozes, and O. Weimann. Submatrix maximum queries in [M]{}onge matrices are equivalent to predecessor search. In B. Speckmann, editor, [*Proceedings of the 42nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming*]{}, pages 580—592, 2015.
A. V. Goldberg. Scaling algorithms for the shortest paths problem. , 24(3):494–504, 1995.
R. E. Gomory and T. C. Hu. Multi-terminal network flows. , 9(4):551–570, 1961.
M. T. Goodrich. Planar separators and parallel polygon triangulation. , 51(3):374–389, 1995.
J. Hao and J. B. Orlin. A faster algorithm for finding the minimum cut in a directed graph. , 17(3):424–446, 1994.
M. R. Henzinger, P. N. Klein, S. Rao, and S. Subramanian. Faster shortest-path algorithms for planar graphs. , 55(1):3–23, 1997.
A. Itai and M. Rodeh. Finding a minimum circuit in a graph. , 7(4):413–423, 1978.
G. F. Italiano, Y. Nussbaum, P. Sankowski, and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Improved algorithms for min cut and max flow in undirected planar graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 313–322, 2011.
L. Janiga and V. Koubek. Minimum cut in directed planar networks. , 28(1):37–49, 1992.
H. Kaplan, S. Mozes, Y. Nussbaum, and M. Sharir. Submatrix maximum queries in [M]{}onge matrices and [M]{}onge partial matrices, and their applications. In [*Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 338–355, 2012.
H. Kaplan and Y. Nussbaum. Minimum $s$-$t$ cut in undirected planar graphs when the source and the sink are close. In T. Schwentick and C. D[ü]{}rr, editors, [*Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science*]{}, pages 117–128, 2011.
D. R. Karger. Minimum cuts in near-linear time. , 47(1):46–76, 2000.
K.-i. Kawarabayashi and M. Thorup. Deterministic global minimum cut of a simple graph in near-linear time. In [*Proceedings of the 47th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 665–674, 2015.
S. Khuller and J. Naor. Flow in planar graphs: A survey of recent results. In [*Planar Graphs*]{}, DIMACS Series in Discrete Math and Theoretical Computer Science 9, pages 59–84. AMS, 1993.
P. N. Klein. Multiple-source shortest paths in planar graphs. In [*Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 146–155, 2005.
P. N. Klein, S. Mozes, and C. Sommer. Structured recursive separator decompositions for planar graphs in linear time. In [*Proceedings of the 45th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 505–514, 2013.
P. N. Klein, S. Mozes, and O. Weimann. Shortest paths in directed planar graphs with negative lengths: A linear-space [$O(n\log^2 n)$]{}-time algorithm. , 6(2):30.1–30.18, 2010.
J. [Łcki]{}, Y. Nussbaum, P. Sankowski, and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Single source - all sinks max flows in planar digraphs. In [*Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 599–608, 2012.
J. [Łcki]{} and P. Sankowski. Min-cuts and shortest cycles in planar graphs in [$O(n\log\log n)$]{} time. In [*Proceedings of the 19th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms*]{}, pages 155–166, 2011.
H.-C. Liang. Minimum cuts and shortest cycles in directed planar graphs via shortest non-crossing paths. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, July 2015.
H.-C. Liang and H.-I. Lu. Minimum cuts and shortest cycles in directed planar graphs via noncrossing shortest paths. , 31(1):454–476, 2017.
A. Lingas and E.-M. Lundell. Efficient approximation algorithms for shortest cycles in undirected graphs. , 109(10):493–498, 2009.
R. J. Lipton and R. E. Tarjan. A separator theorem for planar graphs. , 36:177–189, 1979.
B. Monien. The complexity of determining a shortest cycle of even length. , 31(4):355–369, 1983.
R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. . Cambridge University Press, 1995.
S. Mozes, C. Nikolaev, Y. Nussbaum, and O. Weimann. Minimum cut of directed planar graphs in [$O(n\log\log n)$]{} time. , December 2015. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02068>.
S. Mozes and C. Wulff-Nilsen. Shortest paths in planar graphs with real lengths in [$O(n\log^2n/\log\log n)$]{} time. In M. de Berg and U. Meyer, editors, [*Proceedings of the 18th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms*]{}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6347, pages 206–217. Springer, 2010.
K. Mulmuley, U. V. Vazirani, and V. V. Vazirani. Matching is as easy as matrix inversion. , 7(1):105–113, 1987.
H. Nagamochi and T. Ibaraki. Computing edge-connectivity in multigraphs and capacitated graphs. , 5(1):54–66, 1992.
J. B. Orlin. Max flows in [$O(nm)$]{} time, or better. In [*Proceedings of the 45th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 765–774, 2013.
E. Papadopoulou. $k$-pairs non-crossing shortest paths in a simple polygon. , 9(6):533–552, 1999.
V. Polishchuk and J. S. B. Mitchell. Thick non-crossing paths and minimum-cost flows in polygonal domains. In [*Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry*]{}, pages 56–65, 2007.
J. H. Reif. Minimum $s$-$t$ cut of a planar undirected network in [$O(n\log^2{n})$]{} time. , 12(1):71–81, 1983.
L. Roditty and R. Tov. Approximating the girth. , 9(2):15.1–15.13, 2013.
L. Roditty and V. Vassilevska Williams. Subquadratic time approximation algorithms for the girth. In [*Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 833–845, 2012.
M. Stoer and F. Wagner. A simple min-cut algorithm. , 44(4):585–591, 1997.
J. Takahashi, H. Suzuki, and T. Nishizeki. Finding shortest non-crossing rectilinear paths in plane regions. In [*Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation*]{}, pages 98–107, 1993.
J.-y. Takahashi, H. Suzuki, and T. Nishizeki. Shortest noncrossing paths in plane graphs. , 16(3):339–357, 1996.
V. Vassilevska Williams. Multiplying matrices faster than [Coppersmith]{}-[Winograd]{}. In [*Proceedings of the 44th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 887–898, 2012.
V. Vassilevska Williams and R. Williams. Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix and triangle problems. In [*Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 645–654, 2010.
K. Weihe. Edge-disjoint $(s, t)$-paths in undirected planar graphs in linear time. , 23(1):121–138, 1997.
O. Weimann and R. Yuster. Computing the girth of a planar graph in [$O(n\log n)$]{} time. , 24(2):609–616, 2010.
C. Wulff-Nilsen. . PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen, 2010.
R. Yuster. A shortest cycle for each vertex of a graph. , 111(21-22):1057–1061, 2011.
R. Yuster and U. Zwick. Finding even cycles even faster. , 10(2):209–222, 1997.
[^1]: Graduate Institute of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University. Email: .
[^2]: Corresponding author. Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University. This author also holds joint appointments in the Graduate Institute of Networking and Multimedia and the Graduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, National Taiwan University. Address: 1 Roosevelt Road, Section 4, Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC. Research of this author is supported in part by MOST grant 104–2221–E–002–044–MY3. Email: . Web: [[www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/\~hil](www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~hil)]{}.
[^3]: A preliminary version of this paper appeared as the master’s thesis of the first author [@Thesis]. The journal version appeared in [*SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics*]{} [@sidma2017].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We show within a statistical model of quantization reported in the previous work based on Hamilton-Jacobi theory with a random constraint that the statistics of fluctuations of the actual trajectories around the classical trajectories in velocity and position spaces satisfy a reciprocal uncertainty relation. The relation is objective (observation independent) and implies the standard quantum mechanical uncertainty relation.'
author:
- Agung Budiyono
title: Objective uncertainty relation with classical background in a statistical model
---
Introduction
============
In the previous work we have developed a statistical model of quantization for non-relativistic system of spin-less particles [@AgungSMQ0]. We assumed that there exists some universal background fields interacting with the system (whose physical nature is not our present concern), resulting in the stochastic motion of the latter. We then assumed that the Hamilton-Jacobi theory for ensemble of trajectories has to be subjected to a random constraint. We showed that given a Lagrangian and a specific type of constraint uniquely determined by the Lagrangian, the effective dynamics of the ensemble of trajectories in configuration space is governed by a Schrödinger equation from which we read-off a unique quantum Hamiltonian. The Born’s statistical interpretation of wave function is valid by construction.
Further, unlike canonical quantization whose physical meaning behind the formal mathematical rules of replacement of c-number (classical number) by q-number (quantum number/Hermitian operator) is not transparent, the statistical model of quantization reported in Ref. [@AgungSMQ0] can be directly interpreted as [*a specific statistical deviations from ensemble of classical trajectories parameterized by an unbiased non-vanishing random variable*]{} $\lambda$ [@AgungSMQ1]. $\lambda$ is just the Lagrange multiplier that arises in the Hamilton-Jacobi theory with a random constraint. The prediction of canonical quantization with a unique ordering is reproduced if the distribution of $\lambda$ takes the form: $$P(\lambda)=\frac{1}{2}\delta(\lambda+\hbar)+\frac{1}{2}\delta(\lambda-\hbar),
\label{God's coin}$$ characterized by the Planck constant. For more general distribution of $\lambda\neq 0$ that deviates slightly from Eq. (\[God’s coin\]) yet is still unbiased, $P(\lambda)=P(-\lambda)$, the model suggests testable possible small corrections to the statistical predictions of canonical quantization [@AgungSMQ2].
It is then instructive to study the statistics of the deviations from the classical trajectories. We shall show in the present paper a kinematical feature of the above statistical model that given a wave function, the average of the deviations of the actual trajectories from the corresponding classical trajectories in velocity and position spaces satisfy an uncertainty relation in a formally similar fashion as the standard quantum mechanical uncertainty relation [@QMUR]. The uncertainty relation to be presented is however objective referring to no measurement (observation independent), and furthermore implies the standard quantum mechanical uncertainty relation.
General formalism
=================
Let us denote the classical Lagrangian of the system as $\underline{L}(q,\dot{q})$, where $q$ is the configuration of the system and $\dot{q}\doteq dq/dt$, with $t$ is time, is the velocity. For simplicity, we will consider system with only one degree of freedom. Extension to many degrees of freedom is straightforward. In the statistical model of quantization, the momentum $\underline{p}(q,\dot{q})\doteq\partial\underline{L}/\partial\dot{q}$ and the phase of the wave function $S(q,\lambda;t)$, a stochastic real-valued function satisfying a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation [@AgungSMQ0], is related to each other as follows (see Eq. (14) of Ref. [@AgungSMQ0]) [@1/2]: $$\underline{p}(q,\dot{q})=\partial_qS+\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\partial_q\Omega}{\Omega},
\label{fundamental equation 0}$$ where $\Omega=\Omega(q,\lambda;t)$ is the joint-probability density of the fluctuations of $q$ and $\lambda$ at time $t$ which is assumed to be even in $\lambda$, $\Omega(q,\lambda;t)=\Omega(q,-\lambda;t)$. For our purpose it is sufficient to consider the case of a single particle of mass $m$ subjected to external potential $V(q)$. The Lagrangian then takes the form $\underline{L}=m\dot{q}^2/2-V(q)$ so that $\underline{p}=m\dot{q}$. Equation (\[fundamental equation 0\]) thus becomes $$m\dot{q}(q,\lambda;t)=\partial_qS+\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\partial_q\Omega}{\Omega}.
\label{fundamental equation}$$ The classical limit corresponds to the regime when the second term of the right hand side is ignorable or formally when $|\lambda|\ll 1$ so that one regains the classical relation $m\dot{q}\approx\partial_qS$. $\delta_{\dot{q}}(q,\lambda)\doteq(\dot{q}-\partial_qS/m)^2=\frac{\lambda^2}{4m^2}(\partial_q\Omega/\Omega)^2=\delta_{\dot{q}}(q,-\lambda)$ can thus be interpreted to give the deviations from the classical mechanics in velocity space.
Let us then consider $\Omega$ at an arbitrary snapshot of time. For notational simplicity, we shall thus suppress the time dependence $\Omega(q,\lambda)$. Then, from the normalization of $\Omega$, $\int dqd\lambda\Omega(q,\lambda)=1$, and the assumption that $\Omega(\pm\infty,\lambda)=0$ for arbitrary value of $\lambda$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
-1=-\int dqd\lambda\Omega=\int dqd\lambda (q-q_0)\partial_q\Omega\hspace{0mm}\nonumber\\
=\int dqd\lambda \{(q-q_0)\sqrt{\Omega}\}\Big\{\frac{\partial_q\Omega}{\sqrt{\Omega}}\Big\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $q_0$ is an arbitrary real number and the integration over spatial coordinate is taken from $q=-\infty$ to $q=\infty$. The Schwartz inequality then implies $$\int dqd\lambda (q-q_0)^2\Omega\times\int dqd\lambda\Big(\frac{\partial_q\Omega}{\Omega}\Big)^2\Omega\ge 1.
\label{Schwartz inequality}$$ Substituting Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) into Eq. (\[Schwartz inequality\]) one directly gets $$\int dqd\lambda (q-q_0)^2\Omega\times\int dqd\lambda\frac{4}{\lambda^2}(m\dot{q}-\partial_qS)^2\Omega\ge 1.
\label{uncertainty relation 0}$$ As shown in Ref. [@AgungSMQ0], the results of canonical quantization is reproduced by the statistical model if $\Omega(q,\lambda)=\rho(q,|\lambda|)P(\lambda)$ where $P(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]) and $\rho(q,\hbar)$ is related to the quantum mechanical wave function $\Psi_Q(q,\hbar)$ satisfying a Schrödinger equation through the Born’s statistics $\rho(q,\hbar)=|\Psi_Q(q,\hbar)|^2$ [@AgungSMQ0; @AgungSMQ1; @AgungSMQ2]. In this case, Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 0\]) reduces into $$\int dq (q-q_0)^2\rho(q,\hbar)\times\int dq(\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q/m)^2\rho(q,\hbar)\ge\frac{\hbar^2}{4m^2},
\label{uncertainty relation 1}$$ where $S_Q(q;t)=S(q,\pm\hbar;t)$ is the quantum mechanical phase.
If we take $q_0$ as the configuration of the corresponding classical system at the time of interest, then, as claimed, Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is just a reciprocal uncertainty relation between the average deviations of the actual trajectory from the corresponding classical trajectory in velocity and position spaces. Notice that we have only used Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) in deriving Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]). No dynamics is involved. The uncertainty relation thus directly reflects the kinematics of the statistical model of quantization. Further, given $S(q,\lambda)$, the permissible value of $\dot{q}(q,\lambda)$ is determined by the choice of $\Omega(q,\lambda)$ through Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]). $S(q,\lambda)$ thus can be regarded as a parameter for an equivalent class of ensemble, or identically prepared ensemble, which determines the relation between $\Omega(q,\lambda)$ and $\dot{q}$. Keeping these in mind, one can thus interpret the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 0\]) as the impossibility to prepare an ensemble, using identical procedure defined by choosing $S(q,\lambda)$, that violates the relation.
As is clear from the derivation, Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is valid for arbitrary choice of $q_0$. One can however show that when $q_0=\int dq q\rho$, $\int dq(q-q_0)^2\rho$ takes its minimum value: $\int dq (q-q_0)^2\rho\ge\int dq (q-\int dq q\rho)^2\rho$ [@lms]. This point is in particular relevant when we derive the usual quantum mechanical uncertainty relation from Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]). This will be done in Section IV.
Single slit experiment
======================
To illustrate the above interpretation, let us assume that the distribution of $q$ is given by a Gaussian as follows: $$\Omega(q,\lambda)=\sqrt{\frac{a(|\lambda|)}{\pi}}\exp(-a(|\lambda|)q^2)P(\lambda),
\label{Gaussian probability density}$$ where $a$ is a positive definite real-valued function of $|\lambda|$ and for simplicity we have assumed that the Gaussian is centered at the origin. It is evidently normalized $\int d\lambda dq\Omega=\int d\lambda P(\lambda)=1$. The variance of $q$ is thus given by $\Sigma_q(|\lambda|)=1/(2a(|\lambda|))$. One can show that when $a=m\omega/|\lambda|$ where $\omega$ is independent of $\lambda$, then $\Psi(q,\lambda)=\sqrt{\Omega}$ is the ground state of a harmonic oscillator which in the statistical model has a $\lambda$-parameterized quantum Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(|\lambda|)=-(\lambda^2/2m)\partial_q^2+m\omega^2q^2/2$ [@AgungSMQ0; @AgungSMQ1; @AgungSMQ2]. The standard quantum mechanical ground state wave function is reproduced in the case when $P(\lambda)$ in Eq. (\[Gaussian probability density\]) is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]) so that one regains the standard quantum Hamiltonian for the harmonic oscillator $\hat{H}(\hbar)=-(\hbar^2/2m)\partial_q^2+m\omega^2q^2/2$ with frequency $\omega$.
Inserting Eq. (\[Gaussian probability density\]) into Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]), one gets $$m\dot{q}=\partial_qS-\lambda aq.$$ For simplicity, let us then proceed to prepare an ensemble of system using identical procedure such that $S$ does not depend on $q$, namely $\partial_qS=0$. One thus has $$\dot{q}=-a\lambda q/m.
\label{momentum for classically resting particle}$$ Hence, the statistical model predicts that such identical preparation will unavoidably lead to an actual velocity field given by Eq. (\[momentum for classically resting particle\]). The actual velocity is thus fluctuating around zero with vanishing average. Notice that the magnitude of the fluctuations is proportional to $a$ which is the inverse of the variance of the Gaussian distribution of position of Eq. (\[Gaussian probability density\]).
Let us then calculate the distribution of the actual velocity as a result of such identical preparation. Denoting the probability density that the velocity is $\dot{q}$ as $\widetilde{\rho}(\dot{q})$, using Eqs. (\[momentum for classically resting particle\]) and (\[Gaussian probability density\]), one has, up to a normalization constant, $$\widetilde{\rho}(\dot{q})\sim\int dqd\lambda\delta(\dot{q}-(-a\lambda q/m))\Omega(q,\lambda)\sim\int d\lambda P(\lambda)e^{-\frac{m^2\dot{q}^2}{a\lambda^2}}.
\label{Gaussian momentum distribution}$$ In particular, in the case when $P(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]), one has $$\widetilde{\rho}(\dot{q})\sim\exp\Big(-\frac{m^2\dot{q}^2}{a\hbar^2}\Big).
\label{Gaussian momentum distribution quantum}$$ The actual velocity of the particle is thus distributed according to a Gaussian with a variance $\Sigma_{\dot{q}}(\hbar)=a\hbar^2/(2m^2)$. One can see from Eqs. (\[Gaussian probability density\]) and (\[Gaussian momentum distribution quantum\]) that the variances of the fluctuations of position and velocity satisfy $\Sigma_q(\hbar)\Sigma_{\dot{q}}(\hbar)=\hbar^2/4m^2$. Hence, in this case, the equality in Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is achieved.
The well-known single slit experiment gives an example of the above discussion. The experiment can be interpreted as a method to identically prepare (select/filter) an ensemble of particle characterized by $S$ which is independent of $q$, $\partial_qS=0$, and each has a definite position $q_0$. The former is obtained by preparing a beam of planar wave in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the slit. On the other hand, the latter is obtained by narrowing the width of the slit. As verified by experiment, the ensemble obtained by such identical preparation however is limited by the uncertainty relation of the type of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]). Namely, selecting ensemble of trajectories so that the position of the particle is closer to the target position $q_0$ by narrowing the width of the slit, will automatically results in an ensemble with larger uncertainty of the actual velocity and vice versa. Let us remark that there is no measurement of position and velocity involved in the above experiment.
Discussion
==========
Let us compare the above derived uncertainty relation with the standard uncertainty relation of quantum theory. First, in the pragmatical interpretation, the latter refers to the statistics of results of measurement over an ensemble of identically prepared system. In the case of single slit experiment for example, one performs measurement over the ensemble that is selected by the slit. Hence, one makes position measurement over half of the ensemble and momentum measurement over the other half, and calculate the statistical spread of the results, assuming that the ensemble is infinitely large, to get, by the virtue of the canonical uncertainty relation [@QMUR] $$\Delta_q\Delta_p\ge\hbar^2/4,
\label{QM uncertainty relation}$$ where $\Delta_{q(p)}$ is the variance of the results of measurement of position (momentum). In this context, the above relation clearly has nothing to do with the limitation of simultaneous measurement of position and momentum, usually called as Heisenberg uncertainty principle [@HUP]. See also Refs. [@Isham; @book; @Ozawa] for the discussion concerning this issue.
While, as mentioned above, the operational interpretation of Eq. (\[QM uncertainty relation\]) is clear, owing to the ambiguity of the physical interpretation of quantum mechanical wave function, there are several different physical interpretations of the relation of Eq. (\[QM uncertainty relation\]). See for example the discussion in Ref. [@Isham; @book]. By contrast, by construction, the physical meaning of the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is straightforward. It directly reflects the actual distribution of $q$ and $\dot{q}$ prior to the measurement. In this context, we say that the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is objective (observation independent). Further, while the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation does not refer, at least directly, to a classical background, Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) evidently refers to the fluctuations around the classical background (ensemble of classical trajectories). In this regards, we say that the relation is explicitly classical-context-dependent.
Next, one can show that the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) gives the lower bound to the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation as follows. First, as shown in Ref. [@AgungSMQ0], the statistical model of quantization reproduces the statistical prediction of quantum mechanics when $\Omega$ is factorizable $\Omega(q,\lambda)=\rho(q,|\lambda|)P(\lambda)$ and $P(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]). The quantum mechanical wave function can then be written as $\Psi_Q=\sqrt{\rho}\exp(iS_Q/\hbar)$ where $S_Q=S(q,\pm\hbar)$ satisfies a modified Hamilton-Jacobi equation. One can then show straightforwardly the following mathematical identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_p=\langle(\hat{p}-\langle\hat{p}\rangle_Q)^2\rangle_Q\hspace{40mm}\nonumber\\
=\Big\langle\Big(\frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{\partial_q\rho}{\rho}\Big)^2\Big\rangle_S+\langle(\partial_qS_Q-\langle \partial_qS_Q\rangle_S)^2\rangle_S,
\label{QF vs SM fluctuations 0} \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{p}\doteq-i\hbar\partial_q$ is the quantum mechanical momentum operator, $\langle\hat{\circ}\rangle_Q\doteq\langle\Psi_Q|\hat{\circ}|\Psi_Q\rangle$ is the quantum mechanical average, and $\langle\star\rangle_S\doteq\int dq\rho\star$ is the statistical average of $\star$ over $\rho$. Here we have used the identity $\langle\hat{p}\rangle_Q=\langle \partial_qS_Q\rangle_S$. For example, in the case of Gaussian wave function discussed before, one has $S_Q=0$ so that the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[QF vs SM fluctuations 0\]) is vanishing.
Taking into account Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) for the case $\Omega=\rho(q,|\lambda|)P(\lambda)$ where $P(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]), Eq. (\[QF vs SM fluctuations 0\]) then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_p=\langle(m\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q)^2\rangle_S+\langle(\partial_qS_Q-\langle \partial_qS_Q\rangle_S)^2\rangle_S.
\label{QF vs SM fluctuations} \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, as discussed in Section II, taking $q_0=\langle q\rangle_S=\langle q\rangle_Q$, then $\langle (q-q_0)^2\rangle$ takes its minimum given by $\langle(q-q_0)^2\rangle_S=\langle(q-\langle q\rangle_Q)^2\rangle_Q=\Delta_q$. Keeping in mind this and the fact that the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[QF vs SM fluctuations\]) is non-negative, one can see that the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) implies the standard quantum mechanical uncertainty relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_q\Delta_p=\langle(q-q_0)^2\rangle_S\Big(\langle(m\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q)^2\rangle_S\nonumber\\
+\langle(\partial_qS_Q-\langle \partial_qS_Q\rangle_S)^2\rangle_S\Big)\nonumber\\
\ge \langle(q-q_0)^2\rangle_S\langle(m\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q)^2\rangle_S\ge\hbar^2/4. \end{aligned}$$
Note also that the first term of Eq. (\[QF vs SM fluctuations 0\]) takes the form of the Fisher information for translations of $q$ with probability density $\rho(q;\hbar)$ multiplied by $\hbar^2/4$ [@Fisher; @inf.]. In the statistical model of quantization, the Fisher information is thus shown to be proportional to the average deviation of the actual trajectories from the corresponding classical trajectories in velocity space. In this context, the uncertainty relation of Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is formally just the Cramer-Rao inequality [@Cramer-Rao]. The relation between Fisher information and quantum fluctuations are also reported with different contexts in Refs. [@Frieden].
A formally similar relation as in Eq. (\[uncertainty relation 1\]) is also obtained in Nelsonian stochastic mechanics [@Fenyes; @Weizel; @Kersaw; @Nelson; @de; @la; @Pena; @SM]. In this model of quantum fluctuations, first one assumes that the stochasticity implies non-differentiable Brownian trajectories. It is then impossible to define a conventional velocity of the Brownian particle. Instead, one then defines mean forward $v_+$ and mean backward $v_-$ velocities whose difference gives the so-called osmotic velocity $$u\doteq\frac{1}{2}(v_+-v_-)=\frac{\hbar}{2m}\frac{\partial_q\rho}{\rho}.
\label{osmotic velocity}$$ Further, in this Nelsonian stochastic mechanics, the current velocity, which corresponds to the effective velocity of the statistical model of Ref. [@AgungSMQ0], is defined as $v\doteq(v_++v_-)/2$. If the trajectory is smooth (differentiable), then $v_+=v_-$ so that the osmotic velocity is vanishing $u=0$. It is then straightforward to develop from Eq. (\[osmotic velocity\]) an uncertainty relation [@de; @la; @Pena; @SMUR; @Falco; @SMUR; @Golin; @SMUR; @Allah; @SMUR] $$\langle (q-\langle q\rangle_S)^2\rangle_S\langle u^2\rangle_S\ge\frac{\hbar^2}{4m^2}.
\label{stochastic uncertainty relation}$$ Note that Eq. (\[osmotic velocity\]) implies $\langle u\rangle_S=0$.
The above uncertainty relation thus arises due to stochasticity of the dynamics which in particular implies the absence of regular trajectory. The latter leads to the necessity to have forward and backward diffusive stochastic processes and naturally gives the definition of the osmotic velocity of Eq. (\[osmotic velocity\]). By contrast, while the uncertainty relation developed in the present paper is caused by the presence of a random constraint [@AgungSMQ0], we assume that the trajectory is as smooth as in classical mechanics which allows us to have the usual definition of velocity. Let us note however that $\langle u^2\rangle_S$ in Eq. (\[stochastic uncertainty relation\]) corresponds to $\langle (\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q/m)^2\rangle_S$ of the present statistical model, measuring the deviations of the ensemble of actual trajectories from the classical trajectories in velocity space.
Next, we have shown in Refs. [@AgungSMQ0] that in the special case when $\Omega$ is factorizable as $\Omega(q,\lambda)=\rho(q,|\lambda|)P(\lambda)$ and $P(\lambda)$ is given by Eq. (\[God’s coin\]), the statistical model is effectively equivalent to the pilot-wave model [@pilot-wave; @theory]. Namely, the [*effective*]{} velocity of the particle defined as $(\dot{q}(\hbar)+\dot{q}(-\hbar))/2$ in the statistical model is numerically equal to the [*actual*]{} velocity of the particle in pilot-wave theory. This intimate relationship is further reflected by the fact implied by Eq. (\[fundamental equation\]) that the average deviations from the ensemble of classical trajectories in velocity space within the statistical model can be rewritten as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2m}\langle(m\dot{q}-\partial_qS_Q)^2\rangle_S=\frac{1}{2m}\Big\langle\Big(\frac{\lambda}{2}\frac{\partial_q\rho}{\rho}\Big)^2\Big\rangle_S=\langle U\rangle_S,\nonumber\\
\mbox{where}\hspace{2mm} U\doteq -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\partial_q^2\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}. \hspace{20mm}
\label{flucuations of momentum and quantum potential} \end{aligned}$$ Here $U$ is the so-called quantum potential which in the pilot-wave theory is argued to be responsible for all peculiar quantum phenomena. It is remarkable that the deviation from the ensemble of classical trajectory in velocity space is measured by the average of quantum potential. Hence, in both of the present statistical model and pilot-wave model, the classical limit is obtained when the quantum potential is vanishing.
Conclusion
==========
We have thus developed, within the statistical model of quantization reported in Ref. [@AgungSMQ0], an uncertainty relation which is objective and implies the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation. There is no notion of non-commutativity between pair of so-called quantum observables as in standard formalism of quantum theory [@Isham; @book], nor there is a need to assume forward and backward diffusion processes as in the Nelsonian stochastic mechanics [@de; @la; @Pena; @SMUR; @Falco; @SMUR; @Golin; @SMUR; @Allah; @SMUR]. Bohr complementarity is argued to apply not only to describe the statistics of results of measurement, but is extended to the distribution of the [*actual*]{} position and velocity. Further, the uncertainty relation is classically contextual in the sense that it describes the fluctuations around the ensemble of classical trajectories. Given a quantum mechanical state (wave function), it therefore provides an explicit measure to the degree of imprecision of classical mechanics or equivalently the degree of quantum-ness of the state. It is then interesting to see in the future work the implication of assuming $P(\lambda)$ which deviates from Eq. (\[God’s coin\]).
The present research was initiated when the author held an appointment with RIKEN under the FPR program.
[10]{}
A. Budiyono, Physica A 391 (2012) 4583.
A. Budiyono, Physica A 391 (2012) 3102.
A. Budiyono, Physica A 391 (2012) 3081.
E. H. Kennard, Z. Physik 44 (1927) 326; H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34 (1929) 163; E. Schrödinger, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Ber. 19 (1930) 296.
In Ref. [@AgungSMQ0] we have used a scale so that $\lambda$ in the present paper is related to $\lambda$ in that paper as $\lambda\mapsto 2\lambda$.
A. Papoulis, S. U. Pillai, Probability, Random variables and Stochastic Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
W. Heisenberg, Z. Physik 43 (1927) 172.
C. J. Isham, Lectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and structural Foundation, Imperial College Press, London, 1995; L. E. Ballentine, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42 (1970) 358 and references there in.
M. Ozawa, Phys. Lett. A, 299 (2002) 1.
R. A. Fisher, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 22 (1925) 700.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Element of Information Theory, Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey, 2006.
B. R. Frieden, Physics from Fisher Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998; M. Reginatto, Phys. Rev. A 58 (1998) 1775; Michael J. W. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 62 (2000) 012107; R. R. Parwani, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 6231; L. Skala, J. Cizek and V. Kapsa, Annals of Physics 326 (2011) 1174.
I. Fényes, Z. Phys. 132 (1952) 81.
W. Weizel, Z. Phys. 134 (1953) 264; 135 (1953) 270; 136 (1954) 582.
D. Kershaw, Phys. Rev. 136B (1964) 1850.
E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. 150 (1966) 1079; E. Nelson, Quantum Fluctuations, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985.
L. de la Peña-Auerbach, Phys. Lett. A 27 (1968) 594; J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 1620.
L. de la Peña-Auerbach and A.M. Cetto, Phys. Lett. A 39 (1972) 65.
D. De Falco, S. De Martino and S. De Siena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 181.
S. Golin, J. Math. Phys. 26 (1985) 2781.
A. E. Allahverdyan, A. Khrennikov, Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 032102.
D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952) 166; D. Bohm and B. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Routledge, London, 1993; P. R. Holland, The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present ALMA long-baseline observations toward the Class 0 protostar IRAS16253-2429 (hereafter IRAS16253) with a resolution down to 012 ($\sim$15 au). The 1.3 mm dust continuum emission has a deconvolved Gaussian size of $0\farcs16\times0\farcs07$ (20 au $\times$ 8.8 au), likely tracing an inclined dusty disk. Interestingly, the position of the 1.38 mm emission is offset from that of the 0.87 mm emission along the disk minor axis. Such an offset may come from a torus-like disk with very different optical depths between these two wavelengths. Furthermore, through CO ($2-1$) and C$^{18}$O ($2-1$) observations, we study rotation and infall motions in this disk-envelope system and infer the presence of a Keplerian disk with a radius of $8-32$ au. This result suggests that the disk could have formed by directly evolving from a first core, because IRAS16253 is too young to gradually grow a disk to such a size considering the low rotation rate of its envelope. In addition, we find a quadruple pattern in the CO emission at low velocity, which may originate from CO freeze out at the disk/envelope midplane. This suggests that the “cold disk” may appear in the early stage, implying a chemical evolution for the disk around this proto-brown dwarf (or very low-mass protostar) different from that of low-mass stars.'
author:
- 'Tien-Hao Hsieh$^{1}$, Naomi Hirano$^{1}$, Arnaud Belloche$^{2}$, Chin-Fei Lee$^{1}$, Yusuke Aso$^{1}$, and Shih-Ping Lai$^{1,3}$'
title: 'ALMA observations of the protostellar disk around the VeLLO IRAS16253–2429'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Rotationally supported disks or Keplerian disks are commonly seen in young stellar objects (YSO) at the Class II stage [@wi11; @be13]. Only a handful of disks have been kinematically identified at earlier evolutionary stages, at the Class I stage [@lo08; @ta12; @br13; @ch14; @ha14; @li14; @ye14; @as15; @le16], and even rarer at the Class 0 stage [@to12a; @mu13; @oh14; @le17b; @le18; @as17]. Because disks are believed to grow rapidly after the start of the core collapse [@te84; @wi11], star-disk systems in an embedded phase are valuable for understanding disk formation especially for that at the Class 0 stage. In addition, it is also unclear whether the disk formation channel and evolution depend on the stellar mass, for instance whether disks form and evolve differently in brown dwarfs compared to higher-mass objects [@ri14; @te16].
IRAS16253–2429 (hereafter IRAS16253) was first discovered as a Class 0 source by @kh04 in the $\rho$ Oph star forming region ([$d=125~{\rm pc}$, @ev09]). Later, it was classified as a Very Low Luminosity Object (VeLLO) owing to its internal luminosity of $\approx$0.09 $L_{\odot}$ [@du08]. Such a low luminosity implies that IRAS16253 is an extremely young Class 0 protostar, a very-low mass protostar, or a combination of both [@du14]. Using the deuterium fraction and outflow opening angle as evolutionary indicators, @hs15 [@hs17] suggest that IRAS16253 is a young Class 0 object. Assuming that the infalling motions derived from C$^{18}$O observations to be free-fall, @ye17 estimate its central mass to be $0.03~M_\odot$. In addition, the envelope mass has been estimated to be $0.2-0.8~M_\odot$ [@ba10; @st06; @en08; @to12b]. These results, together with the low outflow force [@hs16], suggest that IRAS16253 may form a brown dwarf or very low-mass star depending on its future accretion. Although this substellar object unlikely hosts a sizeable protostellar disk, the integrity of its bipolar outflow implies the existence of a disk. In addition, @hs18 found that IRAS16253 has experienced a past accretion burst based on the outward shift of the CO snow line. This is believed to originate from a gravitationally instability of the disk [@vo13; @vo15].
CO and its isotopologues have been used to probe the kinematics of disks due to the brightness of their rotational transitions at submillimeter/millimeter wavelengths. With high-resolution ALMA observations, multiple CO isotopologues further provide a powerful diagnostic of their density and temperature structures [@no16; @sc16; @wa17]. However, recent works find that CO could be depleted near the midplanes of the Class II disks within a few hundred au [@qi11; @zh17; @hu17; @pi18]. This could be explained by freeze out of CO onto the dust grains or conversion of CO into less volatile molecules [@ai15; @va17]
In this paper, we present new ALMA observations of CO, C$^{18}$O, and 217 GHz continuum in the proto-brown dwarf candidate IRAS16253. We aim to search for a disk around this unique source and study its physical and chemical properties. The observations and results are described in Section 2 and Section 3, respectively. In Section 4, we detail our analyses and models of the continuum and line emission. Finally, the discussion and summary are given in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.
![$uv$-distance versus amplitude for 0.87 mm (top) and 1.38 mm (bottom) data with the residual from the best-fit. The color indicates the angles relative to the minor axis in $uv$-space, i.e., blue points close to the minor axis and red points close to the major axis. The grey area shows the best-fit two-component model, i.e. amplitudes along the minor and major axes as the upper and lower boundaries, and the solid line represents their average (Table \[tab:gau\]). The dashed and dotted curves represent the disk and extended components, respectively. The subplot in each panel shows a zoom-in of $0-300~{\rm k}\lambda$ with the vertical dashed line indicating $200~{\rm k}\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:gau"}](UV_Plot1D.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Observations
============
We used ALMA to simultaneously observe CO ($2-1$), C$^{18}$O ($2-1$), and dust continuum emission at 217 GHz toward IRAS16253 ($\alpha$=16$^{\rm h}$28$^{\rm m}$216, $\delta$=$-$2436234) on 2017 Aug 18th (Cycle 4 project, 2016.1.00598.S) with 42 available antennas. The total observing time was 48 min and the on-source time was $\approx$20 min. The data were obtained in configuration of C40-7 with a projected baseline range of 11 to 2629 k$\lambda$, resulting in a spatial resolution of $0\farcs11\times0\farcs08$ with uniform weighting for the continuum and of $0\farcs14\times0\farcs11$ with natural weighting for CO ($2-1$). The C$^{18}$O ($2-1$) data were combined with the ALMA cycle 2 data from @ye17 to increase the sensitivity. However, although the $uv$-coverages overlap in these two data sets, the non-uniform sampling produces a clean beam featuring a summation of distinct large and small beam. After iterations, we selected data with a $uv$-distance shorter than 600 k$\lambda$, resulting in a relatively Gaussian-like beam with a size of $0\farcs40$ by $0\farcs37$. The continuum bandwidth was 1840 MHz, centered at 217 GHz (1.38 mm). The channel width was 122 kHz (0.16 km s$^{-1}$) for CO ($2-1$) and 61 kHz (0.08 km s$^{-1}$) for C$^{18}$O ($2-1$). The rms noise level is 0.066 mJy beam$^{-1}$ for the continuum map, and 5.6 and 4.9 mJy beam$^{-1}$ for the CO and C$^{18}$O maps with a channel width of 0.16 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. The bandpass, flux, and phase calibrators were J1517-2422, J1733-1304, and J1625-2527, respectively. A check source, J1626-2951, was observed for 5 scans spread about uniformly between the 26 scans on IRAS16253. Self-calibration is not applied in order to maintain astrometric information of the source.
In order to compare with the 1.38 mm continuum emission, we obtained 0.87 mm data from the ALMA archive (2015.1.00741.S, PI: L. Looney). These data are obtained with a compact configuration and an extended configuration. The $uv$ range from 15 to 2031 k$\lambda$ is comparable to our 1.38 mm data. The on-source time is 30 and 60 sec for the compact and extended configurations, respectively. The bandwidth is $4\times1840~{\rm MHz}$. The bandpass, flux, phase calibrators, and check source are J1517-2422, J1733-1304, J1625-2527, and J1627-2426, respectively for the compact configuration and J1517-2422, J1517-2422, J1625-2527, and J1633-2557, respectively, for the extended configuration.
{width="102.00000%"}
Results
=======
continuum emission at 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm
-----------------------------------------
The continuum emission at 1.38 mm and 0.87 mm is found to contain two components (Figure \[fig:gau\]). We employ a double Gaussian fit to the observed amplitude but not phase, and we find a break point at a $uv$-distance of $\approx$200 k$\lambda$ separating the extended and compact components. The fit of amplitude could introduce a bias toward positive values at high uv distances when the S/N is low, but it does not significantly affect the location of the break point at the low uv distance. Although the extended component shows ambiguous fitting results, the fitted compact component is consistent in position angle and aspect ratio for both wavelengths (Table \[tab:gau\]). The minor axis aligns well with the outflow orientation ([$\sim$20, @hs17]) and the aspect ratio is consistent with the inclination angle derived from the outflow ([@ye17 $60\arcdeg-65\arcdeg$, with $0^\circ$ for pole-on]). Therefore, the compact component likely traces a disk.
Figure \[fig:con\] shows the images made with visibilities at uv-distances beyond 200 k$\lambda$ at 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm (Figure \[fig:con\]). These images indicate that IRAS16253 remains a single source at $\approx0\farcs1$ resolution. This result is contrary to our previous prediction that the directional variability of the protostellar jet comes from a rotating binary system with a separation of $0\farcs55$ [@hs16]. Another mechanism [@ra09; @of17; @le17] is needed to explain the directional change of the outflow axis.
Although the fitting results of the compact component are similar in position angle and aspect ratio at the two wavelengths, the central positions are offset by 46 milliarcsecs (mas) (Figure \[fig:con\]). To assess the accuracy of the calibration, we check the check sources, J1626-2951 for 1.3 mm and J1633-2557 for 0.87 mm, and find that they are consistent with the referenced positions within 10 mas and 5 mas, respectively. However, IRAS16253 was observed by only one scan with the extended configuration for 0.87 mm, and the check source was not taken in this interval between the scans of the phase calibrator. Thus, the phase calibration is generally good, but we are not able to completely exclude the possibility that the offset results from an inaccurate phase calibration of the 0.87 mm data.
[ccccccccc]{} 0.87 mm & 27.7$\pm$3.6 & 4390$\pm$330$\times$2830$\pm$210 & 22.9$\pm$6.0 & 36.7$\pm$1.9 & 190$\pm$4$\times$91$\pm$3 & 24.9$\pm$1.5\
1.38 mm & 6.4 $\pm$0.4 & 1660$\pm$50$\times$1170$\pm$30 & 9.9$\pm$2.7 & 10.1$\pm$0.4 & 161$\pm$2$\times$69$\pm$2 & 21.1$\pm$0.9 \[tab:gau\]
Here we propose two possibilities to explain this offset: (1) the proper motion of IRAS16253 (from 2016 Aug to 2017 Aug) and (2) the different optical depths between both wavelengths. For the first case, the projected velocity would have to be 49 mas yr$^{-1}$ ($\sim$29 km s$^{-1}$) which is much larger than that of the sources in the $\rho$ Oph region, $\lesssim$10 mas yr$^{-1}$ [@du17]. However, it is noteworthy that a scenario to form brown dwarfs is the ejection from a relatively massive system that can cause a high source velocity [@ba02; @ba12]. The second possibility is hinted by the offset orientation which is almost along the outflow axis; the 0.87 mm continuum emission may trace the upper layer of the inclined disk due to the high optical depth.
$^{12}$CO and C$^{18}$O ($2-1$)
-------------------------------
Figure \[fig:mom\] shows the CO (left) and C$^{18}$O (right) integrated intensity maps, revealing the rotation motion around the outflow axis [@hs17]. The CO map has a much better S/N ratio such that it allows us to trace the high-velocity small-scale structures. The C$^{18}$O map is combined with the low-resolution data [@ye17] and a $uv$ taper of $<$600 k$\lambda$ is applied. Thus, it has a lower spatial resolution and is dominated by the outer low-velocity region.
{width=".91\textwidth"}
Analysis and Discussion
=======================
Models of the continuum images {#sec:con}
------------------------------
To explain the offset between the dust continuum peaks at 1.38 mm and 0.87 mm (Figure \[fig:con\]), we model the emission using the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code RADMC-3D[^1] [@du12]. The dust opacity $\kappa$ as a function of wavelength is constructed using DIANA Opacity Tool[^2] [@wa16]. The grain size distribution is assumed to follow $n(a)da\propto a^{-a_{\rm pow}}$ with a maximum size of $a_{\rm max}$. We construct model grids (Sections \[sec:modA\] and \[sec:modB\]) to perform a $\chi^2$ fitting to the visibilities at uv-distances beyond 200 k$\lambda$. The $\chi^2$ is calculated in the complex space (i.e. Eq. 2 in [@as17]) with the modeled values at the uv points covered by the observations, for which the modeled visibilities are computed from the synthetic images using vis\_sample[^3]
[ccccccccc]{} Model A & 2.7$\pm$0.3 & 1.6$\pm$0.1 & 3.0 & 150$\pm$50 & flared & $\theta_{\rm flared}=18\pm1\arcdeg,~R_{\rm disk}=9\pm1~{\rm au}$ & 1.70 & 7\
Model B1 & 2.1$\pm$0.2 & 1.5$\pm$0.1 & 3.0 & 150$\pm$50 & thick & $R_{\rm disk}=30\pm2~{\rm au},H_{\rm t}=3.0\pm0.2~{\rm au},~R_{\rm t}=7\pm1~{\rm au}$ & 1.59 & 12\
Model B2 & 2.1 & 2.5 & 3.0 & 150 & thick & $R_{\rm disk}=30~{\rm au},H_{\rm t}=5~{\rm au},~R_{\rm t}=7~{\rm au}$ & 6.09 & 20 \[tab:mod\]
### Model A - flared-disk model {#sec:modA}
Our model A assumes a flared-disk density structure defined as $$\rho(r,z)=\frac{\Sigma(r)}{\sqrt{2\pi}H(r)} \exp{[-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{z}{H(r)})^2]}
\label{eq:den}$$ with $$\Sigma(r)=\Sigma_0(\frac{r}{r_0})^{-1}\exp{[-\frac{r}{R_{\rm disk}}]}$$ and $$H(r)=H_0(\frac{r}{r_0})^{1.3} {\rm~and}~H_0 = r_0\tan(\theta_{\rm flared}),$$ [@ha15] where $r$ and $z$ are the cylindrical coordinates, $\Sigma_0$ is the disk surface density, $r_0$ is the reference radius 25 au, $R_{\rm disk}$ is the disk radius, and $H_0$ is the scale height at $r_0$ determined by $\theta_{\rm flared}$.
We take six free parameters including the protostellar luminosity ($L_{\rm star}$), $M_{\rm disk}$ (total mass of the disk scaled by $\Sigma_0$), $R_{\rm disk}$, $\theta_{\rm flared}$, $a_{\rm pow}$, and $a_{\rm max}$. The central position, position angle, and inclination angle are fixed based on the 1.38 mm Gaussian fitting; an inclination angle of $65\arcdeg$ is estimated from the Gaussian aspect ratio (Table \[tab:gau\]). The best-fit parameters are listed in Table \[tab:mod\] and the images are shown in Figure \[fig:con\]. This fitting converged to an extreme case with $a_{\rm max}=150~\mu$m and $a_{\rm pow}=3.0$ (boundary in the model grid) when it has the largest opacity ratio ($\kappa_{0.87 \rm mm}/\kappa_{1.38 \rm mm}\approx5.5$) between 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm (Appendix A.). This result is predictable given the large offset between the 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm emission peaks. However, even with this large ratio, the offset (7 mas) in this model is still much smaller than the observed one (46 mas).
### Model B1/B2 - Thick-disk model {#sec:modB}
To reproduce a larger offset, we adopted the torus-like disk model from @le17a [@le17b] by adding an exponentially decreasing scale height beyond a radius $R_{\rm t}$, $$\label{eq:modB}
\rho(r,z)=\rho_0(\frac{r}{R_{\rm t}})^{-2}\exp{[-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{z}{H(r)})^2]}$$ with $$H(r)=\begin{cases}
H_0(\frac{r}{R_{\rm t}})^{1.3}, & {\rm if}~r<R_{\rm t}.\\
H_0\exp{[-(\frac{r-R_{\rm t}}{R_{\rm disk} -R_{\rm t}})^2]}, & {\rm if}~r>R_{\rm t}.
\end{cases}$$ In comparison to the flared disk model, this model includes an additional free parameter, $R_{\rm t}$, to determine the location of the maximum scale height. The best-fit model (Model B1) is shown in Figure \[fig:con\], and the corresponding parameters are listed in Table \[tab:mod\]. Compared to Model A, this model has a larger offset 12 mas and better reproduces the elongated shape especially at 0.87 mm because the emission from the lower surface is highly attenuated in the torus-like structure. However, the offset in the synthetic images is still much smaller than the observed one.
In order to reproduce a larger offset, we defined another model, Model B2, like Model B1 but with $H_{\rm t}=5~{\rm au}$. As a result, Model B2 has a larger offset of 20 mas than Model B1, but it is still smaller than the observed offset of 46 mas. Besides, this model has much larger flux densities than the observation especially at 1.38 mm.
Although Model B2/B1 cannot fit the observations well, they suggest that the offset distance can be affected by the disk density structure. Future multi-wavelength observations are required to perform a better model which should consider (1) an accurate disk center measured from optically thin emission at long wavelengths, (2) possible external heating to compute accurate flux densities, and (3) different dust components if dust settling has started.
PV-diagram and dynamic model {#sec:pv}
----------------------------
Figure \[fig:pv\] shows the PV diagrams of CO and C$^{18}$O along the major and minor axes centered on the 1.38 mm continuum source. The emission of both CO and C$^{18}$O emission is likely attenuated by the foreground cloud core near the systemic velocity, especially for CO. On the other hand, due to the low abundance, C$^{18}$O emission is faint in the high-velocity region where CO is bright.
{width="87.00000%"}
We model the PV diagrams assuming a rotating infalling envelope with conservation of angular momentum. We use the radiative transfer code from @le14 to perform the PV model given temperature and density structures under local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) conditions.
We use the flared density structure (i.e., Eq. \[eq:den\]) with an additional free parameter $p$ adjusting its radial distribution, $$\rho(r,z)=\rho_0 (\frac{r}{r_0})^p\exp{[-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{z}{H(r)})^2]}.$$ and the temperature profile is assumed to be $$T(r,z)=T_0{(r/r_0)^{-0.4}}.$$ where $\rho_0$ and $T_0$ scale the gas density and temperature [@le14; @ye17]. We take the CO abundance relative to H$_2$ as $X_{\rm CO}=5\times10^{-4}$ and the C$^{18}$O isotopic ratio of $X_{\rm CO}/X_{\rm C^{18}O}=560$ [@wi94]. Because $\rho_0$ and $T_0$ determine the brightness scale and in turn are degenerate, we assume $T_0$ to be 70 K, which should not affect the fitting result of the dynamical structure. As a result, three free parameters, $\rho_0$, $p$, and $\theta_{\rm flared}$, are used to determine the physical conditions. The rotation and radial velocities are assumed to follow the conservation of angular momentum and free fall as $$V_{\rm rot}=V_{\rm rot,0}(\frac{r}{r_0})^{-1.0}%, V_{\rm rot,0}=1.2 \rm km s^{-1}$$ and $$V_{\rm infall}=V_{\rm infall,0}(\frac{r}{r_0})^{-0.5}%, V_{\rm infall,0}=1.5 \rm km s^{-1}
\label{eq:infall}$$ respectively. This adds two free parameters, $V_{\rm rot,0}$ and $V_{\rm infall,0}$, to the model.
To compare with the observations, we convolve the modeled images with the beam of the observations and make the PV diagrams with the same PV cuts. We calculate $\chi^2$ including both major and minor axes. Because CO and C$^{18}$O trace different velocity components, they are only used at specific ranges: $\mid V-V_{\rm lsr} \mid<1.6$ km s$^{-1}$ for C$^{18}$O and $\mid V-V_{\rm lsr} \mid>1.6$ km s$^{-1}$ for CO. In addition, the intensity ratio between CO and C$^{18}$O cannot be well fitted due to the unknown foreground absorption, spatial filtering, and probably the isotopic ratio. Thus, we include a scaling factor, $F_{\rm C^{18}O}$, for the C$^{18}$O emission as a free parameter in our fitting. As a result, we find $\rho_0=5.5\times10^5$ cm$^{-3}$, $F_{\rm C^{18}O}=52$, $p=-2.2$, $\theta_{\rm flared}=35\arcdeg$, $V_{\rm rot,0}=1.6~\rm km~s^{-1}$, and $V_{\rm infall,0}=1.4~\rm km~s^{-1}$ in our best-fit with a reduced chi-squared, $\chi^2_{\rm r}=4.52$ (Figure \[fig:pv\]). This large $F_{\rm C^{18}O}$ and small $\rho_0$ imply that the observed CO intensity is unreasonably low. This feature can be considered as a clue of CO depletion at the inner disk midplane that will be discussed later. It is noteworthy that the flared structure with $\theta_{\rm flared}$ is required to reproduce the C$^{18}$O emission in the upper right and bottom left quadrants in the minor-axis PV diagram (Figure \[fig:pv\]).
CO channel map and CO-depletion model {#sec:co_ch}
-------------------------------------
In addition to the PV diagrams, we compare the best-fit dynamic model from section \[sec:pv\] with the observations in the CO channel maps (Figure \[fig:ch\]). The modeled images are processed through vis\_sample. To reduce the effect from unknown foreground optical depths, the intensity of the model maps was scaled channel by channel. The scaling factor of each channel was obtained by fitting the intensity of the model map with that of the observed one. In order to exclude the contamination of the outflow, the fitting was applied to the region inside the elliptical mask shown in Figure \[fig:ch\]. The scaling factors have a mean value of 1.3 and a standard deviation of 0.4. This process does not significantly change the fitting nor the morphologies of the model. Figure \[fig:ch\] shows the resulting modeled images (the second column, no CO depletion) that generally fits the observation.
However, this model cannot reproduce the quadruple pattern seen in the low-velocity range between 1.8 and 2.2 km s$^{-1}$. Considering a disk with an inclination angle of $65\arcdeg$, this pattern might originate from: (1) absorption against the optically thick dust component in the disk/envelope midplane, (2) self-absorption of the optically thick gaseous CO, and (3) depletion of CO in the disk/envelope midplane. Optically thick dust continuum emission at the disk midplane was reported in the Class 0 protostar HH212 [@le17a; @le17b]. However, it is unlikely the case for IRAS16253 because the 1.38 mm dust emission has a relatively small size, and such absorption is not seen in the high-velocity region, $\gtrsim2.6$ km s$^{-1}$. The second hypothesis is also unlikely because the far side (or bottom side) should be much fainter than the near side by being obscured. In this case, we would expect to see highly asymmetric emission as the dust-continuum model in Section \[sec:con\]. The third possibility of CO depletion might be a reasonable explanation. CO freeze out at the disk midplane has been found in more evolved Class II sources [@qi13; @qi15; @sc16; @pi18], but it is unclear if such cold disks appear at the early stage [@va18].
To mimic the CO depletion, we introduce a new free parameter, $f_{\rm snow}$ to our model; the gas density at $z<f_{\rm snow}\times H(R)$ is set to zero, with $f_{\rm snow}$ between 0 (no CO depletion) and 1 (complete CO depletion). As a result, we find the best-fit CO-depletion model for $f_{\rm snow}=0.55$ with $\chi^2_{\rm r}=1.78$ while $\chi^2_{\rm r}=1.92$ for $f_{\rm snow}=0$. Figure \[fig:ch\] shows the comparison between the models with and without CO depletion. The model with CO depletion reproduces the quadruple pattern qualitatively well, though the CO peak positions are not perfectly matched and the difference between the $\chi^2_{\rm r}$ is small.
It is noteworthy that our model of the CO channel maps cannot distinguish CO depletion from the outflow-compressed gas or the outflow cavity wall irradiated by the central source. These outflow features are commonly seen through CO [@ar06]. However, the velocity gradient of such gas components is usually along the outflow axes. If it is the case, the surface layers require a significant higher excited state than the midplane while the latter likely has a higher density.
Another noticeable feature is seen in the channel maps: the orientation of the velocity gradient gradually converges into the disk major axis as the velocity increases. This can be explained as an inner Keplerian disk surrounded by an infalling rotating envelope [@as15]. Thus, the high-velocity region could be dominated by rotation. Assuming a pure rotation at the channels $\pm3.4~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, we obtain a Keplerian velocity of $\approx3.7~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ (deprojected) at a radius of $\approx7.8~{\rm au}$ by fitting a Gaussian to the CO emission in the channel maps. This result however is in conflict with the assumption of free-fall for the infall motions (Section \[sec:pv\]), and will be discussed in Section \[sec:dyn\].
{width="90.00000%"}
Implications and discussion {#sec:discuss}
===========================
grain growth at the Class 0 stage
---------------------------------
Grain growth is believed to be the signal of planet formation [@ap05]. This process has been studied in more evolved Class II circumstellar disks [@kw15; @pi16], but is not yet fully understood at earlier evolutionary stages. Micron-sized grains could be formed in dense molecular clouds or cores [@pa10] and migrate into the later-formed protostellar disks. Indications of large dust grains in inner envelopes or disks around Class 0/I objects are reported based on the opacity spectral indices, $\beta$, at submillimeter/millimeter wavelengths [@jo07; @kw09; @ch12]. However, formation of (sub)mm-sized grains requires high density such as a disk midplane [@te14].
Under the assumption of optically thin emission, we use the Gaussian fluxes in Table \[tab:gau\] to derive a $\beta=1.4$ for the extended component and $\beta=0.9$ for the disk component assuming a dust temperature of 100 K and 30 K, respectively. These different indices imply that the dust size distribution has changed from the core to the disk; dust growth has started in the disk component. However, this analysis requires that the continuum emission at both wavelengths traces the same component. It is obviously not the case for the extended component because of the very different sizes. For the disk component, although the source structures are broadly consistent, it is still unclear whether the offset is real or not.
Hundred micron-sized grains might have formed in IRAS16253 considering the offset between the continuum emission at 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm along the disk minor axis. Our models suggest that an offset can originate from a large optical depth in an inclined disk, but it requires very different $\kappa$ between the observational wavelengths; our best-fit model has $a_{\rm pow}=3.0$ and $a_{\rm max}=150~{\rm \mu m}$, resulting in an opacity ratio of $\sim$5.5 between these two wavelengths (Appendix A). However, several caveats should be mentioned. First, the offset of $0\farcs046$ is smaller than the beam sizes, $0\farcs15$ at 0.87 mm and $0\farcs1$ at 1.38 mm. Besides, the possibilities of a calibration issue or high proper motions have not yet been completely discarded. Second, although very different $\kappa$ values at the two wavelengths do produce offsets in the images, our best-fit model does not fully reproduce the observed large offset. Multi-wavelength observations at higher angular resolution are required to provide better constraints for future detailed modeling.
dynamics of the disk-envelope system {#sec:dyn}
------------------------------------
The infall and rotation velocities of IRAS16253 are estimated from the PV diagrams. Assuming the infall motion is a free-fall motion, we estimate a central mass of $\sim$$0.028~M_\odot$. By equalizing the gravitational force and the centrifugal force from $V_{\rm rot}$, we found a centrifugal radius of $\sim$64 au. However, our CO observations do not resolve any Keplerian rotation despite a small beam size of 15 au. A possibility is that the true disk radius is only half the centrifugal radius, [i.e.]{} the centrifugal barrier of $\sim$32 au [@sa14]. An other explanation is that the centrifugal radius may be smaller if the infall velocity is smaller than the free-fall velocity. Assuming the rotation dominates the velocity of $\pm3.4~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$ in Figure \[fig:ch\], we found a deprojected Keplerian velocity of 3.7 km s$^{-1}$ at a radius of 7.8 au. We then estimate a mass of the central star of 0.12 $M_\odot$ (Section \[sec:co\_ch\]), such that the centrifugal radius is $\sim$$16~{\rm au}$ and centrifugal barrier is $\sim$$8~{\rm au}$. In such a case, the infall velocity would be 50% smaller than the free-fall velocity. These two possibilities are not in conflict with each other, and the true system could be a mix of them. Therefore, we speculate that the radius of the Keplerian disk is in between 8 and 32 au.
The disk size and disk growth
-----------------------------
Only a small number of Class 0 protostellar disks have been kinematically identified while it is crucial to understand the disk formation. Our dynamical analysis suggests a Keplerian disk with a radius of $8-32$ au in the Class 0 source IRAS16253. This result also broadly agrees with the size of the dusty disk $9-30$ au (Table \[tab:mod\]).
Disk formation has not yet been fully understood, and two scenarios are proposed to explain the growth of the Keplerian disk radius: (1) “early-start, slow-growth” or (2) “slow-start, rapid-growth” [@ye17; @le18]. In the classical picture, i.e. “slow-start, rapid-growth”, the growth of the disk radius in a non-magnetized collapsing core is: $$r_{\rm kep}~({\rm au}) \sim 0.25 (\frac{\Omega}{10^{-14}~\rm rad~s^{-1}})^2 (\frac{a}{0.2~\rm km~s^{-1}}) (\frac{t}{10^{5}~\rm yr})^{3}$$ where $\Omega$ is the initial cloud core rotation rate, $a$ is the sound speed, and $t$ is the time since the core collapse [@te84; @be13]. IRAS16253’s cloud core rotation rate has been measured to be $3.5-4.1\rm~km~s^{-1}~pc^{-1}$, which is relatively small among 17 Class 0/I objects ([median: $8.1-10.7~\rm km~s^{-1}~pc^{-1}$, @to11]). In addition, it has the smallest N$_2$H$^+$ line width ($<0.2~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$) compared with other VeLLOs [@hs15; @hs18], implying a very small sound speed. Such properties suggest that the disk in IRAS16253 might grow relatively slowly. If we use $\Omega=\rm 1.8-2.1\times10^{-14}~rad~s^{-1}$ [@to11] and $a=0.14~\rm km~s^{-1}$ [@hs18], it takes $2.5-3.7\times10^5~\rm yr$ to form a disk with $r_{\rm kep}=8-32~{\rm au}$. However, it is unrealistic because IRAS16253 is considered to be much younger due to its small mass fraction of the star+disk ($0.03-0.12~M_\odot$) to the core ([$0.2-0.8~M_\odot$: @ba10; @st06; @en08; @to12b]); this fraction may suggest an age of $\lesssim0.5\times10^5~\rm yr$ in the nonmagnetic collapsing model [@yo05]. Thus, the disk of IRAS16253 seems to favor the “early-start, slow-growth” scenario that is supported by the analysis of the properties of the Class 0 source HH211 [@le18].
A possible explanation for this scenario might be passing through a rotating first hydrostatic core (FHSC) with a size of a few au and a lifetime of a few thousand years [@la69]. Theoretical models suggest that a rapidly rotating FHSC may directly evolve into a circumstellar disk after the collapse [@ba11; @ma11]. However, given IRAS16253’s small cloud rotation rate, the disk size after the collapse should still be as small as a few au. High-angular-resolution observations are needed to resolve the size of the Keplerian disk and examine this disk formation process.
freeze out of CO in the protostellar disk
-----------------------------------------
CO depletion is considered as the most plausible explanation for the quadruple pattern in the channel maps although the other hypotheses cannot be completely ruled out. The freeze out of CO would suggest a temperature below 20 K, the CO sublimation temperature, in the midplane of the disk or the inner envelope. This kind of “cold disk” had not yet been found around protostars at an early embedded stage. @ha15 found that, unlike more evolved Class II disks, embedded disks can be heated by viscous accretion and stay warm due to the inefficient radiative cooling in the optically thick envelope. Such a picture is confirmed toward a borderline Class 0/I protostar, L1527; it shows gaseous CO throughout the disk without detection of N$_2$D$^+$ which is abundant when CO is frozen out [@va18]. The CO freeze out in IRAS16253 may result from its unique low internal luminosity as a VeLLO, providing low radiative heating. In addition, the disk/envelope midplane could be shielded or self-shielded from heating by the central protostar given the optically thick disk (Section \[sec:con\]), as seen in VLA1623 [@mu15].
It is also noteworthy that IRAS16253 has experienced a past accretion burst that temporally enhanced the protostellar luminosity and sublimated CO within a radius of $\sim$1250 au [@hs18]. The CO freeze-out timescale is a function of dust temperature, $T_{\rm g}$, and gas density, $n_{\rm H_2}$, $$\tau_{\rm fr}=1\times10^4 \sqrt{\frac{T_{\rm g}}{10 K}}\frac{10^6~{\rm cm^{-3}}}{n_{\rm H_2}}~{\rm yr}$$ [@vi12]. Thus, if the gas density in the depletion region is $>10^7~{\rm cm^3}$, it requires $<1000$ yr for CO to refreeze out. In addition, since the envelope is infalling, the gas might have migrated from the outer region into the inner region. For example, the CO frozen-out gas at $r\sim15$ au could have migrated from $r\sim100$ au assuming an infalling velocity of $\rm 1~km~s^{-1}$ in 500 yr. Therefore, if the density structure is resolved, a chemical-dynamical model would allow us to measure the time since the last accretion burst.
Summary
=======
We present ALMA long baseline observations toward the Class 0 source IRAS16253-2429. We summarize our results in the following:
1. A compact source is detected from the continuum emission at both 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm. An offset of $\sim$46 mas is found between the continuum emission peaks at 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm although a calibration issue cannot be completely ruled out. This offset along the outflow axis could originate from the different optical depths in an inclined disk. However, it requires a very large $\kappa$ ratio between these two wavelengths. The largest ratio we can reproduce is $\sim5.7$ at $a_{\rm max}=150~{\rm \mu m}$ and $a_{\rm pow}=3.0$, for which $a_{\rm pow}=3.0$ is the minimum in our parameter space. Our model does generate an offset of $10-20$ mas, but it is still smaller than the observed value.
2. Rotation and infall motions are detected through CO and C$^{18}$O ($2-1$) emission toward the disk-envelope system. Assuming the infall motion is free fall, we estimate the central stellar mass to be $\approx0.03~M_\odot$. However, the rotation motion implies a mass of $\sim0.12~M_\odot$, and in this case, the infall velocity is reduced by $\sim$50% from free fall. Further observations are required to test these two possibilities, and help to answer if IRAS16253 will form a brown dwarf ($<0.08 ~M_\odot$) or a normal low-mass star in the future.
3. The best-fit dynamical model has a centrifugal radius of $\sim$$64~{\rm au}$, but the Keplerian rotation is not resolved by the current resolution of 15 au. Deriving from the rotation dominated region, we estimate a centrifugal radius of 16 au. Together with the size from the dust continuum, we speculate that a Keplerian disk is present with a radius of $8-32$ au in IRAS16253.
4. The presumed disk radius, $8-32$ au, is much larger than that derived from the classical non-magnetized collapsing model given the small cloud core rotation rate and sound speed in IRAS16253. Therefore, the circumstellar disk in IRAS16253 may have directly evolved from a rotating first hydrostatic core, as suggested by theoretical models.
5. The quadruple pattern in the CO channel maps at low velocities could be explained by freeze out of CO in the disk midplane. The presence of such a “cold disk” may result from the faint luminosity of the protostar. Besides, the dense inner disk, as indicated by the continuum images, might shield the outer region or be self-shielding from the central heating source.
We are thankful for the anonymous referee for many insightful comments that help to improve this paper significantly. The authors thank Dr. Hsi-Wei Yen, for providing valuable discussions. We thank Dr. Attila Juhasz for helping in running the RADMC-3D code. We are thankful for the help from ALMA Regional Center in Taiwan. This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2016.1.00598.S, 2013.1.00879.S, and 2015.1.00741.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), MoST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. N.H. acknowledges a grant from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) of Taiwan (MoST 107-2119-M-001-029). SPL acknowledges support from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan with Grant MOST 106-2119-M-007-021-MY3.
Appendix A. Opacity model {#app:kappa .unnumbered}
=========================
The dust opacity used in the continuum model (section \[sec:con\]) was obtained from the DIANA Opacity Tool [@wa16]. The DIANA opacity tool computes fast models of the dust opacity $\kappa$ as a function of wavelength. Dust opacities for absorption $\kappa_{\rm abs}$ and scattered $\kappa_{\rm sca}$ are derived and are used in the RADMC-3D code. Figure \[fig:kap\] shows the summation of $\kappa_{\rm abs}$ and $\kappa_{\rm sca}$ with different maximum sizes of dust. An extreme case with the maximum opacity ratio between 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm is found ($\kappa_{0.87 \rm mm}/\kappa_{1.38 \rm mm}\approx5.5$) when $a_{\rm max}=150~\mu$m and $a_{\rm pow}=3.0$. We note that this ratio corresponds to an index $\beta\approx4.2$ which is even larger than that in the interstellar medium. However, this index was measured between 0.87 mm and 1.38 mm. It may not be representative of the index over a broader wavelength range.
![Dust opacity as a function of wavelength for the dust size distribution with a power-law index of 3.0 (top) and 3.5 (bottom). The colored solid lines show models with different maxinum dust sizes. The thick dashed line represents the model with thin ice grain coagulated at a density of $10^6~{\rm cm}^3$ [@os94] as a reference. The two vertical dashed lines indicate the observed wavelengths, 0.87 and 1.38 mm, in this paper.[]{data-label="fig:kap"}](diana_kappa.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Aikawa, Y., Furuya, K., Nomura, H., & Qi, C. 2015, , 807, 120 Apai, D., Pascucci, I., Bouwman, J., Natta, A., Henning, T., & Dullemond, C. P. 2005, Science, 310, 834 Arce, H. G., & Sargent, A. I. 2006, , 646, 1070 Aso, Y., Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., et al. 2015, , 812, 27 Aso, Y., Ohashi, N., Aikawa, Y., et al. 2017 , 850, 2 Basu, S., & Vorobyov, E. I. , 2012, , 750, 30 Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2002, , 332, L65 Bate, M. R. 2011, , 417, 2036 Barsony, M., Wolf-Chase, G. A., Ciardi, D. R., & O’Linger, J. 2010, , 720, 64 Belloche, A. 2013, in Role and Mechanisms of Angular Momentum Transport During the Formation and Early Evolution of Stars, eds. P. Hennebelle, & C. Charbonnel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), EAS Pub. Ser., 62, 25 Brinch, C., & Jørgensen, J. K. 2013, , 559, A82 Chiang, H.-F., Looney, L. W., & Tobin, J. J. 2012, , 756, 168 Chou, T.-L., Takakuwa, S., Yen, H.-W., Ohashi, N., & Ho, P. T. P. 2014, , 796, 70 Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R., Krone-Martins, A., et al. 2017, , 597, A90 Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1202.015 Dunham, M. M., Crapsi, A., Evans, N. J., II, Bourke, T. L., Huard, T. L., Myers, P. C., & Kauffmann, J. 2008, , 179, 249 Dunham, M. M., Stutz, A. M., Allen, L. E., et al. 2014, arXiv: 1401.1809 Enoch, M. L., Evans, N. J., II, Sargent, A. I., et al. 2008, , 684, 1240 Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, , 181, 321 Harsono, D., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2014, , 562, A77 Harsono, D., Bruderer, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2015, , 582, A41 Huang, J., Öberg, K. I., Qi, C., et al. 2017, , 835, 231 Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., Belloche, A., Wyrowski, F., & Hung, C.-L. 2015, , 802, 126 Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., Belloche, A., & Wyrowski, F. 2016, , 826, 68 Hsieh, T.-H., Lai, S.-P., & Belloche, A. 2017, , 153, 173 Hsieh, T.-H., Murillo, N. M., Belloche, A., et al. 2018, , 854, 15 Larson, R. B. 1969, , 145, 271 Jørgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Myers, P. C., et al. 2007, , 659, 479 Kwon, W., Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G., Chiang, H.-F., & Kemball, A. J. 2009, , 696, 841 Kwon, W., Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G., & Welch, W. J. 2015, , 808, 102 Khanzadyan, T., Gredel, R., Smith, M. D., & Stanke, T. 2004, , 426, 171 Lee, C.-F., Hirano, N., Zhang, Q., et al. 2014, , 786, 114 Lee, C.-F., Hwang, H.-C., & Li, Z.-Y. 2016, , 826, 213 Lee, J. W. Y., Hull, C. L. H., & Offner, S. S. R. 2017, , 834, 201 Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y., Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2017a, SciA, 3, e1602935 Lee, C.-F., Li, Z.-Y.,Ho, P. T. P., et al. 2017b, , 843, 1 Lee, C.-F., Li,, Z.-Y., Hirano, N., et al. 2018, , 863,94 Lindberg, J. E., Jørgensen, J. K., Brinch, C., et al. 2014, , 566, A74 Lommen, D., Jørgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Crapsi, A. 2008, , 481, 141 Machida, M. N. & Matsumoto, T. 2011, , 413, 2767 Murillo, N. M., & Lai, S.-P. 2013a, , 764, L15 Murillo, N. M., Lai, S.-P., Bruderer, S., Harsono, D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2013b, , 560, A103 Murillo, N. M., Bruderer, S., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2015, , 579, A114 Nomura, H., Tsukagoshi, T., Kawabe, R., et al. 2016, , 819, L7 Offner, S. S. R., & Chaban, J. 2017, , 847, 104 Ohashi, N., Saigo, K., Aso, Y., et al. 2014, , 796, 131 Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, Th. 1994, , 291, 943 Pagani, L., Steinacker, J., Bacmann, A., Stutz, A., & Henning, T. 2010, Science, 329, 1622 Pinte, C., Dent, W. R. F., Ménard, F., et al. 2016, , 816, 25 Pinte, C., Ménard, F, Duchêne, G. et al. 2018, , 609, A47 Qi, C., D’Alessio, P., Öberg, K. I., et al. 2011, , 740, 84 Qi, C., Öberg, K. I.,Wilner, D. J., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 630 Qi, C., Öberg, K. I., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2015, , 813, 128 Raga, A. C., Esquivel, A., Velázquez, P. F., et al. 2009, , 707, L6 Ricci, L., Testi, L., Natta, A., et al. 2014, , 791, 20 Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, , 169, 328 Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., & Denzmore, P. 2006, , 167, 256 Schwarz, K. R., Bergin, E. A., Cleeves, L. I., et al. 2016, , 823, 91 Sakai, N., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., et al. 2014, , 507, 78 Stanke, T., Smith, M. D., Gredel, R., & Khanzadyan, T. 2006, , 447, 609 Takakuwa, S., Saito, M., Lim, J., et al. 2012, , 754, 52 Terebey, S., Shu, F. H., & Cassen, P. 1984, , 286, 529 Testi, L., Birnstiel, T., Ricci, L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther et al. (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 339 Testi, L., Natta, A., Scholz, A., et al. 2016, , 593, A111 Tobin, J. J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al. (2011), , 740,45 Tobin, J. J., Hartmann, L., Chiang, H.-F., et al. 2012a, , 492, 83 Tobin, J. J., Harmann, L., Bergin, et al. 2012b, , 748, 16 van’t Hoff, M. L. R., Walsh, C., Kama, M., Facchini, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2017, , 599, A101 van’t Hoff, M. L. R., Tobin, J., Harsono, D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2018, arXiv:1803.04515 Visser, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2012, , 754, L18 Vorobyov, E. I.,DeSouza, A. L., & Basu, S, 2013, 768, 131 Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2015, , 805, 115 Wilson, T. L., & Rood, R. 1994, , 32, 191 Woitke, P., Min, M., Pinte, C., et al. 2016, , 586, A103 Walsh, C., Daley, C., Facchini, S., & Juhász, A. 2017, , 607, A114 Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, , 49, 67 Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Ohashi, N., et al. 2014, , 793, 1 Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Takakuwa, S., & Ho, P. T. P. 2015, , 799, 193 Yen, H.-W., Koch, P. M., Takakuwa, S., et al. 2017, , 834, 178 Young, C. H., & Evans, N. J., II 2005, , 627, 293 Zhang, K., Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., Cleeves, L. I., & Schwarz, K. R. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 0130
[^1]: http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/ dullemond/software/radmc-3d/
[^2]: http://dianaproject.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/data-results-downloads/fortran-package/
[^3]: The vis\_sample Python package is publicly available at https://github.com/AstroChem/vis\_sample or in the Anaconda Cloud at https://anaconda.org/rloomis/vis\_sample.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '\[abstract\] We extend the Minimum Supersymmetry Standard Model by a non-anomalous family (NAF) $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ gauge symmetry. All gauge anomalies are cancelled with no additional exotics other than the three right-handed neutrinos. The FI D-terms associated with the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry lead to additional positive contributions to slepton squared masses. In a RG invariant way, this thus solves the tachyonic slepton mass problem in Anomaly Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking. In addition, the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry naturally gives rise to the fermion mass hierarchy and mixing angles, and determines the mass spectrum of the sparticles.'
author:
- 'Mu-Chun Chen'
- Jinrui Huang
title: |
Lifting Slepton Masses with a Non-universal, Non-anomalous $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$\
in Anomaly Mediated SUSY breaking
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most appealing candidates as the new physics beyond the standard model (SM). As no sparticle has been discovered at energy scales accessible to the current collider experiments, SUSY must be broken at low energy. There are several mechanisms for mediating SUSY breaking that have been proposed. Among these mediation mechanisms, Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking (AMSB) [@ref:SUSYAMSB] turns out to be an extremely predictive framework, in which the soft masses for the sparticles are generated by the conformal anomaly. As a result, [*all*]{} soft masses are determined entirely by the low energy dynamics ([*i.e.*]{} that of the MSSM) and one single parameter, $M_{\mbox{\tiny aux}}$, the F-term of some compensator chiral superfield. This is in stark contrast to the generic MSSM, where 124 parameters are present mostly to account for the soft SUSY breaking sector.
The high predictivity also leads to a severe problem in AMSB models as generically the slepton masses are predicted to be tachyonic, because the electroweak gauge groups, $SU(2)_{L}$ and $U(1)_{Y}$, of the MSSM are not asymptotically free. Squarks do not suffer from the same problem as $SU(3)_{c}$ is asymptotically free. To solve the slepton mass problem, varieties of approaches have been proposed [@ref:soluAMSB]. For example, the simpliest case is by adding an arbitrary universal scalar mass squared term to all sfermion masses. Nevertheless, the UV insensitivity in the predictions for the soft masses is lost in this scenario. Additional positive contributions to slepton squared masses can also arise by introducing new particles at the TeV scale with large Yukawa couplings to the lepton chiral superfields [@ref:YukawaAMSB] or by imposing an asymptotically free horizontal gauge symmetry based on $SU(2)_H$ or $SU(3)_H$ [@ref:SUHorizontal].
An extra $U(1)^{\prime}$ symmetry has been proposed before as a renormalization group (RG) invariant solution to the slepton mass problem, with the Fayet-Illiopoulos (FI) D-terms [@ref:FIDterm] associated with the $U(1)^{\prime}$ symmetry rendering all slepton squared masses positive. In the previous works, the extra $U(1)$ symmetry considered is generation independent (and thus it is a linear combination of $U(1)_{Y}$ and $U(1)^{\prime}$ such as $U(1)_{B-L}$) [@ref:U1U1B-L2; @ref:U1U1B-L3]. A generation dependent extra $U(1)$ has also been utilized [@ref:U1Gen]; nevertheless, earlier works only consider anomalous $U(1)$, where only the mixed anomalies are cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism and additional exotic fields in addition to the RH neutrinos must be present to cancel the $[U(1)^{\prime}]^{3}$ anomaly.
In this note, we introduce a non-anomalous family (NAF) symmetry $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ in the presence of three RH neutrino chiral superfields. In addition to solving the slepton mass problem, the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry plays the role of a family symmetry naturally giving rise to fermion masses and mixing angles through the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism [@ref:frogNiel]. The anomaly cancellation conditions give rise to constraints on the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields, more stringent than in the case of an anomalous $U(1)^{\prime}$. While there exists an earlier claim [@Ibanez:1994ig] that the $U(1)$ symmetry has to be anomalous in order to generate realistic fermion masses and mixing, we note that counter examples to this claim have been found in Ref. [@ref:gauTrmNeuM; @ref:SU5U1; @ref:TeVU1] in which it is shown that a non-anomalous $U(1)$ symmetry can be a family symmetry giving rise to realistic masses and mixing angles of the SM fermions. Given that the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ breaking scale in our model is close to the GUT scale, flavor violation mediated by the $Z^{\prime}$ gauge boson associated with the non-universal $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ is highly suppressed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:NegMass\], we review the generic features of AMSB and the solution to the problem of the negative slepton squared masses with an additional $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry. We introduce our model based on a non-universal, non-anomalous $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry in Sec. \[sec:U1prime\], which is followed by Sec. \[sec:FermMassMixing\] where the predictions of fermion mass hierarchy and mixing angles are given. We present our numerical results for the sparticle spectrum in Sec. \[sec:SparMass\]. Finally, Sec. \[sec:Conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Slepton Squared Masses in Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking {#sec:NegMass}
========================================================
The general soft SUSY breaking Lagrangian is given by, $$\mathcal{L}_{soft} = -(m^2)_j^i \phi^i \phi^j - \biggl( \frac{1}{2} b^{ij} \phi^{i} \phi^{j} + \frac{1}{6} h^{ijk}\phi_i \phi_j \phi_k + \frac{1}{2} M_a \lambda_a \lambda_a + h.c. \biggr) \; ,$$ where $M_a$ $(a=1,2,3)$ are the mass terms of the gaugino $\lambda_{a}$, $b^{ij}$ and $h^{ijk}$ are the bi-linear and tri-linear terms, respectively, and $(m^2)^{i}_{j}$ are the scalar squared mass terms. One of the salient features of AMSB is that it predicts the following relations for the soft breaking terms which are renormalization group (RG) invariant [@ref:U1U1B-L1; @ref:RGEAMSB], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:RGE1}
M_a = m_{3/2} \beta_{g_a}/g_a, \\
\label{eqn:RGE2}
h^{ijk} = -m_{3/2} \beta_Y^{ijk}, \\
\label{eqn:RGE3}
(m^2)_j^i = \frac{1}{2} m_{3/2}^2 \mu \frac{d}{d \mu} \gamma_j^i, \\
\label{eqn:RGE4}
b^{ij} = \kappa m_{3/2} \mu^{ij} - m_{3/2} \beta_{\mu}^{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_j^i$ are the anomalous dimensions of the chiral superfields, $\mu^{ij}$ are the $\mu$ terms and $\beta_{g_a}$, $\beta_{Y}$ are the $\beta$-functions of the gauge and Yukawa couplings, respectively, and $\beta_Y$ is given by $$\beta_Y^{ijk} = \gamma_l^i Y^{ljk} + \gamma_l^j Y^{ilk} + \gamma_l^k Y^{ijl},$$ and $\beta_{\mu}$ has a similar expression. With proper normalization, the F-term $M_{\mbox{\tiny aux}}$ is taken to be the gravitino mass, $m_{3/2}$.
In the presence of the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$, there are additional Fayet-Illiopolous (FI) D-term contributions to the scalar squared masses. Including the additional FI-D term contributions to the scalar masses, the new scalar squared masses at the GUT scale can be written as [@ref:U1U1B-L1; @ref:RGEAMSB] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{m}_{Q}^2 & = & m_{Q}^2 + \zeta q_{Q_i} \delta_{j}^{i} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{u^c}^2 & = & m_{u^c}^2 + \zeta q_{u_i} \delta_{j}^{i} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{d^c}^2 & = & m_{d^c}^2 + \zeta q_{d_i} \delta_{j}^{i} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{L}^2 & = & m_{L}^2 + \zeta q_{L_i} \delta_{j}^{i} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{e^c}^2 & = & m_{e^c}^2 + \zeta q_{e_i} \delta_{j}^{i} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{H_u}^2 & = & m_{H_u}^2 + \zeta q_{H_u} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{m}_{H_d}^2 & = & m_{H_d}^2 + \zeta q_{H_d} \; .
\label{eqn:FIDMass}\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{Q_{i}}$, $q_{u_{i}}$, $q_{d_{i}}$, $q_{L_{i}}$, $q_{e_{i}}$, and $q_{N_{i}}$ denote, respectively, the charges of the quark doublet $(Q_i)$, iso-singlet up-type quark $(u_i^c)$, iso-singlet down-type quark $(d_i^c)$, lepton doublet $(L_i)$, iso-singlet charged lepton $(e_i^c)$, and right-handed neutrino $(\nu_i^c)$. $m_{Q}^2$, $m_{u^c}^2$, etc denote the AMSB contributions to the scalar squared masses. With the additional $U(1)^{\prime}$ D-term contribution, the RG invariance is still preserved. The parameter $\zeta$ is the effective Fayet-Iliopoulos term setting the overall scale of the D-term contribution and it is a free parameter.
For reasonable $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ D-term contribution assumption, we can solve the tachyonic slepton mass problem. In our analysis, the value of the effectve D-term, $\zeta$, which is a field dependent quantity, is on the order of the $M_{SUSY}$ scale. One of the mechanisms to naturally realize this is shown below [@ref:U1U1B-L2; @ref:U1U1B-L3; @ref:dimTrans]. The $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ breaking is achieved through the following terms in the superpotential, $$W = S(\Phi \Phi^{\prime} - \Lambda^{2}) \; ,$$ where $S$ is a gauge singlet. In the supersymmetric limit, $$\left< \phi \right> = \left< \phi^{\prime} \right> = \Lambda \sim \mathcal{O}(M_{GUT}) \; .$$ Naively, if the soft masses of the $\phi$ and $\phi^{\prime}$ fields, $m_{\phi}^{2}$ and $m_{\phi^{\prime}}^{2}$, are different, these VEVs then get shifted by different amounts, and the resulting effective D-term contribution is, $$\label{eqn:zeta}
\zeta \sim (\left< \phi \right>^2 - \left< \phi^{\prime} \right>^2 ) \sim (m_{\phi}^{2} - m_{\phi^{\prime}}^{2}) \sim \mathcal{O}(M_{SUSY}) \; .$$ However, if the $\phi$ and $\phi^{\prime}$ fields are very heavy, say, on the order of $\sim \mathcal{O}(M_{GUT})$, the $\phi$ and $\phi^{\prime}$ fields will decouple below the GUT scale, and there is no D-term contribution to the scalar masses. One way to have a non-zero D-term is through the deflection [@ref:deflc]. In general, this modifies the AMSB trajectory unless $r \, \ll \, 1$ where $F_{S}/\left<S\right> = (1 + r) m_{3/2}$ (recall that $m_{3/2}$ is the F-term of the compensator field) so that the correction to the AMSB trajectory can be neglected. In our model, we take this approach to generate a non-zero effective D-term. While strictly speaking the predictions for the sfermion masses are UV sensitive as the size of the effective D-term depends on the UV physics, the correction to the AMSB trajectory is negligible and the predictions for the sfermion masses are still RG invariant with the additional D-term contributions, because the $U(1)^{\prime}$ symmetry is anomaly free [@ref:U1U1B-L1; @ref:RGEAMSB]. In our model, the difference between $m_{\phi}^2$ and $m_{\phi^{\prime}}^2$ is on the order of SUSY breaking which is consistent with Eq. (\[eqn:zeta\]). We note that $$\label{eqn:zetaNew}
\zeta \propto \frac{r^2}{4g} \left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{16 \pi^2}\right)^2 \sim \frac{r^2}{4g} \left(\frac{40 \; \mbox{TeV}}{16 \pi^2}\right)^2 \, ,$$ and consequently, to have $\zeta \sim \mathcal{O}(M_{SUSY})$ so as to to solve the tachyonic slepton mass problem while preserving AMSB trajectory ($r \, \ll \, 1$), we have to choose $g \ll \mathcal{O}(0.1)$ where $g$ is the $U(1)^{\prime}$ gauge coupling. This is realized in our model without any fine-tuning as demonstrated below.
The Non-anomalous $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ Model {#sec:U1prime}
==========================================================
In the presence of the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry, the superpotential that gives masses to all fermions and Higgses is given as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sPoten}
W = Y_uH_uQu^c + Y_dH_dQd^c + Y_eH_dLe^c + Y_{\nu}H_uL\nu^{c} + Y_{N} \Psi \nu^c\nu^c + \mu H_uH_d \; + \mu^{\prime} \Phi \Phi^{\prime} \; . \; \end{aligned}$$ Note that in the above equation, the family indices are suppressed. All chiral superfields including the additional three right-handed neutrinos, $\nu^c$, as well as the flavon fields, $\Phi$, $\Phi^{\prime}$, and $\Psi$, are charged under the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry. We assume that all flavon fields, $\Phi$, $\Phi^{\prime}$, $\Psi$, and the Higgs fields, $H_u$ and $H_d$, appear in conjugate pairs, that is, they all have one partner carrying opposite $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ charge correspondingly. Consequently, their fermionic components do not contribute to the gauge anomalies. Here we consider generation dependent $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ so that the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry also plays the role of a family symmetry (see the next section).
There are in total six anomaly cancellation conditions [@ref:TeVU1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:su3u1}
[SU(3)]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}} & : & \sum_{i} [ 2q_{Q_i} - (-q_{u_i}) - (-q_{d_i}) ] = 0 \; ,
\\
\label{eqn:su2u1}
[SU(2)_{L}]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}} & : & \sum_{i} [ q_{L_i} + 3q_{Q_i} ] = 0 \; ,
\\
\label{eqn:u1y2u1}
\left[U(1)_{Y}\right]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}} & : &
\sum_{i} [ 2 \times 3 \times \left(\frac{1}{6} \right)^2 q_{Q_i} - 3 \times \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^2 (-q_{u_i} ) - 3 \times \left( -\frac{1}{3} \right)^2 (-q_{d_i}) \\
& & \qquad \qquad + 2 \times \left(-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 q_{L_i} - (-1)^2 (-q_{e_i}) ] = 0 \; , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:u1yu12}
\left[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}\right]^{2} U(1)_{Y} & : &
\sum_{i} [ 2 \times 3 \times \left( \frac{1}{6} \right) q_{Q_i}^2 - 3 \times \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) \times (-q_{u_i})^2 - 3 \times \left(-\frac{1}{3} \right) (-q_{d_i})^2 \\
& & \qquad \qquad + 2 \times \left(-\frac{1}{2} \right)(q_{L_i})^2 - (-1)(-q_{e_i})^2 ] = 0 \; ,
\nonumber \\
\label{eqn:u1grav}
U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}-\mbox{gravity} & : & \sum_{i} [ 6q_{Q_i} + 3q_{u_i} + 3q_{d_i} + 2q_{L_i} + q_{e_i} + q_{N_i}] = 0 \; ,
\\
\label{eqn:u13}
[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{3} & : &
\sum_{i} [ 3 ( 2 (q_{Q_i})^3 - (-q_{u_i})^3 - (-q_{d_i})^3) + 2(q_{L_i})^3 - (-q_{e_i})^3 - (-q_{N_i})^3] = 0 \; . \;\end{aligned}$$ Here we follow the standard convention, and all chiral supermultiplets are defined in terms of left-handed Weyl spinors, so that the right-handed singlets are the conjugates of the corresponding SM fields. Therefore, the right-handed fermion singlets carry the opposite $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ charges of the corresponding chiral supermultiplets (i.e., $-q_{u_{i}}$, $-q_{d_{i}}$).
In order to find the solutions to the anomaly cancellation conditions, we find that it is convenient to parametrize the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges in the following way, $$\begin{aligned}
q_{Q_1} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_1} - 2a \; , \nonumber \\
q_{Q_2} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_2} + a + a^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{Q_3} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_3} + a - a^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_1} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_1} - q_{e_1} - 2b \; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_2} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_2} - q_{e_2} + b + b^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_3} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + b - b^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_1} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_1} + q_{e_1} - 2c \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_2} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_2} + q_{e_2} + c + c^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_3} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_3} + q_{e_3} + c - c^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
q_{N_1} & = & -2q_{L_1} - q_{e_1} - 2d \; , \nonumber \\
q_{N_2} & = & -2q_{L_2} - q_{e_2} + d + d^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{N_3} & = & -2q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + d - d^{\prime} \; .
\label{eqn:parametz}\end{aligned}$$ With this parameterization, all anomaly conditions are satisfied except for the $[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{2} U(1)_{Y}$ condition given in Eq. (\[eqn:u1yu12\]), and the $[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{3}$ condition given in Eq. (\[eqn:u13\]).
Fermion Mass Hierarchy and Mixing from $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ Symmetry {#sec:FermMassMixing}
==================================================================================
Given that all three generations of chiral superfields have generation dependent charges under the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry, the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry also plays the role of a family symmetry which gives rise to the observed mass hierarchy and mixing angles of the SM fermions. With the experimental constraints on the fermion masses and mixing angles, the number of free parameters in the model is further reduced.
In the presence of the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry, the Yukawa matrices in the superpotential as shown in Eq. (\[eqn:sPoten\]) are the effective Yukawa couplings generated through higher dimensional operators [*à la*]{} the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism. As a result, they can be written as powers of the ratio of the flavon fields, $ \Phi $ and $ \Phi^{\prime}$, that breaks the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry, to the cutoff scale of the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry, $\Lambda$, $$\label{eqn:genYukawa1}
Y_{ij} \sim \biggl( y_{ij} \frac{ \Phi }{\Lambda} \biggr)^{3|q_i+q_j+q_H|} \; .$$ Similarly, the $\mu$ term is generated by the higher dimensional operator and it is given by $$\label{eqn:genmu}
\mu \sim \biggl( \mu_{ud} \frac{ \Phi }{\Lambda} \biggr)^{3|q_{H_u}+q_{H_d} - 1/3|} \Phi \; .$$ The chiral superfield $\Phi$ is a SM gauge singlet whose $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge is normalized to $-1/3$ in our model. The parameters $y_{ij}$ and $\mu_{ud}$ are coupling constants of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$; $q_i$ and $q_j$ are the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields of the $i$-th and $j$-th generations of quarks and leptons, and $q_H$ (which can be $q_{H_u}$ or $q_{H_d}$) denotes the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the up- and down-type Higgses. Note that if $q_{i}+q_{j}+q_{H} < 0$ or $q_{H_{u}} + q_{H_{d}} < 1/3$, then instead of the $\Phi$ field, the field $\Phi^{\prime}$ whose $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge is $1/3$ is used in Eq. (\[eqn:genYukawa1\]) or Eq. (\[eqn:genmu\]), so that the holomorphism of the superpotential is retained. The terms with non-integer $3|q_i+q_j+q_H|$ and $3|q_{H_u}+q_{H_d}|$ are not allowed in the superpotential given that the number of the flavon fields must be an integer. This thus naturally gives rise to texture-zeros in the Yukawa matrices.
Once the scalar component $\phi$ ($\phi^{\prime}$) of the flavon superfield $\Phi$ ($\Phi^{\prime}$) acquires a vacuum expectation value (VEV), the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry is broken. Upon the breaking of the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry and the electroweak symmetry, the effective Yukawa couplings then become, $$\label{eqn:genYukLam}
Y_{ij}^{eff} \sim \left(y_{ij}^3 \lambda \right)^{|q_i+q_j+q_H|},$$ and the effective $\mu$ term is similarly given by, $$\label{eqn:genMuLam}
\mu \sim \left(\mu_{ud}^3 \lambda \right)^{|q_{H_u}+q_{H_d}-1/3|} \left< \phi \right> \; ,$$ where $\lambda \equiv \left( \left< \phi \right> / \Lambda \right)^3$ or $\lambda \equiv \left( \left< \phi^{\prime} \right> / \Lambda \right)^3$. The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges thus determine the form of the effective Yukawa matrices: For the up-type and down-type quark Yukawa matrices, they are given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y_u & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{u_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{u_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{u_3}+q_{H_u}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{u_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{u_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{u_3}+q_{H_u}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{u_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{u_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{u_3}+q_{H_u}|} \end{array} \right) \; ,
\\
Y_d & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{d_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{d_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_1}+q_{d_3}+q_{H_d}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{d_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{d_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_2}+q_{d_3}+q_{H_d}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{d_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{d_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{Q_3}+q_{d_3}+q_{H_d}|} \end{array} \right) \; .
\label{eqn:downYukawa}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the effective charged lepton Yukawa matrix can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:downYukawa}
Y_e & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{e_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{e_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{e_3}+q_{H_d}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{e_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{e_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{e_3}+q_{H_d}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{e_1}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{e_2}+q_{H_d}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{e_3}+q_{H_d}|} \end{array} \right). \end{aligned}$$ The neutrino Dirac and right-handed Majorana Yukawa matrices can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:neutDiracYukawa}
Y_{\nu} & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{N_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{N_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_1}+q_{N_3}+q_{H_u}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{N_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{N_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_2}+q_{N_3}+q_{H_u}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{N_1}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{N_2}+q_{H_u}|} & \lambda^{|q_{L_3}+q_{N_3}+q_{H_u}|} \end{array} \right) \; ,
\\
\label{eqn:neutMajRiYukawa}
Y_{N} & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{|2q_{N_1}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|q_{N_1}+q_{N_2}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|q_{N_1}+q_{N_3}+q_{\Psi}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{N_2}+q_{N_1}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|2q_{N_2}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|q_{N_2}+q_{N_3}+q_{\Psi}|} \\ \lambda^{|q_{N_3}+q_{N_1}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|q_{N_3}+q_{N_2}+q_{\Psi}|} & \lambda^{|2q_{N_3}+q_{\Psi}|} \end{array} \right) \; . \end{aligned}$$
Because of the heaviness of the top quark, bottom quark, and tau masses, we assume that $$q_{Q_3}+q_{u_3}+q_{H_u} = 0,
\quad
q_{Q_3}+q_{d_3}+q_{H_d} = 1,
\quad
q_{L_3}+q_{e_3}+q_{H_d} = 1,$$ leading to no suppression or small suppression in the (3, 3) elements in the corresponding Yukawa matrices. Additionally, to keep the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry breaking scale high, we choose $$q_{L_3}+q_{N_3}+q_{H_u} = 2 \; .$$ To obtain the lepton mass hierarchy and large mixings, we choose the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge splittings of the charged leptons so that $$q_{L_1} = q_{L_3}+1, \quad
q_{L_2} = q_{L_3}, \quad
q_{e_1} = q_{e_3} + 3, \quad
q_{e_2} = q_{e_3} + 2 \; .$$ The effective charged lepton Yukawa matrix is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:lepYukawaNew}
Y_e & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{5} & \lambda^{4} & \lambda^{2} \\ \lambda^{4} & \lambda^{3} & \lambda^{1} \\ \lambda^{4} & \lambda^{3} & \lambda^{1} \end{array} \right) \; .\end{aligned}$$ After putting 8 constraints shown above, we are left with 8 free parameters which are $q_{L_3}$, $q_{e_3}$, $a^{\prime}$, $b$, $b^{\prime}$, $c^{\prime}$, $d$, $d^{\prime}$ and the parametrization equantions ( Eq. (\[eqn:parametz\])) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
q_{Q_1} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_3} - 2a^{\prime} + 2b - 2b^{\prime} - 2d + 2d^{\prime} + \frac{11}{3} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{Q_2} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_3} + 2a^{\prime} - b + b^{\prime} + d - d^{\prime} - 2\; , \nonumber \\
q_{Q_3} & = & -\frac{1}{3} q_{L_3} - b + b^{\prime} + d - d^{\prime} - 2\; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_1} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} - 2b - \frac{11}{3} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_2} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + b + b^{\prime} - 2\; , \nonumber \\
q_{u_3} & = & -\frac{2}{3} q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + b - b^{\prime} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_1} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_3} + q_{e_3} - 2b + 2b^{\prime} - 2c^{\prime} + 2d - 2d^{\prime} + \frac{1}{3} \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_2} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_3} + q_{e_3} + b - b^{\prime} + 2c^{\prime} - d + d^{\prime} + 4 \; , \nonumber \\
q_{d_3} & = & \frac{4}{3} q_{L_3} + q_{e_3} + b - b^{\prime} -d + d^{\prime} + 2 \; , \nonumber \\
q_{N_1} & = & -2q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} - 2d -5 \; , \nonumber \\
q_{N_2} & = & -2q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + d + d^{\prime} - 2 \; , \nonumber \\
q_{N_3} & = & -2q_{L_3} - q_{e_3} + d - d^{\prime} \; .
\label{eqn:newParametz}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, to generate the neutrino mass hierarchy and mixings, we impose two other requirements, $$d = -\frac{4}{3} \; , \; \; d^{\prime} = 1 \; ,$$ which lead to $$q_{N_{1}} = q_{N_{2}} = q_{N_{3}} = q_{N} \; ,$$ and the Dirac mass term for the neutrinos, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:neutDiracYukawaNew}
Y_{\nu} & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{3} & \lambda^{3} & \lambda^{3} \\ \lambda^{2} & \lambda^{2} & \lambda^{2} \\ \lambda^{2} & \lambda^{2} & \lambda^{2} \end{array} \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, to make use of the Type-I seesaw mechanism, we assume that the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge of the $\Psi$ field is, $$q_{\Psi} = -4 - 2q_{N} = -4 + 2(2q_{L_3} + q_{e_3} + \frac{7}{3}) \; ,$$ such that the neutrino right-handed Majorana mass matrix is allowed. However, this does not reduce the number of the free parameters but gives a democratic RH neutrino Majorana mass matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:neutMajRiYukawaNew}
Y_{N} \left< \Psi \right> & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^4 & \lambda^4 & \lambda^4 \\ \lambda^4 & \lambda^4 & \lambda^4 \\ \lambda^4 & \lambda^{4} & \lambda^{4} \end{array} \right) \left< \Psi \right> \; .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the effective light neutrino mass matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:neutMass}
m_{\nu} \sim Y_{\nu} Y_{N}^{-1} Y_{\nu}^{T} \frac{v^2}{\left< \Psi \right>} \sim \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^2 & \lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & 1 & 1 \\ \lambda & 1 & 1 \end{array} \right) \frac{v^2}{\left< \Psi \right>} \; .\end{aligned}$$ The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry is broken near the GUT scale ($\left< \Psi \right> \sim 10^{15}$ GeV), and the mass scale of the right-handed neutrino is $\sim 10^{12}$ GeV. Therefore, after the seesaw mechanism takes place, the above mass matrices lead to effective light neutrino masses in the sub-eV range, in addition to a MNS matrix with two large and one small mixing angles.
The $[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{2} U(1)_{Y}$ anomaly cancellation condition, Eq. (\[eqn:u1yu12\]), is satisfied, if $$\label{eqn:bPara}
b = \frac{364 - 114a^{\prime} + 18a^{\prime 2} - 183b^{\prime} + 27a^{\prime}b^{\prime} +
18b^{\prime 2} + 96c{\prime} - 27b^{\prime}c^{\prime} +
18c^{\prime 2}}{9(-17 + 3a^{\prime} + 6b^{\prime} - 3c^{\prime})} \; .$$ The $[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{3}$ anomaly cancellation condition, Eq. (\[eqn:u13\]), gives rise to a further relation among the parameters, enabling the variable $q_{e_3}$ to be determined in terms of the variables $a^{\prime}$, $b^{\prime}$, $c^{\prime}$ and $q_{L_3}$. These are the only four independent parameters in the model at this stage.
To obtain the observed quark mass hierarchy, we further require $$c^{\prime} = -a^{\prime}, \quad b^{\prime} = -1/2 - a^{\prime} \; , \;$$ which further reduce the number of free parameter down to two. Consequently, the effective quark Yukawa matrices can be expressed in terms of a single parameter, $a^{\prime}$. Specifically, the effective up-type quark Yukawa matrix is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:upYukawaNew}
Y_u & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{10} & \lambda^{|\frac{7}{2}-\frac{2a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{|\frac{13}{2}+\frac{8a^{\prime}}{5}|} \\ \lambda^{|\frac{7}{2}+\frac{2a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{|-3|} & \lambda^{|2a^{\prime}|} \\ \lambda^{|\frac{7}{2}-\frac{8a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{|-3-2a^{\prime}|} & \lambda^{0} \end{array} \right) \; , \;\end{aligned}$$ and the effective down-type quark Yukawa matrix is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:downYukawaNew}
Y_d & \sim & \left(\begin{array}{ccc} \lambda^{5} & \lambda^{|\frac{19}{2}-\frac{2a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{|\frac{15}{2}+\frac{8a^{\prime}}{5}|} \\ \lambda^{|-\frac{3}{2}+\frac{2a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{3} & \lambda^{|1+2a^{\prime}|} \\ \lambda^{|-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{8a^{\prime}}{5}|} & \lambda^{|3-2a^{\prime}|} & \lambda^{1} \end{array} \right) \; . \;\end{aligned}$$ Note that the diagonal elements in $Y_{u}$ and $Y_{d}$ are always allowed, and they give rise to realistic masses for the up-type and down-type quarks. For a wide range of $a^{\prime}$ values, the off diagonal elements of $Y_{u}$ and $Y_{d}$ are forbidden, resulting in a CKM matrix which is proportional to the identity. To the leading order, this is a good approximation. Non-zero quark mixing may be generated through other effects such as loop contributions.
In general, with the anomaly cancellation conditions and the aforementioned conditions from realistic fermion masses and mixing, we find a class of models satisfying all these requirements. These models are specified by two free parameters $a^{\prime}$ and $q_{L_3}$. The corresponding $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields are summarized in Table \[tbl:u1Charge\].
Field $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge
------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$L_1$ $q_{L_1} = 1+q_{L_3}$
$L_2$ $q_{L_2} = q_{L_3}$
$L_3$ $q_{L_3} = q_{L_3}$
$e_1^c$ $q_{e_1} = -(-386375+65664a^{\prime 2}+153000q_{L_3}+1080a^{\prime}(37+48q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$e_2^c$ $q_{e_2} = -(-309875+65664a^{\prime 2}+153000q_{L_3}+1080a^{\prime}(61+48q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$e_3^c$ $q_{e_3} = -(-156875+65664a^{\prime 2}+153000q_{L_3}+1080a^{\prime}(109+48q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$Q_1$ $q_{Q_1} = 38/9+2a^{\prime}/5-q_{L_3}/3$
$Q_2$ $q_{Q_2} = -41/18+4a^{\prime}/5-q_{L_3}/3$
$Q_3$ $q_{Q_3} = (-205-108a^{\prime}-30q_{L_3})/90$
$u_1^c$ $q_{u_1} = (55296a^{\prime 2}+720a^{\prime}(173+48q_{L_3})+125(-371+816q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$u_2^c$ $q_{u_2} = (44928a^{\prime 2}+1080a^{\prime}(-69+32q_{L_3})+125(-4349+816q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$u_3^c$ $q_{u_3} = (96768a^{\prime 2}+720a^{\prime}(217+48q_{L_3})+125(-2513+816q_{L_3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$d_1^c$ $q_{d_1} = -(-46625+25344a^{\prime 2}+17000q_{L_3}+480a^{\prime}(107+12q_{L_3}))/(60(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$d_2^c$ $q_{d_2} = (32275-5760a^{\prime 2}-3400q_{L_3}-72a^{\prime}(63+16q_{L_3}))/(5100+1728a^{\prime})$
$d_3^c$ $q_{d_3} = (22075-2304a^{\prime 2}-3400q_{L_3}-96a^{\prime}(-23+12q_{L_3}))/(5100+1728a^{\prime})$
$\nu_1^{c}$ $q_{N_1} = (-335375+57240a^{\prime}+65664a^{\prime 2})/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$\nu_2^{c}$ $q_{N_2} = (-335375+57240a^{\prime}+65664a^{\prime 2})/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$\nu_3^{c}$ $q_{N_3} = (-335375+57240a^{\prime}+65664a^{\prime 2})/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$H_u$ $q_{H_u} = -(-488375+65664a^{\prime 2}+76500q_{L3}+1080a^{\prime} (5+24q_{L3}))/(180(425+144 a^{\prime}))$
$H_d$ $q_{H_d} = (65664a^{\prime 2}+1080a^{\prime}(133+24q_{L3})+125 (-643+612q_{L3}))/(180(425+144a^{\prime}))$
$\Phi$ $q_{\Phi} = -1/3$
$\Psi$ $q_{\Psi} = (182375-109080a^{\prime}-65664a^{\prime 2})/(38250+12960a^{\prime})$
: The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of all chiral superfields that are free of all gauge anomalies and give realistic masses and mixing angles for all quarks and leptons, including the RH neutrinos. These charges are parametrized by only two parameters, $a^{\prime}$ and $q_{L_{3}}$.[]{data-label="tbl:u1Charge"}
Sparticle Mass Spectrum {#sec:SparMass}
=======================
One characteristic feature of AMSB in the presence of D-term contributions is the existence of sum rules among squared masses of the sparticles. As the $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ symmetry in our model is generation-dependent and non-anomalous, the sum rules in our model are quite distinct from those found in other AMSB models with $U(1)^{\prime}$ symmetry [@ref:sumRuleAC]. The anomaly cancellation constraints lead to the D-term contributions among various fields to be cancelled automatically. Hence, the sum of the modified masses squared is still equal to the sum of mass square from the original AMSB contribution. The anomaly cancellation conditions $[SU(3)]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$, $[SU(2)_{L}]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$, $\left[U(1)_{Y}\right]^{2} U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$, give rise to the following RG invariant mass sum rules, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sumSu3U1}
\sum_{i=1}^{3} (\bar{m}_{u_i^c}^2 + \bar{m}_{d_i^c}^2 + 2\bar{m}_{Q_i}^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{3} (m_{u_i^c}^2 + m_{d_i^c}^2 + 2m_{Q_i}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} \, , \\
\label{eqn:sumSu2U1}
\sum_{i=1}^{3} (\bar{m}_{L_i}^2 + 3 \bar{m}_{Q_i}^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{3} (m_{L_i}^2 + 3m_{Q_i}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} \, , \\
\label{eqn:sumU1Y2U1}
\sum_{i=1}^{3} (\bar{m}_{u_i^c}^2 + \bar{m}_{e_i^c}^2 - 2\bar{m}_{Q_i}^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{3} (m_{u_i^c}^2 + m_{e_i^c}^2 - 2 m_{Q_i}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}}
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where terms on the right-handed side are the pure AMSB contributions, which are given in terms of $m_{3/2}^2$ and coefficients that are determined by the low energy dynamics (i.e., the gauge coupling constants and Yukawa coupling constants of MSSM). Similarly, sum rules within each generation can be derived from the $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ gauge invariance [@ref:sumRuleGI], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:quhu}
\bar{m}_{Q_i}^2 + \bar{m}_{u_j^c}^2 + \bar{m}_{H_u}^2 & = & (m_{Q_i}^2 + m_{u_j^c}^2 + m_{H_u}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} + (q_{Q_i} + q_{u_j} + q_{H_u}) \zeta \; (i, j = 1, 2, 3) \, , \\
\label{eqn:qdhd}
\bar{m}_{Q_i}^2 + \bar{m}_{d_j^c}^2 + \bar{m}_{H_d}^2 & = & (m_{Q_i}^2 + m_{d_j^c}^2 + m_{H_d}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} + (q_{Q_i} + q_{d_j} + q_{H_d}) \zeta \; (i, j = 1, 2, 3) \, , \\
\label{eqn:lehd}
\bar{m}_{L_i}^2 + \bar{m}_{e_j^c}^2 + \bar{m}_{H_d}^2 & = & (m_{L_i}^2 + m_{e_i^c}^2 + m_{H_d}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} +(q_{L_i} + q_{e_j} + q_{H_d}) \zeta \; (i, j = 1, 2, 3) \, .\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[eqn:sumSu3U1\]-\[eqn:sumU1Y2U1\]), we can also derive the sum rules for the physical masses, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\tilde{u}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{d}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{c}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{c}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{s}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{s}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2 + m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{b}_1}^2 + m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2 \\
= 2\sum_{i = 1}^{3} (2m_{\tilde{Q}_i}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_i^c} + m_{\tilde{d}_i^c})_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} + 2 \sum_{i = 1}^{3} (m_{u_i}^2 + m_{d_i}^2) \, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\tilde{e}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{\mu}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}^2 + m_{\tilde{\tau}_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{c}_L}^2 + m_{\tilde{c}_R}^2 + m_{\tilde{t}_1}^2 + m_{\tilde{t}_2}^2 \\
= \sum_{i = 1}^{3} (m_{\tilde{L}_i}^2 + m_{\tilde{e}_i^c}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_i}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_i^c}^2)_{\mbox{\tiny{AMSB}}} + 2\sum_{i = 1}^{3} (m_{e_i}^2 + m_{u_i}^2) \, . \nonumber
$$
In addition to various sum rules, another characteristic attribute is that the degeneracy of the sfermion masses among the first two generations is lifted. In the generation independent $U(1)^{\prime}$ senario, the first two generations of the sfermions in each sector have the same masses individually. However, in our generation dependent $U(1)^{\prime}$ model, their mass squared splittings are proportional to the $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ charge splitting, i.e., $m_{\tilde{f}_2}^2 - m_{\tilde{f}_2}^2 = \zeta (q_{f_2} - q_{f_1})$, which are non-zero. More explicitly, the mass squared splittings are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:massSqrSplit}
m_{\tilde{e}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}^2 = (q_{L_1} - q_{L_2}) \zeta = \zeta \; , \nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_R}^2 = (q_{e_1} - q_{e_2}) \zeta = \zeta \; , \nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{u}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{c}_L}^2 = (q_{Q_1} - q_{Q_2}) \zeta = \left(\frac{13}{2} - \frac{2}{5} a^{\prime}\right) \zeta \; , \nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{u}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{c}_R}^2 = (q_{u_1} - q_{u_2}) \zeta = \left( \frac{13}{2} + \frac{2}{5} a^{\prime} \right) \zeta \; , \nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{d}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{s}_L}^2 = (q_{Q_1} - q_{Q_2}) \zeta = \left( \frac{13}{2} - \frac{2}{5} a^{\prime} \right) \zeta \; , \nonumber \\
m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{s}_R}^2 = (q_{d_1} - q_{d_2}) \zeta = \left( -\frac{9}{2} + \frac{2}{5} a^{\prime} \right) \zeta \; ,\end{aligned}$$ and these relations are RG invariant. Therefore, by measuring the mass splittings, we can distinguish various $U(1)_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}^{\prime}$ models by identifying the charge splittings.
Here we present a numerical example with $a^{\prime} = -27/5$ and $q_{L_3} = 1/2$, which sloves the slepton mass problem in AMSB by giving rise to positive values to all slepton squared masses. The corresponding $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields are summarized in Table \[tbl:u1Charge2\].
With these parameters, only the diagonal terms in the effective up-type and down-type quark Yukawa matrices are allowed, $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{u} \sim \mbox{diag}(\lambda^{10}, \lambda^{3}, \lambda^{0}) \; , \\
Y_{d} \sim \mbox{diag}(\lambda^{5}, \lambda^{3}, \lambda) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ which give rise to the quark mass hierarchy naturally taking into account the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ coefficients. The resulting CKM matrix is an identity, which is a good approximation to the leading order.
Field $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge Field $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charge
------------- ------------------------------------------- --------- -------------------------------------------
$L_1$ $q_{L_1} = 3/2$ $Q_1$ $q_{Q_1} = 853/450$
$L_2$ $q_{L_2} = 1/2$ $Q_2$ $q_{Q_2} = -1522/225$
$L_3$ $q_{L_3} = 1/2$ $Q_3$ $q_{Q_3} = 908/225$
$e_1^c$ $q_{e_1} = 31228381/1586700$ $u_1^c$ $q_{u_1} = -21278009/1586700$
$e_2^c$ $q_{e_2} = 29641681/1586700$ $u_2^c$ $q_{u_2} = -28164287/1586700$
$e_3^c$ $q_{e_3} = 26468281/1586700$ $u_3^c$ $q_{u_3} = -40540547/1586700$
$\nu_1^{c}$ $q_{N_1} = -31757281/1586700$ $d_1^c$ $q_{d_1} = 10200251/528900$
$\nu_2^{c}$ $q_{N_2} = -31757281/1586700$ $d_2^c$ $q_{d_2} = 548909/21156$
$\nu_3^{c}$ $q_{N_3} = -31757281/1586700$ $d_3^c$ $q_{d_3} = 1390561/105780$
$H_u$ $q_{H_u} = 34137331/1586700$ $\Phi$ $q_{\Phi} = -1/3$
$H_d$ $q_{H_d} = -25674931/1586700$ $\Psi$ $q_{\Psi} = 28583881/793350$
: The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields, corresponding to $a^{\prime} = -27/5$ and $q_{L_{3}} = 1/2$. Note that even though some of the charges for the field $f$ may appear to be vary large $\sim \mathcal{O}(20)$, we have the freedom of choosing an overall gauge coupling constant $g$ to be on the order of $< \mathcal{O}(0.1)$ so that the corresponding gauge coupling of the field $f$, $g_{f} = g \cdot q_{f}$, remains perturbative.[]{data-label="tbl:u1Charge2"}
Since the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ breaking scale is very high (close to the GUT scale), the $Z^{\prime}$ and the right-handed neutrinos as well as their superpartners are very heavy. As a result, the RGEs below the GUT scale are the same as in the MSSM. Thus with the modification of the scalar masses shown in Eq. (\[eqn:FIDMass\]) as the boundary conditions at the GUT scale, we obtain the mass spectrum of the sparticles at the SUSY scale utilizing SoftSUSY 3.1 [@ref:softSUSY]. Furthermore, we choose $\zeta = 1.5 \times (100 \; \mbox{GeV})^2$, $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mbox{sign}(\mu) = -1$ and $m_{3/2} = 40$ TeV, without including the CKM mixing in the quark sector. Taking the scalar masses shown in Eq. (\[eqn:FIDMass\]) as the boundary conditions at the GUT scale, we then run SoftSUSY 3.1 and obtain the sparticle masses at the SUSY breaking scale. The sparticle mass spectrum is summarized in Table \[tbl:mass1\].
Field $h_0$ $H_0$ $A_0$ $H^+$ $\tilde{g}$ $\chi_1$ $\chi_2$ $\chi_3$ $\chi_4$ $\chi_1^{\pm}$ $\chi_2^{\pm}$
------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------
Mass (GeV) 114.81 275.74 275.51 286.93 879.93 133.99 361.94 518.34 525.65 134.15 524.55
Field $\tilde{u}_L$ $\tilde{u}_R$ $\tilde{d}_L$ $\tilde{d}_R$ $\tilde{c}_L$ $\tilde{c}_R$ $\tilde{s}_L$ $\tilde{s}_R$ $\tilde{t}_1$ $\tilde{t}_2$ $\tilde{b}_1$
Mass (GeV) 825.53 795.10 829.11 963.65 742.91 753.27 746.89 1014.38 366.87 780.88 745.06
Field $\tilde{b}_2$ $\tilde{e}_L$ $\tilde{e}_R$ $\tilde{\mu}_L$ $\tilde{\mu}_R$ $\tilde{\tau}_1$ $\tilde{\tau}_2$ $\tilde{\nu}_{e_L}$ $\tilde{\nu}_{{\mu}_L}$ $\tilde{\nu}_{{\tau}_L}$ $\Delta m_{\chi_1^{\pm} - \chi_{1}}$
Mass (GeV) 905.41 322.45 250.78 298.35 218.71 120.09 298.56 312.44 287.44 285.58 0.16
: The mass spectrum of the sparticles, with $a^{\prime} = -27/5$, $q_{L_{3}}= 1/2$ and $\zeta = 1.5 \times (100 \; \mbox{GeV})^2$.[]{data-label="tbl:mass1"}
From the mass spectrum, we observe that the mass splitting between the lightest neutralino and the lightest chargino is very small; it is $\sim 160$MeV. This is consistent with one of the distinguishable properties of AMSB mass spectrum, and it can be used to detect AMSB at the collider experiments. Related collider study can be found in [@ref:winoPheno].
$\Delta m^2$ $m_{\tilde{e}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}^2$ $m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_R}^2$ $m_{\tilde{u}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{c}_L}^2$ $m_{\tilde{d}_L}^2 - m_{\tilde{s}_L}^2$ $m_{\tilde{u}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{c}_R}^2$ $m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2 - m_{\tilde{s}_R}^2$
--------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
$\times (100GeV)^2$ $1.496$ $1.506$ $1.296$ $1.296$ $6.477$ $-10.035$
: The mass squared differences between the first two generations of sparticles.[]{data-label="tbl:massSplit"}
In addition, we have shown numerically that the mass squared differences between the first two generations agree with the mass squared splittings predicted in Eqs. (\[eqn:massSqrSplit\]). This is shown in the Table \[tbl:massSplit\] for the specific set of parameters chosen above.
In the numerical example presented above, stau is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). For this scenario to be viable, R-parity must be broken. There also exists parameter space in our model which predicts neutralino being the LSP and thus R-parity can be retained. This is achieved, for example, by having $\zeta = 1.7 \times (100 \; \mbox{GeV})^2$ while keeping all other parameters the same. The corresponding sparticle mass spectrum is given in Table \[tbl:mass2\].
Field $h_0$ $H_0$ $A_0$ $H^+$ $\tilde{g}$ $\chi_1$ $\chi_2$ $\chi_3$ $\chi_4$ $\chi_1^{\pm}$ $\chi_2^{\pm}$
------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------
Mass (GeV) 114.22 163.05 162.28 180.81 879.85 133.71 360.71 488.91 497.51 133.86 495.61
Field $\tilde{u}_L$ $\tilde{u}_R$ $\tilde{d}_L$ $\tilde{d}_R$ $\tilde{c}_L$ $\tilde{c}_R$ $\tilde{s}_L$ $\tilde{s}_R$ $\tilde{t}_1$ $\tilde{t}_2$ $\tilde{b}_1$
Mass (GeV) 825.20 790.01 828.77 978.97 730.85 742.13 734.89 1035.46 321.22 781.79 747.97
Field $\tilde{b}_2$ $\tilde{e}_L$ $\tilde{e}_R$ $\tilde{\mu}_L$ $\tilde{\mu}_R$ $\tilde{\tau}_1$ $\tilde{\tau}_2$ $\tilde{\nu}_{e_L}$ $\tilde{\nu}_{{\mu}_L}$ $\tilde{\nu}_{{\tau}_L}$ $\Delta m_{\chi_1^{\pm} - \chi_{1}}$
Mass (GeV) 914.58 347.57 273.19 322.26 239.96 142.89 322.04 338.27 312.13 310.42 0.15
: The mass spectrum of the sparticles, with $a^{\prime} = -27/5$, $q_{L_{3}}= 1/2$ and $\zeta = 1.7 \times (100 \; \mbox{GeV})^2$.[]{data-label="tbl:mass2"}
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
We propose a MSSM model expanded by a non-universal, non-anomalous $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry. All anomaly cancellation conditions are satisfied with no exotics other than the three right-handed neutrinos. The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry plays the role of the family symmetry, giving rise to realistic masses and mixing angles for all SM fermions. Furthermore, the FI-D terms associated with the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ symmetry give rise to additional contributions to the slepton masses, rendering them all positive. In a RG invariant way, this thus solves the slepton mass problem in AMSB models. The anomaly cancellation conditions give rise to very stringent constraints on the $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges of the chiral superfields. We found charges that satisfy all anomaly cancellation conditions and fermion mass and mixing angles, and at the same time solving the slepton mass problem. While these rational charges are rather complicated, mainly because of the $[U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}]^{3}$ anomaly cancellation condition, the differences among the charges are quite simple. The $U(1)^{\prime}_{\mbox{\tiny NAF}}$ charges also dictate the mass spectrum of the sparticles.
We thank David Sanford, Nick Setzer, and Yuri Shirman for useful discussions. The work was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0709742, PHY-0970173, and 1066293, as well as the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics.
[99]{} L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. [**B557**]{} 79 (1999); G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama, R. Rattazzi, J. High Energy Phys. [**12**]{} (1998) 027.
D.E. Kaplan and G.D. Kribs, J. High Energy Phys. [**0009**]{} (2000) 048; Z. Chacko and M.A. Luty, J. High Energy Phys. [**0205**]{} (2002) 047; R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{}, 085003 (2005). Z. Chacko, M.A. Luty, I. Maksymyk and E. Ponton, J. High Energy Phys. [**0004**]{} (2000) 001; E. Katz, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, J. High Energy Phys. [**9908**]{} (1999) 015; N. Okada, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{}, 115009 (2002); A.E. Nelson and N.T. Weiner, hep-ph/0210288.
Z. Chacko, M.A. Luty, I. Maksymyk, E. Ponton, J. High Energy Phys. [**04**]{} (2000) 001.
O.C. Anoka, K.S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, Nucl. Phys. [**B686**]{}, 135 (2004).
P. Fayet, J. Iliopoulos, Phys. Lett. [**B51**]{}, 461 (1974).
B.C. Allanach and A. Dedes, J. High Energy Phys. [**0006**]{} (2000) 017; N. Arkani-Hamed, David E. Kaplan, Hitoshi Murayama, Yasunori Nomura, J. High Energy Phys. [**0102**]{} (2001) 041; R. Kitano, G.D. Kribs and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{}, 035001 (2004); R. Hodgson, I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. [**B728**]{}, 192 (2005); B.C. Allanach, G. Hiller, D.R.T. Jones, P. Slavich, J. High Energy Phys. [**0904**]{} (2009) 088.
R. Harnik, H. Murayama, A. Pierce, J. High Energy Phys. [**0208**]{} (2002) 034.
I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys.[**B662**]{}, 63 (2003).
C. D. Froggatt, H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. [**B147**]{}, 277 (1979).
L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. [**B332**]{}, 100 (1994).
M.-C. Chen, A. de Gouvêa, B. A. Dobrescu, Phys. Rev. [**D75**]{}, 055009 (2007); M.-C. Chen, J. Huang, Phys. Rev. [**D81**]{}, 055007 (2010).
M.-C. Chen, D. R. T. Jones, A. Rajaraman, H. B. Yu, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{}, 015019 (2008).
M.-C. Chen, J. Huang, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 075006 (2010).
I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, Phys. Lett. [**B465**]{}, 148-154 (1999).
I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, Phys. Lett. [**B473**]{}, 102 (2000).
D. R. T. Jones, G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. [**B642**]{}, 540 (2006).
E. Katz, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Shirman, J. High Energy Phys. [**9908**]{} (1999) 015, hep-ph/9906296; Z. Chacko, M. A. Luty, E. Ponton, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{} 055009 (2001); A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, J. High Energy Phys. [**9905**]{} (1999) 013, hep-ph/9903448; N. Setzer, S. Spinner, hep-th/1008.3774v1.
I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, Phys. Lett. [**B482**]{}, 167 (2000).
M. Carena, K. Huitu and T. Kobayashi, Nucl. Phys. [**B592**]{}, 164 (2001).
B.C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**143**]{}, 305 (2002).
J.L. Feng, T. Moroi, L. Randall, M. Strassler, S. Fang Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1731 (1999); T. Gherghetta, G. F. Giudice, J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. [**B559**]{}, 27 (1999); F. E. Paige, J. Wells, hep-ph/0001249; J. F. Gunion, S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 015002 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
With the aim of describing bound and continuum states for diatomic molecules, we develop and implement a spectral method that makes use of Generalized Sturmian Functions (GSF) in prolate spheroidal coordinates. In order to master all computational issues, we apply here the method to one–electron molecular ions and compare it with benchmark data for both ground and excited states. We actually propose two different computational schemes to solve the two coupled differential equations.
The first one is an iterative 1d procedure in which one solves alternately the angular and the radial equations, the latter yielding the state energy. The second, named direct $2d$ method, consists in representing the Hamiltonian matrix in a two–dimensional GSF basis set, and its further diagonalization. Both spectral schemes are timewise computationally efficient since the basis elements are such that no derivatives have to be calculated numerically. Moreover, very accurate results are obtained with minimal basis sets. This is related on one side to the use of the natural coordinate system and, on the other, to the intrinsic good property of all GSF basis elements that are constructed as to obey appropriate physical boundary conditions. The present implementation for bound states paves the way for the study of continuum states involved in ionization of one or two–electron diatomic targets.
author:
- 'D. M. Mitnik'
- 'F.A. López'
- 'L. U. Ancarani'
title: Generalized Sturmian Functions in prolate spheroidal coordinates
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The molecular ion H$_2^+$, as well as the isotopic forms such as HD$^+$ or D$^+_2$, and other one–electron diatomics such as HHe$^{+2}$ or HLi$^{+3}$, are the simplest molecular quantum three-body problem with Coulomb interactions. H$_2^+$, in particular, has been largely studied since the early days of quantum mechanics [@Burrau; @Hylleraas; @Jaffe2], and is presented in standard molecular physics books as it allows one to understand why molecules form. On top of being important in astrophysics (it is involved in many reaction chains leading to the production of polyatomic molecules), the molecular ion H$_2^+$ also serves as benchmark to test any new molecular approach and numerical method.
In the fixed–nuclei approximation, it is well known that prolate spheroidal coordinates make the Schrödinger equation separable [@BransdenJoachain]. Aside from the simple azimuthal angle dependence due to axial symmetry, the wavefunction depends on two variables, one angular and one radial (actually quasi–angular and quasi–radial). The H$_2^+$ bound structure can be found by solving a system of two coupled ordinary differential equations, one for each of these two variables. An analytical solution exists formally [@Burrau; @Hylleraas; @Jaffe2] but involves two not so tractable expansions and therefrom complicated energy equations (see, *e.g.*, [@Carrington] and references therein). In practice, therefore, the energies are found numerically. This is why a wide variety of methods, including iterative methods, have been proposed and applied to solve the coupled equations. For continuum states, necessary for example to describe ionization processes from diatomic molecules, the energy is known and fixed. However, these non–L$^2$ states are much more difficult to build as they oscillate up to infinity. Some recent investigations dedicated to their description in prolate spheroidal coordinates include Ref. [@paperCN; @Kereselidze2019]. Approximate single or double continuum wavefunctions borrowed from the atomic literature have been extended to the two–center case and employed to study ionization processes [@Serov2002; @Chuka2004; @Serov2005; @Chuka2008]. Other approaches consist in extending well established atomic numerical techniques to the diatomic molecular case, using (see, *e.g.*, [@Tao2009; @SerovJoulakian2009]) or not using (see, *e.g.*, [@Foster2007]) prolate spheroidal coordinates.
In the last decade, a spectral method named GSF has been developed and implemented to study the structure of and scattering processes on atomic systems [@Mitnik:11; @Gasaneo:13]. The method uses complete and orthogonal basis sets of Generalized Sturmian Functions (GSF) with appropriate boundary conditions. Negative energy GSFs allow one to study bound states. The helium atom, the simplest atomic quantum three–body problem with Coulomb interactions, served as a benchmark to put the method on solid grounds, by studying in details convergence issues, the integrals involved and the adequate choice of optimal parameters and numerical packages (see [@Optimal] and references therein). While the aim of the GSF method was not to compete with well established structure codes, it proved to be very accurate at a reduced computational cost because of intrinsic GSF properties in particular the adequate, and unique, asymptotic decay of all basis elements.
After bound states, the GSF approach was rapidly implemented for continuum states for which the good properties of positive energy GSFs demonstrated the power of the method. Indeed, for continuum states, the correct asymptotic behavior is crucial in any scattering calculation as shown in applications to one and two–electron atomic systems (see, *e.g.*, [@HeDPI; @Ambrosio2016; @Ambrosio2017]). The method was first presented in spherical coordinates, then extended to hyperspherical coordinates but limited to atomic systems. An extension to molecules with a heavy central nucleus has been proposed in a one–center GSF approach [@GranadosPhD] and applied to ionization processes [@Granados2016; @Granados2017; @Ali2019]. Nothing, however, has been proposed to deal with diatomic molecules.
The purpose of this manuscript is to develop and implement a GSF method in prolate spheroidal coordinates, thus combing the two advantages of (i) using the natural coordinates for diatomic systems and (ii) the power of a spectral method together with the intrinsically good GSF properties. The long term aim is to be able to describe accurately single or double ionization of diatomic molecules treated as a two–electron system. The development will follow a path similar to the one adopted for the atomic case. We will first consider bound one–electron molecules before moving to the continuum part of the spectrum. By studying benchmark one–electron molecular ions, such as the H$_2^+$, we wish to validate the new computational procedure and code, check thoroughly all convergence and precision issues, and test the robustness with respect to the variation of the internuclear distance.
We actually present here two different computational methods. In the first one, we adopt an iterative approach, solving alternately the separated Schrödinger equations for the angular part and for the radial part. This [*iterative 1d*]{} procedure, which is repeated until convergence, presents the novelty of using GSF with appropriate boundary conditions. Because of such property the approach results to be computationally efficient as only small basis are needed to obtain very good energy levels. It is also efficient in computing time because the GSF basis elements already solve the Hamiltonian differential operator so that no derivative calculation is needed at each iteration. The second method, called here the [*direct $2d$*]{} method, consists in representing the Hamiltonian matrix in a two–dimensional GSF basis set, and its further diagonalization. On top of the same advantages as the first method, the $2d$ spectral approach demonstrates its full power by providing accurately many states simultaneously, and this with very small basis.
The remainder of this paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:theory\] we provide the theoretical framework of the proposed GSF method in prolate spheroidal coordinates. Then in Sec. \[sec:results\] we apply it to the ground and first three excited states of symmetric (H$_2^+$) and asymmetric (HHe$^{+2}$ and HLi$^{+3}$) molecular ions. The successful comparison with benchmark data from the literature allows us to validate the method for bound states. As indicated in the Conclusion (Sec. \[sec:conclusion\]), the next step will be to study continuum states for which positive energy GSF, with appropriate boundary conditions, will be used.
Atomic units ($\hbar=m_e=e=1$) are assumed throughout.
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
Consider a diatomic molecular system consisting of one electron and two nuclei of arbitrary charges $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ placed at a fixed distance $R$ along a line defining the $z$ axis; let $r_1$ denote the distance of the electron from nucleus $1$ and $r_{2}$ from nucleus $2$. To simplify we neglect any nuclei finite mass effect.
In prolate spheroidal coordinates, defined by $$\xi \equiv \frac{r_{1}+r_{2}}{R} \,; \hspace{1cm}
\eta \equiv \frac{r_{1}-r_{2}}{R} \,; \hspace{1cm}
\phi \equiv \arctan \left( \frac{y}{x} \right) \,
\label{eq:coordprol}$$ where $1\leq \xi < \infty$, $-1\leq \eta\leq 1$ and $0\leq \phi
\leq 2\pi$, the Schrödinger equation for the electron reads $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg\{
-\frac{2}{R^{2}( \xi ^{2}-\eta ^{2} )}
\bigg [
\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi } ( \xi ^{2}-1 )
\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi } +
\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta } ( 1-\eta ^{2} )
\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta } + \nonumber \\
+ \frac{\xi ^{2}-\eta ^{2}}{( \xi ^{2}-1 )( 1-\eta ^{2} )}
\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial \phi ^2}
\bigg ] +V(\eta,\xi)
\bigg \} \, \psi (\xi,\eta,\phi )=E \, \psi \, (\xi,\eta,\phi ) \, ,
\label{eq:H2+schro2}\end{aligned}$$ with the electron-nuclei potential given by $$V(\xi,\eta)=-\frac{Z_{1}}{r_{1}}-\frac{Z_{2}}{r_{2}} \, =
-\frac{2}{R} \, \frac{(Z_{1}+Z_{2})\xi-(Z_{1}-Z_{2})\eta }
{(\xi ^{2}-\eta^{2})} \, .$$ In the fixed–nuclei approximation, the internuclear distance $R$ enters as a parameter, and the nuclei repulsive potential energy $1/R$ may be simply added. Equation (\[eq:H2+schro2\]) is separable in these coordinates, meaning that the solution is expressed as a product of three functions $$\psi(\xi ,\eta ,\phi )=U(\xi )\Lambda(\eta )\Phi (\phi ) \, .
\label{eq:H2+12}$$ The azimuthal function $\Phi$ is easily separated, and must fulfill the equation $$\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2} \Phi}{\mathrm{d} \phi^{2}}+m^{2}\Phi=0 \, ,
\label{eq:phi22}$$ whose solutions are $$\Phi (\phi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, e^{im\phi} \, ,
\label{eq:phi2}$$ with $m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \pm 3 ,\cdots $. Because of the axial symmetry of the potential, $m$ is a good quantum number.
Upon elimination of the azimuthal dependence, and defining $p^{2}=-\frac{R^{2}E}{2}$, $a_{1}=R(Z_{1}-Z_{2})$ and $a_{2}=R(Z_{1}+Z_{2})$, the ensuing equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg \{
&& \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }
\left [( \xi^2-1 )\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi } \right ]+
a_2 \xi -p^2 \xi^{2} - \frac{m^{2}}{\xi^{2}-1} +
\\
&+& \frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }
\left [ ( 1-\eta^2 )\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta } \right ] -
a_1\eta + p^2 \eta^{2}- \frac{m^2}{1-\eta^2}
\bigg \} \, U(\xi)\Lambda(\eta) = 0 \, .\nonumber
\label{eq:separation}\end{aligned}$$ and is also separable. Denoting the separation constant as $A$, one obtains a system of two non–trivial ordinary differential equations, a “radial" equation for $U(\xi)$ and an “angular" equation for $\Lambda(\eta)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{equation}
&&\left [ \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }\left [\left ( \xi
^{2}-1\right )\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }\right ]+ a_{2}\xi
-p^{2}\xi ^{2}-\frac{m^{2}}{\xi ^{2}-1}+ A \right ]U(\xi )=0
\, ,
\label{eq:xiseparada} \\
%\end{equation}
%\begin{equation}
&&\left [ \frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }\left [\left (1- \eta
^{2}\right )\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }\right ]- a_{1}\eta
+p^{2}\eta ^{2}-\frac{m^{2}}{1-\eta ^{2}}- A \right ]
\Lambda(\eta)=0 \, ,
\label{eq:etaseparada}\end{aligned}$$
which are coupled through both the scaled energy $p$ and the coupling constant $A$. States with different $m$ values are not coupled, so that they can be considered independently.
In this work, we propose two different methods using a spectral approach based on GSF in prolate spheroidal coordinates. In the first – named hereafter “iterative $1d$ method" – we solve, alternately, the one–dimensional radial equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]), assuming a fixed scaled energy $p$, and solving an eigenvalue equation for the separation constant $A$. Then, we use this constant as a fixed value in the one–dimensional angular equation (\[eq:etaseparada\]), obtaining a new energy $p$. The process is repeated until convergence is achieved. In this iterative procedure, both equations are solved by using adequate GSF basis sets and are converted into eigenvalue problems. The main advantage of our GSF approach resides in the fact that the principal part of these two equations (in particular, the derivatives) are already dealt with by the basis functions; as a consequence, derivative calculations are not required at every iteration step. In the second method, we construct a basis set composed of products of the angular and radial GSF. This two–dimensional basis is used to represent the Hamiltonian, which is diagonalized in order to solve the whole Schrödinger equation (\[eq:H2+schro2\]). In this way, we obtain the eigenvalues (energies) and eigenvectors (solutions) of many states at the same time. This method, here referred to as the “direct $2d$ method", while possessing the same advantages related to GSF is computationally even more efficient.
GSF: iterative $1d$ method {#subsec:iterative}
--------------------------
### Angular equation
We search the solution of Eq. (\[eq:etaseparada\]), for a given $m$, as an expansion in Sturmian functions $$\Lambda(\eta )=\sum_{j} \, c_{j} \, S_{j}(\eta) \, ,
\label{eq:expansionlambda}$$ the angular basis set being generated by solving the Sturmian equation $$\left[\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }\left [\left (1- \eta
^{2}\right )\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }\right] -\frac{m^{2}}{1-\eta ^{2}}\right ] \,S_{j}(\eta)
=-\beta _{j} \, S_{j}(\eta ) \, ,
\label{eq:steta}$$ with boundary conditions $S_{j}(1)=1$ and $S_{j}(-1)=(-1)^j$ for $m=0$ and $S_{j}(1)=S_{j}(-1)=0$ for $m\neq 0$. The solutions are actually the well known associated Legendre polynomials [@Edmonds], $S_j(\eta)=P_j^m(\eta)$, and correspond to eigenvalues $\beta _{j}=j(j+1)$. Figure \[fig:etabasis\] shows the first 9 elements $S_j(\eta)$ for $m=0$.
![First 9 angular Sturmian basis elements $S_j(\eta)$ for $m=0$.[]{data-label="fig:etabasis"}](etabasis-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
With expansion (\[eq:expansionlambda\]) and making use of Eq. (\[eq:steta\]), the angular equation (\[eq:etaseparada\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j c_j \,
\left [ -\beta_j - a_{1}\eta
+p^{2}\eta ^{2} \right ] \, S_j(\eta ) =
A \, \sum_j c_j \, S_j(\eta ) .
\label{eq:etaP}\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying from the left by $S_i(\eta)$ and integrating over the angular domain $[-1,1]$, we obtain a generalized eigenvalues equation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M} \, \mathbf{c} = A \, \mathbf{B} \, \mathbf{c} \,
.\label{eq:etaMatriz}\end{aligned}$$ The matrices involve the elements $$\begin{aligned}
[\mathbf{{\cal M}^k}]_{ij} &=& \int_{-1}^{1} S_i(\eta) \, \eta^k
\, S_j(\eta) \, d\eta \label{eq:Mk}\end{aligned}$$ which can be evaluated analytically using known properties of the Legendre polynomials [@Edmonds]. Those of interest here are given by
\[Melements\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{{\cal
M}^0}\right]_{ij}
&=& \, \frac{2}{2i+1} \frac{(i+m)!}{(i-m)!} \delta_{ij} \,
\label{eq:M1}
\\
\left[\mathbf{{\cal
M}^1}\right]_{ij}
&=& \frac{2}{2i+1} \frac{(i+m)!}{(i-m)!} \frac{1}{2j+1} \left[
(j-m+1) \, \delta _{i,j+1} + (j+m) \, \delta_{i,j-1} \right] \,
\label{eq:M2}
\\
\left[\mathbf{{\cal
M}^2}\right]_{ij}
&=& \frac{2}{2i+1} \frac{(i+m)!}{(i-m)!} \frac{1}{2j+1} \bigg[
\frac{(j+1-m)(j+2-m)}{2j+3} \, \delta _{i,j+2}
\nonumber\\
&+&
\left (
\frac{(j+1-m)(j+1+m)}{2j+3}+\frac{(j+m)(j-m)}{2j-1}
\right ) \, \delta _{i,j} \nonumber \\ &+&
\frac{(j-1+m)(j+m)}{2j-1} \, \delta _{i,j-2} \bigg] \, ,
\label{eq:M3}\end{aligned}$$
and are calculated only once, at the first iteration. The elements of the matrices $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{M}\right]_{ij} &=& -j(j+1) \, [\mathbf{{\cal
M}^0}]_{ij} - a_1 \, [\mathbf{{\cal M}^1}]_{ij} + p^2 \,
[\mathbf{{\cal M}^2}]_{ij}
\\
\left[\mathbf{B}\right]_{ij} &=& [\mathbf{{\cal M}^0}]_{ij} \, .
\label{eq:B}\end{aligned}$$
Assuming a given energy value $p^2$, the angular part reduces to solving the generalized eigenvalues problem (\[eq:etaMatriz\]), *i.e.*, finding the eigenvalue $A$ (the separation constant) and the eigenvector $\mathbf{c}$ (the coefficients of expansion (\[eq:expansionlambda\])). At each iteration, the matrix $\mathbf{M}$ is easily recalculated with the new energy value $p$.
### Radial equation
Once the $A$ eigenvalue is obtained from the angular equation, the scaled energy $p^2$ is to be found from solving the radial equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]). Setting $U(\xi) = (\xi^2-1)^{\vert
m \vert/2} f(\xi)$ removes the singular term $m^2/(\xi^2-1)$ from the differential equation. A first boundary condition is $$\lim_{\xi \to \infty} \, f(\xi ) = e^{-p \xi} \, .
\label{eq:asympxiinf}$$ At the other end, when the electron is exactly in the center of the molecular system ($\xi = 1$), we have for $m = 0$ $$\lim_{\xi \to 1} \, f(\xi ) =
\xi^{-\frac{A}{2}} \, e^{\frac{p^2}{4} \xi^{2} -
\frac{a_2}{2}\xi} \, .
\label{eq:asympxi1}$$ because the radial equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d f(\xi)}{d \xi} &=& \left( \frac{p^2}{2}\xi - \frac{a_2}{2}
- \frac{A}{2 \xi} \right) f(\xi ) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ while for $m\neq 0$, we just require $f(\xi)$ to be a regular function, so that $U(\xi)$ vanishes.
Similarly to the angular part, we propose an expansion $$U(\xi) = (\xi^2-1)^{\vert m \vert/2} \sum_j d_j {\cal S}_j(\xi) \,
, \label{eq:expansionxi}$$ on a basis of Generalized Sturmian Functions ${\cal S}_j(\xi)$ generated by the Sturmian equation $$\left [ \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }\left [\left ( \xi
^{2}-1\right )\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }\right ]
+ 2\xi \vert m \vert \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi}
+ a_{2} \, \xi -p_{s}^{2} \, \xi ^{2} \right ] \, {\cal
S}_{j}(\xi ) = \alpha_{j} \, V_{\mathrm{s}}(\xi) \, {\cal
S}_{j}(\xi ) \, , \label{eq:sturxi}$$ with eigenvalues $\alpha_{j}$. In Eq. (\[eq:sturxi\]), $p_s^{2}=-\frac{R^{2}E_s}{2}$ is a parameter that can be set freely, with the energy $E_s>0$ if the physical wavefunction is in the continuum and $E_s<0$ if bound states are sought. In the latter case, while the choice of $E_s$ is arbitrary, choosing it close to that of a desired state will make the GSF basis more efficient from a convergence point of view. $V_{\mathrm{s}}$, known as generating potential, must be a short–range potential so that the basis elements ${\cal S}_{j}(\xi )$ have an asymptotic behavior similar to (\[eq:asympxiinf\]). Moreover, since we wish ${\cal S}_{j}(\xi )$ to possess also the same $\xi \to 1$ behavior as the sought after solution $U(\xi)$, the generating potential must obey the relation $$\lim_{ \xi \rightarrow 1 } \,\, \alpha_j \, V_s(\xi) = -A + p^2
-p_s^2\, .$$ It turns out that is convenient to choose a function nearly constant at $\xi = 1$, in order to stabilize the iterations. In the present work, the generating potential is chosen to be $$V_{\mathrm{s}}=\frac{1}{2}
\left[ 1 - \tanh(\alpha (\xi-\gamma) ) \right] \, ,
\label{eq:potVshort}$$ where the parameters $\alpha$ and $\gamma $ determine the shape of the potential as illustrated by Figure \[fig:Vs\]. For a given value of $\alpha$, a larger parameter $\gamma$ extends the range of the potential (for $\alpha=1$, $\gamma$ approximately represents the range). On the other hand, for a fixed value of $\gamma$ (solid and dotted curves), higher $\alpha$ parameters correspond to steeper potentials.
![Generating potential $V_{\mathrm{s}}$, used to generate the radial GSF ${\cal S}_j(\xi)$.[]{data-label="fig:Vs"}](Vs-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
At $\xi \to \infty$ we could impose on ${\cal S}_j(\xi)$ the boundary condition (\[eq:asympxiinf\]), but requiring simply the basis function to vanish was found to be sufficient. On the other hand, imposing on each element condition (\[eq:asympxi1\]) at $\xi \to 1$ results to be crucial when $m=0$. We generate the Sturmian functions by solving the radial equation (\[eq:sturxi\]) with a finite difference method [@Mitnik:11]. As it is one–dimensional, we can afford using a numerical grid having a considerable number of points. The first 9 basis elements for $m=0$, generated with $\alpha=1.1$ and $\gamma=5$, are shown in Figure \[fig:xibasis\]. As $j$ increases, these functions display an increasing number of nodes. Featuring one of the main GSF properties, all elements behave asymptotically in a unique manner, here in the same exponential manner $e^{-p_s \xi}$ as $\xi \to \infty$.
![First 9 radial basis elements ${\cal S}_j(\xi)$ for $m=0$.[]{data-label="fig:xibasis"}](xibasis-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
With expansion (\[eq:expansionxi\]), and making use of (\[eq:sturxi\]), the radial equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]) takes the form $$\sum_j d_j \left [ \alpha_j \, V_{\mathrm{s}}(\xi)+ A +m^2 + \vert
m \vert\right ] \, {\cal S}_j(\xi ) = \sum_j d_j (p^2 - p_s^2) \,
\xi^2 \, {\cal S}_j(\xi) \, .\label{eq:xiespansion}$$ Multiplying from the left by ${\cal S}_i$ and integrating over the domain $[1,\infty[$, we obtain another generalized eigenvalues equation $$\mathbf{N} \, \mathbf{d} = \lambda \, \mathbf{C} \, \mathbf{d}
\label{eq:autovaloresradial}$$ where the eigenvalues are $\lambda = p^2 - p_s^2$, and thus the corresponding energies through $p^2=-R^2 E/2$. Let us define the elements
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^k}\right]_{ij} &=& \int_{1}^{\infty} {\cal
S}_i(\xi)
\, \xi^k \, {\cal S}_j(\xi) \, d\xi \label{eq:Nk} \\
\left[\mathbf{G}\right]_{ij} &=& \int_1^\infty \, {\cal S}_i(\xi)
\, V_{\mathrm{s}}(\xi) \, {\cal S}_j(\xi) \, d\xi \, ,
\label{eq:G}\end{aligned}$$
that are calculated, numerically, only once. The matrices $\mathbf{N}$ and $\mathbf{C}$ have for elements
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{N}\right]_{ij} &=& \, (A+m^2 + \vert m \vert) \,
[\mathbf{{\cal N}^0}]_{ij} \,
+\alpha_j \, [\mathbf{G}]_{ij} \label{Nmatrix}\\
\left[\mathbf{C}\right]_{ij} &=& [\mathbf{{\cal N}^2}]_{ij} \, .
\label{Cmatrix}\end{aligned}$$
Here $A$ is a fixed parameter obtained from the previous step, when solving the angular part. The solutions of (\[eq:autovaloresradial\]) provide both the eigenvalues $\lambda$ and the eigenvectors made of the coefficients $d_j$ of the radial expansion (\[eq:expansionxi\]).
This iterative method has a significant advantage. The Hamiltonian is separated into two coupled equations, and both of them are one–dimensional reducing significantly the computational cost. Moreover, the use of expansions on GSF basis greatly simplifies the task since each basis element already solves a substantial part of the equations, in particular the differential operators. As a consequence, it is not necessary to solve numerically the differential equations at each step. Computationally, one only solves – iteratively – two generalized eigenvalue problems. There is, however, a drawback in this methodology: each molecular state requires a new basis set. This means that, from all the eigenvalues $A$ and $p$ resulting from the calculations, we must select only those corresponding to the eigenvectors having the right number of nodes. For each one of the molecular states, a different iteration procedure is thus needed. This difficulty is avoided in the alternative method presented hereafter.
GSF: direct $2d$ method {#subsec:direct}
-----------------------
We propose now a method in which equation (\[eq:H2+schro2\]) is solved directly. As before, we first remove the azimuthal part and write $$\psi (\xi,\eta,\phi) = \Psi(\xi,\eta) \Phi(\phi)$$ with $\Psi(\xi,\eta)$ solution of the two-dimensional equation $$\begin{aligned}
&\bigg \{ &
\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi }
\left [( \xi^2-1 )\frac{\partial }{\partial \xi } \right ]+
a_2\xi - p^2 \, \xi^{2} -\frac{m^{2}}{\xi ^{2}-1} \nonumber \\
+ && \frac{\partial }{\partial \eta }
\left [ ( 1-\eta^2 )\frac{\partial }{\partial \eta } \right ]
- a_1 \eta + p^2 \, \eta^{2} -\frac{m^{2}}{1-\eta^{2}}
\bigg \} \, \Psi(\xi,\eta) = 0 \, . \label{SE2d}\end{aligned}$$ This time we propose to expand the solution $\Psi (\xi,\eta)$ over a two-dimensional basis $S_{ij}(\xi,\eta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi (\xi,\eta) = \sum_{ij} \, a_{ij} \, {\rm S}_{ij}(\xi,\eta) \,
= (\xi^2-1)^{\vert m \vert/2} \, \sum_{ij} \, a_{ij} \, {\cal
S}_i(\xi) \, S_j(\eta) \, \label{expansion2d}\end{aligned}$$ where the one–dimensional Sturmian functions are obtained with the same methodology described above, *i.e.*, from equations (\[eq:steta\]) and (\[eq:sturxi\]).
Upon substitution of expansion (\[expansion2d\]), the two–dimensional equation (\[SE2d\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{ij} \, a_{ij} \bigg \{ \alpha_i \, V_{\mathrm{s}}(\xi) +
m^2 + \vert m \vert + p_s^2 \, \xi^2 - a_1 \eta - \beta_j \bigg \}
\, {\rm S}_{ij}(\xi,\eta) \nonumber \\ &=& \sum_{ij} \, a_{ij}
\, p^2 \, (\xi^2 - \eta^2) \, {\rm S}_{ij}(\xi,\eta)
\, .
\label{eq:H2dstur}\end{aligned}$$ A matrix system is constructed by multiplying from the left by a basis element ${\rm S}_{i'j'}(\xi,\eta)$ and integrating over both $\xi$ and $\eta$ variables (note here the absence of the volume element $\xi^2-\eta^2$ in spheroidal prolate coordinates). We obtain a generalized eigenvalues problem $$\mathbf{P} \, \mathbf{a} = \mathbf{\lambda} \, \mathbf{D} \,
\mathbf{a} \, ,$$ in which the matrices $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{P}\right]_{i'j',ij} &=&
\alpha_i \,
[\mathbf{G}]_{ii'} \left[\mathbf{{\cal M}^0}\right]_{j'j} + p_s^2
\, \left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^2}\right]_{i'i}
[\mathbf{{\cal M}^0}]_{j'j} \nonumber \\
& & - a_1 \left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^0}\right]_{i'i} [\mathbf{{\cal
M}^1}]_{j'j} +(m^2 + \vert m \vert - \beta_j) \,
\left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^0}\right]_{i'i} [\mathbf{{\cal M}^0}]_{j'j}
\label{Pelements}
\\
\left[\mathbf{D}\right]_{i'j',ij} &=&
\left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^2}\right]_{i'i} [\mathbf{{\cal M}^0}]_{j'j}
- \left[\mathbf{{\cal N}^0}\right]_{i'i} [\mathbf{{\cal M}^2}]_{j'j} \, .
\label{Delements}\end{aligned}$$
We solve this eigenvalue problem, obtaining a solution matrix $\mathbf{a}$; each column consists of the coefficients vector ${\vec a^n}$, which expands that solution corresponding to the molecular state having eigenenergy $\lambda_n = p_n^2$. To be more specific, if the basis size is $N$, we have $$\mathbf{a} =
\begin{pmatrix}
a^1_{11} & a^2_{11} & a^3_{11} & \ldots & a^N_{11} \\
a^1_{21} & a^2_{21} & a^3_{21} & \ldots & a^N_{21} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
a^1_{12} & a^2_{12} & a^3_{12} & \ldots & a^N_{12} \\
a^1_{22} & a^2_{22} & a^3_{22} & \ldots & a^N_{22} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
a^1_{ij} & a^2_{ij} & a^3_{ij} & \ldots & a^N_{ij} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots
\end{pmatrix}
\, \, \,
\mathbf{\lambda} =
\begin{pmatrix}
p_1^2 \\
p_2^2 \\
\ldots \\
p_N^2
\end{pmatrix}$$
This direct methodology avoids iterations. Moreover, it allows us to obtain the solutions for many molecular states simultaneously. Since the matrices are two–dimensional, at first sight the method seems computationally costly. However, all integrations leading to the matrix elements of $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ are separable and reduce to products of one–dimensional integrals as given by (\[Pelements\]) and (\[Delements\]).
RESULTS {#sec:results}
=======
We present now the results of our calculations and make a comparison with the data provided in the literature. We start by applying the GSF iterative $1d$ method for both the ground and some $m=0$ excited states of the hydrogen molecular ion H$_{2}^{+}$ for which $Z_{1}=Z_{2}=1$ and thus $a_1=0$. Next we consider asymmetric (heteronuclear) molecular ions with $Z_{1}\neq
Z_{2}$. Finally, for H$_{2}^{+}$, we will show how the GSF direct $2d$ method yields the ground and several excited states in a single run.
Iterative $1d$ method for the ground state of H$_2^+$ {#subsec:iterativeH2}
-----------------------------------------------------
The best values of the energy $E$ for the ground state $1\sigma_{g}$, and the corresponding separation constant $A$ from the work of Scott [*et al.*]{} [@Scott] are used here as a benchmark to analyze the convergence issues of our Sturmian method. We assume here an internuclear distance $R=2$ a.u., thus fixing the values of $a_1$ and $a_2$.
### Angular equation
In order to solve the angular equation (\[eq:etaseparada\]), an initial value for the energy $E$ (more precisely, $p^2=2.2052684$) is chosen. The matrices of the generalized eigenvalue problem (\[eq:etaMatriz\]) are easily constructed as they are all analytical. The only numerical aspect to analyze is the convergence of the results with respect to the basis size. Since the ground state is an even function in the $\xi$ coordinate, only even elements $S_j(\eta)$ are included in the expansion. As shown through Table \[table:convergenciaA\], convergence towards the benchmark result $A$ of Ref. [@Scott] is reached with just 4 elements.
Number of basis elements **$A$**
-------------------------- -----------
**$1$** 0.7350895
**$2$** 0.8115139
**$3$** 0.8117295
**$4$** 0.8117296
Reference [@Scott] 0.8117296
: Convergence of the eigenvalue $A$ in Eq. (\[eq:etaseparada\]) for fixed energy $E=1.10264$, as a function of the basis size.[]{data-label="table:convergenciaA"}
Having solved the matrix equation, the eigenvectors give the coefficients $c_j$ that allow us to construct the ground state angular solution (\[eq:expansionlambda\]) which is shown in Figure \[fig:4estadoseta\]. The excited states will be discussed in the next section.
![The angular $\Lambda(\eta)$ solutions for the four lower energy states of H$_{2}^{+}$.[]{data-label="fig:4estadoseta"}](etawaves-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
### Radial equation
Once the angular equation is solved, we turn to the radial equation. In contrast to the angular part, here the approach is completely numerical. On one hand we have to generate the basis set ${\cal S}_i(\xi)$ and, on the other, the matrix elements of the corresponding eigenvalue problem (\[eq:autovaloresradial\]) must be calculated numerically.
The basis elements are generated by solving the Sturmian equation (\[eq:sturxi\]) with a numerical method described previously [@Mitnik:11]. It is based on a predictor–corrector algorithm, propagating the solution from the origin to some defined matching point (this is the outgoing solution), and from an effective infinite towards this point (the inward solution). The inward function is normalized, in such a way that both solutions coincide at the matching point. If the derivatives disagree at this point, the eigenvalue is adjusted and the procedure starts again, until convergence. This algorithm, allows one to produce very accurate solutions for atomic systems, even with a reasonably small ($\sim
500$) points in the numerical grid [@Mitnik:11; @Gasaneo:13]. However, we noticed that it was hard to obtain the radial solutions of Eq. (\[eq:xiseparada\]), even when a large number of points was included in the numerical grid. In fact, to solve this equation appropriately, the crucial aspect resides in the fulfillment of the boundary conditions (\[eq:asympxi1\]) at the origin. We endorsed this conclusion, trying to solve the radial equation with other methods, and using different mathematical softwares, obtaining very different results for different numerical grids. We even tried to solve the equation fixing the energy value to $E=-1.10264$ a.u. [@Scott], but the converged solutions yielded eigenvalues $A$ too far from the correct value.
We also tried to use standard diagonalization routines from [lapack]{} [@lapack] to solve equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]) directly. However, within this approach it is not simple to introduce explicitly the boundary conditions in contrast to our GSF expansion approach for which it is straightforward. Thus, our method allows us to obtain very accurate results, even with a very few number of points in the numerical grid. Nevertheless, since all the required integrals are one–dimensional, we used a significant number of points ($\sim
10^4$), regardless of whether it was necessary.
Having solved the Sturmian equation and generated the basis set ${\cal S}_i(\xi)$, we can proceed to analyze convergence issues for the expansion (\[eq:expansionxi\]) of the function $U(\xi)$. In Table \[table:convergenciaE\] the basis size dependence of the energy value $E$, obtained by fixing the separation constant $A=0.8117296$, is shown for two different sets. So far, we have not indicated the value of the external parameter $E_s$ chosen to generate the Sturmian basis (\[eq:sturxi\]). Although it is an arbitrary energy, it is convenient to choose its value close to the true state energy. Assigning, for the first iteration, the arbitrary value $E=-1$ a.u. we obtain the convergence sequence shown in the second column of Table \[table:convergenciaE\] that leads to a state energy of $E=-1.1026$ a.u.. In a second, better, calculation we generate the radial GSF basis using as the external Sturmian energy, precisely this state energy, *i.e.*, we set $E_s=-1.1026$ a.u.. In so doing, the sequence of energies obtained, listed in the third column of the table, converges very fast to the very accurate benchmark value.
Basis Elements $E$ (a.u.) $\tilde{E}$ (a.u.)
---------------------- -------------- ----------------------
**$1$** -1.0 -1.1
**$3$** -1.1 -1.1026
**$6$** -1.1024 -1.1026340
**$9$** -1.1026 -1.1026346
Reference [@paperCN] -1.1026342
: Convergence of the energy $E$ in Eq. (\[eq:xiseparada\]) for fixed $A=0.8117296$ as a function of the number of basis elements. The third column corresponds to the energy $\tilde{E}$ obtained with an improved (recalculated) basis.[]{data-label="table:convergenciaE"}
Once the eigenvalues equation is solved, the eigenvectors of (\[eq:autovaloresradial\]) provide the expansion coefficients $d_i$, which build the radial function $U(\xi)$ through (\[eq:expansionxi\]). The converged result is shown in Figure \[fig:4estadosxi\]; the excited states will be discussed in the next section.
![The radial $U(\xi)$ solutions for the four lower energy states of H$_{2}^{+}$.[]{data-label="fig:4estadosxi"}](xiwaves-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
The product of the angular and radial solutions $\Lambda(\eta)
U(\xi)$ gives, up to the azimuthal dependence, the wavefunction which is best visualized by converting the prolates $(\xi ,\eta
,\phi )$ into cartesian coordinates $(x,y,z)$ through
$$\begin{aligned}
x &=& \frac{R}{2}\sqrt{(1-\eta^2)(\xi^2-1)} \cos(\phi)\\
y &=& \frac{R}{2}\sqrt{(1-\eta^2)(\xi^2-1)} \sin(\phi)\\
z &=& \frac{R}{2}\eta \xi\, .\end{aligned}$$
In the top left panel of Figure \[fig:H+H+evsR\] we show the obtained $\psi_{1\sigma_g}$ for a fixed angle $\phi$ (for $m=0$ states, the results are symmetric respect to rotations over the $z$ axis, and therefore, there is no dependence on the angle $\phi$).
### Internuclear distance dependence
In the ground state results presented above we have fixed, adopting the Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the internuclear distance at $R=2$ a.u. Calculations can be easily repeated by varying $R$, and in each case, one obtains the total energy $$E_{\mathrm{tot}}(R)= E(R) + \frac{1}{R} \, .$$ The radial Sturmian functions should be generated through Eq. (\[eq:sturxi\]) in which one modifies $a_2=R(Z_1+Z_2)$ for each $R$. This option can be taken but we found it convenient to use a unique basis generated with a given value $a_{2s} = R_s (Z_1 +
Z_2) $; except for very high internuclear distances $R$, we simply took $R_s=2$ a.u.. In so doing, the use of the Sturmian equation for the radial Schrödinger equation (\[eq:xiseparada\]) leads to a slightly modified Eq. (\[eq:xiespansion\]) and thus the supplementary matrix element $\, (a_2 - a_{2s}) \, [\mathbf{{\cal N}^1}]_{ij} $ must be added to matrix $\mathbf{N}$ defined by (\[Nmatrix\]). Figure \[fig:Rdepend\] presents the calculated total energy as a function of the internuclear distance. The inset allows one to see a clear minimum at $R=1.99704$ a.u. At this equilibrium distance (bond length) the corresponding energy $E_{\mathrm{tot}}=-0.602635$ a.u. is in agreement with the best values given in the literature [@Requil].
![Total energy of the H$_{2}^{+}$ ground state as a function of the internuclear distance $R$.[]{data-label="fig:Rdepend"}](psiR-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
We challenged our computational method with energy calculations considering very small internuclear distances $R$ for which, in general, many numerical instabilities and errors arise. The energy values displayed in Table \[table:Rs\] demonstrate that our Sturmian method remains robust for decreasing distances $R$, even in the limit $R\rightarrow 0$, for which the solution corresponds to the atomic ion He$^{+}$ with energy $E_{He^+} = -Z^2/2 = -2$ a.u.. At the same time the ground state wavefunction should evolve from a molecular to an atomic shape, that is to say from a density of probability centered on the two nuclei to a hydrogenic single center system. This transition from molecular to atomic system as the internuclear distance decreases is illustrated in Figure \[fig:H+H+evsR\].
R (a.u.) $E$ (a.u.)
---------- --------------
2 -1.1026340
1 -1.4517823
0.4 -1.800754
0.1 -1.9782552
0.025 -1.9984113
0.008 -1.9998307
He$^{+}$ -2.0
: Ground state energy of the system $H+H+e^-$, as a function of the internuclear distance $R$.[]{data-label="table:Rs"}
Iterative $1d$ method for some excited states of H$_2^+$
--------------------------------------------------------
By modifying the way the GSF basis functions are constructed, the GSF spectral method allows one to obtain not only the ground state but also excited and continuum states. To start with, let us look at the first excited state $1\sigma_u$. For the generation of the radial basis, it is necessary to choose an arbitrary Sturmian energy as an external parameter. In a first, crude, approach we take the same energy obtained for the ground state calculation ($E_s=-1.10263$ a.u. or, equivalently, $p_s=1.485015$). We generate then three Sturmians for the angular basis (only odd functions because of parity) and six radial Sturmian functions. With these functions, we carry out the iteration procedure, solving first the angular equation, obtaining the eigenvalue $A$. This value is introduced as a parameter into the radial equation, whose solutions produce a new scaled energy value $p$. As shown in Table \[table:conv1su\], a very precise result with six significant figures is obtained after only eight iteration steps. However, as we discussed for the ground state, we can make the whole calculation even better, choosing the Sturmian energy value from the last convergence step ($p_s= 1.154791$, or $E_s=-0.666771$ a.u.) and recalculating the radial basis. In so doing, the convergence is even faster, and only four iteration steps are sufficient to reach the energy values given by Scott [@Scott].
Iteration $p$ $E$ (a.u.) $\tilde{p}$ $\tilde{E}$ (a.u.)
-------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------- --------------------
0 1.485015 -1.10263 1.154791 -0.666771
2 1.175548 -0.690957 1.155444 -0.667525
4 1.155869 -0.668017 1.155451 -0.667534
6 1.154793 -0.666773
8 1.154791 -0.666771
Reference [@Scott] 1.155452 -0.667534
: Convergence of $p$ and energy $E$ for the first H$_2^+$ excited state $1\sigma_u$. The fifth column corresponds to the energy $\tilde{E}$ obtained with an improved (recalculated) basis.[]{data-label="table:conv1su"}
The same procedure is repeated for the generation of other excited states, such as $2\sigma_g$ and $2\sigma_u$. In Table \[table:excited1d\] the energy results obtained with our iterative method are displayed and compare very favorably with the results obtained by Bian [@paperCN]. Note that the latter coincide, up to the eighth decimal with those of Madsen and Peek [@H2+eigenpar].
State $A$ $E$ (a.u.) $\tilde{E}$ (a.u.) $E$ (a.u.) Ref. [@paperCN]
------------------- ---------- ------------ -------------------- ----------------------------
**$1\sigma_{g}$** 0.8117 -1.102 -1.1026340 -1.10263421
**$1\sigma_{u}$** -1.8689 -0.667 -0.6675338 -0.66753439
**$2\sigma_{g}$** 0.2484 -0.3 -0.36081 -0.36086488
**$2\sigma_{u}$** -1.69179 -0.25 -0.25535 -0.25541317
: Parameter $A$ and energies $E$ of the lowest energy states of H$_{2}^{+}$ calculated with our iterative GSF method. The fourth column corresponds to the energy $\tilde{E}$ obtained with an improved (recalculated) basis. The last column reports the energy values found by Bian [@paperCN].[]{data-label="table:excited1d"}
The radial $U(\xi)$ and the angular $\Lambda(\eta)$ solutions of the four lowest states of H$_{2}^{+}$ are shown, respectively, in Figures \[fig:4estadoseta\] and \[fig:4estadosxi\]. The total wavefunctions for the excited states $1\sigma_u$, $2\sigma_g$ and $2\sigma_u$ are shown in Figure \[fig:1sxyu\] as a function of the cartesian coordinates $(x,z)$. We recall that the density is invariant under rotations around the $z$ axis.
Iterative $1d$ method for the asymmetric molecular ions HHe$^{+2}$ and HLi$^{+3}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We apply now our GSF approach to other monoelectronic diatomic systems, such as the HHe$^{+2}$ and HLi$^{+3}$ molecular ions. For these heteronuclear ions, $Z_1\neq Z_2$ and thus $a_1
\neq 0$. In order to compare with other sample results published in the literature, we have kept the internuclear distance fixed at $R=4$ a.u. (for HHe$^{+2}$ the equilibrium value is around $R=3.89$ a.u.).
The ground state wavefunctions of the heteronuclear molecular ions are shown in Figure \[fig:1sgHLi\]. The distribution of the electron density is now clearly asymmetric, the logical shift towards the nucleus with larger charge being more evident as the Coulomb attraction increases. The shape of the wavefunction acquires more and more an atomic–like form centered on the heavier nucleus with only relatively small values close to the hydrogen nucleus. These features will obviously strongly depend on the internuclear distance, here fixed at $R=4$ a.u..
Table \[table:HHe\] displays the calculated ground state energies, whose absolute value increases approximately as $Z_2^2/2$ with $Z_2$ the charge of the heavier nucleus. The efficiency of our method can be appreciated by giving a few numbers of other methods. The results given by Avery [*et al.*]{} [@Avery:09] were calculated with 10 basis elements (Coulomb Sturmian functions) for each nucleus. Kereselidze [*et al.*]{} [@Rusos] used 10 basis functions per nucleus (Coulomb Sturmian in prolate spheroidal coordinates). Xue–Bin Bian [@paperCN] employed an imaginary–time–propagation method based on a Crank–Nicolson scheme to solve the separate equations, using 20 B–splines of order 7 to solve the radial equation, and 80 B–splines of order 7 for the angular part. Campos [*et al.*]{} [@Campos] used 22 functions per coordinate. The aim of our calculation here was not to obtain very high accuracies, but rather to demonstrate that our simple and versatile method is computationally more efficient when compared to other approaches. If desired, we can achieve even better energy accuracies by improving the employed numerical methods (number of points or the finite differences order) or by tuning the generating potential as to optimize the GSF basis set.
$E$ $1\sigma_g$ H$_{2}^{+}$ (a.u.) $E$ $1\sigma$ HHe$^{+2}$ (a.u.) $E$ $1\sigma$ HLi$^{+3}$ (a.u.)
---------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
This work -1.1026340 -2.2506056 -4.7501126
Avery [@Avery:09] -1.10220 - -4.75011
Kereselidze [@Rusos] -1.102614 - -4.750111
Bian [@paperCN] -1.1026342 -2.2506054 -
Campos [@Campos] - -2.2506054 -4.7501118
: Ground state energies for the monoelectronic molecular ions: H$_{2}^{+}$, assuming an internuclear distance $R=2$ a.u., and HHe$^{+2}$ and HLi$^{+3}$, assuming an internuclear distance $R=4$ a.u.
. \[table:HHe\]
Direct $2d$ method for the ground and excited states of H$_{2}^{+}$
===================================================================
Although we found excellent results with the iterative method, we wish to exploit the full advantages of the spectral method which allows one to obtain many states in one shot. The direct diagonalization of a $2d$ Hamiltonian is generally very costly from the computational point of view. Within the finite differences framework, and taking into account that every coordinate has to be represented by hundreds of points, the matrix becomes huge and is intractable. A spectral method can reduce significantly the size of the Hamiltonian matrix to diagonalize, but computationally it still represents a hard task. Within the GSF method, the size of the matrices are reduced even more, since the appropriate physical behavior is explicitly introduced in the basis set. In this manner, the numerical treatment is optimized.
The use of expansion (\[expansion2d\]) on a two–dimensional basis ${\rm S}_{ij}(\xi,\eta)$ transforms the Schrödinger equation into an equation (\[eq:H2dstur\]) where all the derivatives have been removed and replaced by simple expressions. Moreover, since the basis functions are optimized, the size of the basis is very small. For example, in our calculations, we introduced only 18 functions (3 angular $S_j(\eta)$ and 6 radial ${\cal S}_i(\xi)$). Finally, the direct diagonalization of this small matrix produces, as a result, 18 states simultaneously without the need to perform separate iterations for each state.
We have applied our GSF direct $2d$ method to the benchmark ion H$_{2}^{+}$, again taking $R=2$ a.u.. With only one diagonalization we obtained the energy values displayed in Table \[table:excited2D\]. They compare very well with the results of Madsen and Peek [@H2+eigenpar], following their states notation. We should point out that our aim here was to produce all the levels at the same time without a focus on a single state. To generate the Sturmian basis we chose here the energy value $E_{s}=$-0.2 a.u. which is clearly quite different from the ground state energy; it is an acceptable compromise that leads to a good precision for the whole set of presented molecular states. The table shows that it is possible to obtain excellent results, in particular for the lower states, at a rather small computational cost. If one wishes to improve the energy accuracy for one particular state, a different Sturmian energy $E_s$ closer to this state energy should be chosen, as was shown in the $1d$ method. Since the generation of a new Sturmian basis requires one–dimensional calculations and the $2d$ matrix only has a few dozen of elements, this further optimization procedure is rather inexpensive.
State $E$ (a.u.) $E$ (a.u.) Ref. [@H2+eigenpar]
-------------------- -------------- ----------------------------------
**$1S\sigma_{g}$** -1.102630 -1.10263421
**$2P\sigma_{u}$** -0.66753431 -0.66753439
**$2S\sigma_{g}$** -0.360863 -0.36086488
**$3P\sigma_{u}$** -0.25541312 -0.25541317
**$3D\sigma_{g}$** -0.2357775 -0.23577763
**$3S\sigma_{g}$** -0.1776 -0.17768105
**$4P\sigma_{u}$** -0.133 -0.13731293
: Energies of seven energy states of H$_{2}^{+}$, obtained with the GSF direct $2d$ method. The third column indicates the results of Madsen and Peek [@H2+eigenpar]. Both were obtained for a fixed internuclear distance $R=2$ a.u..[]{data-label="table:excited2D"}
CONCLUSION {#sec:conclusion}
==========
The spectral method, based on Generalized Sturmian Functions, has been here extended, to allow its use in prolate spheroidal coordinates which should provide, in principle, the most effective framework to treat diatomic molecular systems. We developed and implemented two different numerical methods for the calculation of the molecular structure of monoelectronic molecular ions.
The first one consists in separating the Schrödinger equation in one angular and one radial equations, coupled through the energy and a coupling parameter. The equations are solved alternately, fixing the energy and the coupling parameter in each case, and after a few iterations, these parameters converged to the final values. The advantage of using GSF is twofold. On the one hand, it allows one the replacement of most of the Hamiltonian calculations by a simple expression thus substantially reducing the complexity of the calculation at any iteration step. On the other hand, the GSF method is based in the valuable property that the right boundary conditions are enforced onto the basis functions. Therefore, the size of the basis is minimal, turning the method in a very efficient procedure that produces ground and excited states of high quality.
The second method also uses GSF, and the angular and radial basis sets are generated in the same way as in the first one. Then, a two–dimensional basis set is constructed, and the Schrödinger equation solution becomes a $2d$ generalized eigenvalues problem. Since the basis elements have the correct boundary conditions, the size of the basis is very small, and the diagonalization is not a costly procedure. This direct $2d$ method does not require any iteration and a single calculation yields – simultaneously – many molecular states. Very good results can be obtained already with small basis size.
As a first step towards the extension of the GSF method to diatomic molecules, we have presented here an investigation of molecular ions having only one electron. We calculated the ground and excited states of the molecular hydrogen ion H$_{2}^{+}$, in excellent agreement with benchmark results (7 significant figures in the case of the ground state). We also studied heteronuclear molecular ions, like HHe$^{+2}$ and HLi$^{+3}$, with again excellent results. The method proved to be robust over a wide range of internuclear distances $R$, including in the notoriously difficult atomic limit.
The whole numerical investigation gives us confidence in our implementation of the GSF method in prolate spheroidal coordinates, as to contemplate exploring the continuous part of of the spectrum. As demonstrated for atomic systems, the advantages of the GSF spectral method are more evident in the treatment of collision problems. In this case, the continuum Sturmian basis elements are generated with a positive energy parameter $E_s$ and one imposes appropriate scattering boundary conditions. As a consequence, the basis needs to solve the Schrödinger equation only in the interaction region. Scattering problems involving one or two electrons in the continuum can then be treated efficiently with compact bases [@Gasaneo:13; @HeDPI; @Ambrosio2016; @Ambrosio2017]. The same arguments apply to diatomic molecular systems, and we plan to extend the present investigation in prolate spheroidal coordinates to scattering problems such as single or double ionization by photon or electron impact. First we will examine the single continuum by studying the single photoionization of the benchmark one–electron molecular ion H$_2^+$; then, we will move to the more challenging two–electron correlated case, by investigating single and double ionization processes on H$_2$ and on quasi two–electron targets like N$_2$ as done for example in Ref. [@Chuka2012; @Bulychev2013].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
================
DM gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the following Argentine institutions: Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), PIP 11220130100607, Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT) PICT–2017–2945, and Universidad de Buenos Aires UBACyT 20020170100727BA.
REFERENCES
==========
[13]{}
Burrau, Ø., Kgl. Danske, Videnskab. Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd., **7**, 14 (1927).
Hylleraas, E. A., Z. Phys., **71**, 739 (1931).
Jaffé, G., Z. Phys., **87**, 535 (1934).
Bransden B. H., and Joachain, C. J., *The Physics of Atoms and Molecules* (Longamn Scientific and Technical: Harlow, UK, 1983).
Carrington, A., McNab I. R., and Montgomerie, C.A., J. Phys. B, **22**, 3551 (1989).
Bian, X. B., Phys. Rev. A, **90**, 033403 (2014).
Tamaz Kereselidze, Irakli Noselidze and Alexander Devdariani, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **52**, 105003 (2019).
Serov V. V., Joulakian B. B., Pavlov D. V., Puzynin I. V., and Vinitsky S. I., Phys. Rev. A, **65**, 062708 (2002).
Chuluunbaatar O., Joulakian B. B., Tsookhuu K., and Vinitsky S. I., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **37**, 2607 (2004).
Serov V. V., Joulakian B. B., Derbov V. L., and Vinitsky S. I., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **38**, 2765 (2005).
Chuluunbaatar O., Joulakian B. B., Puzynin I. V., Tsookhuu Kh., and Vinitsky S. I., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **41**, 015204 (2008).
Tao L., McCurdy C. W., and Rescigno T. N., Phys. Rev. A, **79**, 012719 (2009).
Serov V. V., and Joulakian B. B., Phys. Rev. A, **80**, 062713 (2009).
Foster M., Colgan J., Al–Hagan O., Peacher J. L., Madison D. H., and Pindzola M. S., Phys. Rev. A, **75**, 062707 (2007).
Mitnik, D. M., Colavecchia, F. D., Gasaneo, G., and Randazzo, J. M., Comp. Phys. Comm., **182**, 1145 (2011).
Gasaneo, G., Ancarani, L. U., Mitnik, D. M., Randazzo, J. M., Frapiccini, A. L., and Colavecchia, F. D., Adv. Quantum Chem., **67**, 153 (2013).
Randazzo, J. M., Ancarani, L. U., Gasaneo, G., Frapiccini, A. L., and Colavecchia, F. D., Phys. Rev. A, **81**, 042520 (2010).
Randazzo, J. M., Mitnik, D., Gasaneo, G., Ancarani, L. U., and Colavecchia, F.D., Eur. Phys. J. D, [**69**]{}, 189 (2015).
Ambrosio, M. J., Mitnik, D. M., Dorn, A., Ancarani, L. U., and Gasaneo, G., Phys. Rev. A, **93**, 032705 (2016).
Ambrosio, M. J., Ancarani, L. U., Gomez, A. I., Gaggioli, E. L., Mitnik, D. M., and Gasaneo, G, Eur. Phys. J. D, **71**, 127 (2017).
Granados–Castro, C., “Application of Generalized Sturmian Basis Functions to Molecular Systems", PhD thesis, Université de Lorraine, (2016).
Granados–Castro, C. M., Ancarani, L. U., Gasaneo, G., and Mitnik, D. M., Adv. Quantum Chem., **73**, 3 (2016).
Granados–Castro, C. M., and Ancarani, L. U., Eur. Phys. J. D, **71**, 65 (2017).
Ali, E., Granados, C., Sakaamini, A., Harvey, M., Ancarani, L. U., Murray, A. J., Dogan, M., Ning C., Colgan, J., and Madison, D., J. Chem. Phys., **150**, 194302 (2019).
Edmonds, A. R. *Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics* (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1957).
Scott, T. C., Aubert-Frécon, M., and Grotendorst, J., Chem. Phys., **324**, 323 (2006).
Linear Algebra PACKage, http://www.netlib.org/lapack/ (2017).
Schaad, L. J., and Hicks, W. V., J. Chem. Phys., **53**, 851 (1970).
Madsen, M. M., and Peek, J. M., At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables, **2**, 171 (1971).
Avery, J., and Avery, J., J. Phys. Chem. A, **113**, 14565 (2009).
Kereselidze, T., Chkadua, G., and Defrance, P., Molec. Phys., textbf[113:22]{}, 3471 (2015).
Campos, J. A., Nascimento, D. L., Cavalcante, D. T., Fonseca, A. L. A., and Nunes, A. O. C., Int. J. Quantum Chem., **106**, 2587 (2006).
Chuluunbaatar O., Gusev A. A., and Joulakian B. B., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **45**, 015205 (2012).
Bulychev A. A., Chuluunbaatar O., Gusev A. A., and Joulakian B., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., **46**, 185203 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the partition function zeros of the two-dimensional $p$-state clock model in the complex temperature plane by using the Wang-Landau method. For $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$, we propose a modified energy representation to enumerate exact irregular energy levels for the density of states without any binning artifacts. Comparing the leading zeros between different $p$’s, we provide strong evidence that the upper transition at $p=6$ is indeed of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) type in contrast to the claim of the previous Fisher zero study \[Phys. Rev. E **80**, 042103 (2009)\]. We find that the leading zeros of $p=6$ at the upper transition collapse onto the zero trajectories of the larger $p$’s including the $XY$ limit while the finite-size behavior of $p=5$ differs from the converged behavior of $p \ge 6$ within the system sizes examined. In addition, we argue that the nondivergent specific heat in the BKT transition is responsible for the small partition function magnitude that decreases exponentially with increasing system size near the leading zero, fundamentally limiting access to large systems in search for zeros with an estimator under finite statistical fluctuations.'
author:
- 'Dong-Hee Kim'
title: 'Partition function zeros of the $p$-state clock model in the complex temperature plane'
---
Introduction
============
The Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition [@Berezinskii1971; @KT1972] has attracted steady attention because of its physical richness and generality in explaining the stabilization of quasi-long-range order in two-dimensional (2D) systems with continuous symmetry [@BKTreview]. The classical 2D $XY$ model is probably the most extensively studied example showing the BKT transition, often being used as a reference of its peculiar critical behavior at the transition point and universal features [@BKTreview; @KT1973; @KT1974; @Jose1977; @Kenna2005]. While continuous symmetry is essential for the BKT transitions, it can also emerge from a system without explicit continuous symmetry. The $p$-state clock model is a cousin of the $XY$ model with discrete $\mathrm{Z}_p$ symmetry. The Hamiltonian of the clock model is written as $$\mathcal{H} = -J\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \cos (\theta_i^{(p)} - \theta_j^{(p)} ),$$ where $J>0$ is the ferromagnetic coupling given between a nearest-neighbor pair of spins with discrete angle variables $\theta^{(p)} = 2\pi n / p$ for $n \in \{0,\ldots,p-1\}$. While the exact $XY$ model is recovered only in the limit of infinite $p$, it was found that the BKT characters would appear in the $\mathrm{Z}_p$ models when $p \gtrsim 5$ [@Elitzur1979; @Cardy1980; @Frohlich1981; @Ortiz2012]. The nature of phase transitions in the general clock model has been widely studied with different theoretical and numerical approaches, which, however in some parts, have given mixed results on the characterization of transitions around the lower bound of $p$ (for instance, see the summary of the related debates in Ref. [@Borisenko2011]).
The Villain formulation of the $\mathrm{Z}_p$ model showed that when $p > 4$, the phase diagram consists of three different areas where the intermediate massless phase undergoes two BKT transitions into the high-temperature disordered and low-temperature ordered phases [@Elitzur1979; @Einhorn1980; @Hamer1980; @Nienhuis1984]. In the standard clock model, the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with the phenomenological finite-size-scaling analysis [@Tobochnik1982; @Challa1986; @Tomita2002; @Borisenko2011] indeed found the critical exponents for $p \ge 5$ that are consistent with the theoretical predictions [@Jose1977; @Elitzur1979]. On the other hand, differences from the BKT transition of the $XY$ limit have also been argued in the studies of different measures. At $p=5$, it was observed that the helicity modulus does not vanish in the disordered phase [@Baek2010b; @Baek2013], which disagrees with the universal jump from zero expected in the BKT transition [@Nelson1977; @Minnhagen1981] and observed in the systems of $p=6$ [@Baek2010a] and above [@Lapilli2006]. Later, the helicity modulus redefined with a finite twist matching the discrete symmetry resolved this issue [@Kumano2013], providing consistent estimates of the transition temperatures [@Kumano2013; @Chatelain2014].
At $p=6$, the disagreement that remains unresolved is with the previous scaling tests of the leading Fisher zeros of the partition function claiming that the transitions in the six-state clock model may not be of BKT type [@Hwang2009]. While this claim supported the earlier test of the helicity modulus [@Lapilli2006], the later calculations of the helicity modulus in larger systems agreed on the existence of the BKT transitions at $p=6$ [@Baek2010a; @Kumano2013; @Baek2013; @Chatelain2014]. However, the Fisher zero issue raised at $p=6$ remains unexamined so far, and moreover there has been no Fisher zero study attempted for other $p$’s at all. In this paper, we report the first comparative calculation of the leading Fisher zeros for $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$.
The main question that we address here is how the leading Fisher zeros evolve with increasing $p$ and more specifically how different the zeros of $p=6$ are from those of large $p$’s that are known to exhibit the BKT transitions. We perform extensive numerical calculations based on the Wang-Landau (WL) sampling of the density of states (DOS). We find that at the upper transition, the leading zeros of $p=6$ are in fact collapsed onto the trajectory of the larger $p$’s including the $XY$ limit, providing strong evidence that the transition at $p=6$ is indeed of BKT type in contrast to the claim based on the previous scaling tests within the six-state clock model [@Hwang2009].
For the limited system sizes that are accessible in numerically finding the Fisher zero within the WL DOS samples, finite-size corrections naturally affect the analysis at the level of an individual $p$, which is apparent in the previous test at $p=6$ [@Hwang2009] and in our observation of the distinguished finite-size behavior at $p=5$. Remarkably, the collapsed Fisher zero trajectory that we observe for $p \ge 6$ indicates that the finite-size effect becomes also well converged between different $p$’s when $p \ge 6$, demonstrating the advantage of the comparative approach that allows us to infer the transition class of $p=6$ deductively from the known BKT character of the larger $p$’s.
On the numerical side, we provide a modified representation of the Hamiltonian for the considered group of $p$’s that enables exact energy enumeration, which is crucial to our application of the WL method [@WL1; @WL2] to the Fisher zero problem in the $p$-state clock model. The usual WL approach benefits from regularly spaced energy levels, which, however, is not the case in the cosine energy of the clock model except for the very special case of $p=6$. Here we find that for a group of $p$’s, the irregular energy structure can be decomposed into two regular parts, allowing full energy resolution in building the DOS by using the 2D WL procedures without any necessity of introducing artificially binned energy space.
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:method\] describes our method of the exact energy enumeration and the details of the WL procedures. The two-step method of the Fisher zero finder is also briefly explained. In Sec. \[sec:result\], we present our main results of a comparison between the leading zeros computed for $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$. The implications of the collapsed leading zero trajectories that are found for $p\ge 6$ are discussed. An analysis of numerical uncertainty is also given in this section, and the connection with the specific heat at the BKT transition is argued. Finally, conclusions are given in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Numerical methods {#sec:method}
=================
The connection between the singular behavior of free energy and the zeros of the partition function was first formulated by Yang and Lee in the plane of complex fugacity [@YangLeeZero], and then the Fisher zero that we focus on here was proposed for a canonical partition function in complex temperature [@FisherZero]. Their usefulness has been demonstrated in various model systems and was recently also emphasized by experimental observations [@Peng2015; @Brandner2016]. Although the behavior of the leading zeros closest to the real axis is well established in the second- and first-order phase transitions (see, for instance, Ref. [@Janke2001] and references therein), it has been extended to the BKT transition only very recently with the $XY$ model by using the higher-order tensor renormalization-group (HOTRG) [@Denbleyker2014] and the WL method with energy binning [@Rocha2016; @Costa2017].
In this section, we present our extension of the WL method to the leading zero calculations for the $p$-state clock models, which is designed to avoid the energy binning.
Wang-Landau formulation of the $p$-state clock model
----------------------------------------------------
$n$ $0$ $1$ $2$ $3$ $4$ $5$ $6$ $7$ $8$ $9$ $J^{(1)}_p/J$
----------------------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ---------------
$\mathcal{E}^{(1)}_5(n)$ $4$ $-1$ $-1$ $-1$ $-1$ $1/4$
$\mathcal{E}^{(1)}_6(n)$ $2$ $1$ $-1$ $-2$ $-1$ $1$ $1/2$
$\mathcal{E}^{(1)}_8(n)$ $1$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $-1$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $1$
$\mathcal{E}^{(1)}_{10}(n)$ $4$ $1$ $-1$ $1$ $-1$ $-4$ $-1$ $1$ $-1$ $1$ $1/4$
$n$ $0$ $1$ $2$ $3$ $4$ $5$ $6$ $7$ $8$ $9$ $J^{(2)}_p/J$
$\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_5(n)$ $0$ $1$ $-1$ $-1$ $1$ $\sqrt{5}/4$
$\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_6(n)$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_8(n)$ $0$ $1$ $0$ $-1$ $0$ $-1$ $0$ $1$ $1/\sqrt{2}$
$\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_{10}(n)$ $0$ $1$ $1$ $-1$ $-1$ $0$ $-1$ $-1$ $1$ $1$ $\sqrt{5}/4$
: Two-term representation of the Hamiltonian for $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$. The index $n$ represents the possible values of $|n_i - n_j|$ where the spin angle variable $n_{i,j} \in \{0,\ldots,p-1\}$.
\[tab:mixedH\]
While the WL method in conjunction with a polynomial solver has often been used to calculate the Fisher zeros in spin models [@Rocha2016; @Costa2017; @Rocha2014; @Taylor2013; @Lee2010], it cannot be directly applied to a general $p$-state clock model. Irregularly spaced energies from the sum of cosines in the clock model cause a large numerical challenge in the WL sampling, and a polynomial expansion of the partition function is simply not possible with this exact energy structure being kept. Note that the previous case of $p=6$ [@Hwang2009] is an exception since its energy is given as an integer-multiple of $J/2$. Probably the easiest way to deal with the irregularity is to introduce an extra energy binning step, which, however, comes with an unavoidable loss of spectral resolution.
Nevertheless, we find that for a group of $p$’s including $5$, $8$, and $10$, the energies can be mapped onto the two-dimensional regular grids where the dimensions represent the rational and irrational parts of the cosine energy [@footnote1]. The Hamiltonian is accordingly decomposed into two terms as $$\mathcal{H} = -J^{(1)}_p \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \mathcal{E}^{(1)}_p(n_{ij}) - J^{(2)}_p \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \mathcal{E}^{(2)}_p(n_{ij}),
\label{eq:newH}$$ where $n_{ij} \equiv |n_i - n_j|$ is the spin angle difference. The functions $\mathcal{E}^{(1)}_p$ and $\mathcal{E}^{(2)}_p$ are integer-valued as tabulated in Table \[tab:mixedH\]. Therefore, for such $p$’s, one finds $\mathcal{H} \equiv \mathcal{H}(E_1,E_2) = -J^{(1)}_p E_1 - J^{(2)}_p E_2$ being represented by two integers of $E_1 \equiv \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \mathcal{E}^{(1)}_p$ and $E_2 \equiv \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} \mathcal{E}^{(2)}_p$, which allows efficient numerics using a standard array for random walks in energy space without loss of precision.
The joint DOS $g(E_1,E_2)$ for the combinations of $E_1$ and $E_2$ is then evaluated by the WL sampling through the 2D random walk processes [@Landau2004; @Zhou2006; @Silva2006; @Tsai2007; @Kwak2015]. Although the increased dimensionality requires a long computational time in exchange for having an exact access to the energy levels, our implementation handles about three million energy levels in the largest calculation performed for $L=20$ at $p=10$. The system size is denoted by $L$ representing $L^2$ sites of our square lattices. In the WL procedures, we follow the standard strategy to decrease the modification factor (see, for instance, Ref. [@Kwak2015]). We set the histogram flatness criterion to be $0.99$ for all $p=6$ cases and for small systems of other $p$’s; it is lowered to $0.95$ when $L > 12$ for $p=5$ and $8$; for $p=10$, it is $0.95$ when $8 < L < 16$ and $0.9$ when $L$ is larger. We obtain $30$ samples of the WL DOS from independent runs at each $p$ to evaluate the uncertainty of estimates through a resampling process.
Partition function zero calculations
------------------------------------
Since the WL method provides unnormalized samples of the DOS, we consider the normalized partition function $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}(\beta)$ in complex inverse temperature $\beta \equiv \beta_R + i \beta_I$, defined as $$\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}(\beta)\equiv\frac{\mathcal{Z}(\beta)}{\mathcal{Z}(\beta_R)} = \sum_{E_1,E_2} P(E_1,E_2;\beta_R) e^{-i\beta_I \mathcal{H}},$$ where the energy distribution at a real temperature $\beta_R$ is $$P(E_1,E_2;\beta_R) \equiv \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}(\beta_R)}g(E_1,E_2)e^{-\beta_R \mathcal{H}(E_1,E_2)}.$$ The partition function $\mathcal{Z}(\beta_R)\equiv \sum g \exp({-\beta_R\mathcal{H}})$ at a real temperature $\beta_R$ is nonzero in a finite system. An arbitrary normalization of a WL DOS sample $g(E_1,E_2)$ is then canceled out, and thus it has no effect on the energy distribution and the normalized partition function. Using multiple WL samples of $g(E_1,E_2)$, we replace $P(E_1,E_2;\beta_R)$ with the sample-averaged one $\langle P(E_1,E_2;\beta_R) \rangle_\mathrm{WL}$. The uncertainty is estimated with respect to this average over the WL samples for a 95% confidence interval from the bootstrap resampling processes repeated for $1000$ times.
Once the WL samples of DOS $g(E_1,E_2)$ are obtained, one can compute the normalized partition function for any given complex temperature without restriction, which is a numerical advantage of the WL method over the histogram reweighting MC calculations. Since the polynomial expansion is not simple with two variables, the complex plane of $\beta$ is searched for the zeros of the partition function by using the two-step method [@Falcioni1982; @Alves1992; @Denbleyker2014].
For a given $\beta_R$, the real and imaginary parts of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}$ are smooth oscillating functions of $\beta_I$, and thus a set of the zeros in the axis of $\beta_I$ can be easily found for each oscillation, constructing a map of the zeros of $\mathrm{Re}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ and $\mathrm{Im}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ in the complex $\beta$ plane. First, an intersection point between the zero curves of $\mathrm{Re}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ and $\mathrm{Im}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ on this map is graphically located. Second, the function $|\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}|^2$ is numerically minimized around the graphical intersection to precisely locate the zero of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}(\beta)$. Through these steps, the leading zero $\beta_1$ with the smallest imaginary part is identified in each area of the upper and lower transitions [@SM].
Results and Discussions {#sec:result}
=======================
![Leading Fisher zeros at the upper transition in the $p$-state clock model with $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$. The uncertainty shown by the error bar is given as a 95% confidence interval estimated from the bootstrap resampling with the WL DOS samples. The error bar is omitted if it is smaller than the symbol size. The data points for the $XY$ limit are from the previous higher-order tensor renormalization-group (HOTRG) calculations [@Denbleyker2014]. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Figure \[fig1\] displays the leading Fisher zeros identified at the upper transition area in the $p$-state clock models of $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$. We find that the calculated leading zeros of $p \ge 6$ collectively move in the complex temperature plane. We also compare the leading zeros of finite $p$’s with the data points of the 2D $XY$ model that are available in the previous higher-order tensor renormalization-group (HOTRG) calculations [@Denbleyker2014]. Notably, it turns out that for $p\ge 6$, the locations of the zeros become well collapsed onto the leading zeros of the $XY$ model. The converged trajectory observed at $p \ge 6$ strongly suggests that the upper transition at $p=6$ indeed belongs to the same BKT transition of the $XY$ model.
This is in clear contrast to the claim in the previous Fisher zero study of the six-state clock model [@Hwang2009], which argued that the transitions at $p=6$ may not be of BKT type. The previous work was based on the finite-size-scaling analysis on the leading zeros that actually fitted well into either ansatz of the BKT or second-order transitions. Our approach is different in the following sense. Instead of trying to distinguish the order of a transition based on the finite-size-scaling analysis on a model of an individual $p$, we compare the leading-zero trajectories between different $p$’s to find their converged behavior. Given that the common nature of their BKT transitions at $p=8$ and $10$ and in the $XY$ model is well established, the observed convergence can lead us to infer that the model of $p=6$ is in the same class of the larger $p$’s.
The same BKT character of $p\ge 6$ is supported by the mutual collapse of their leading-zero trajectories onto a common power-law curve shifted by the known transition points. Extending the finite-size-scaling ansatz of the correlation length to the complex temperature domain, the analysis for the $XY$ model [@Denbleyker2014] suggested that the leading zero moves toward the real axis along the power-law trajectory, $$\beta_I \propto (\beta_c - \beta_R)^{1+\nu},$$ in the area of small $\beta_I$. In Fig. \[fig2\], we examine this power-law relation for the common BKT exponent $\nu=0.5$ by using the transition temperatures provided by the previous MC results. We find that the upper transition points of $\beta_c \approx 1.110$ for $p=6$ [@Tomita2002] (see also [@Baek2010a; @Kumano2013]) and $\beta_c \approx 1.119$ for $p\ge 8$ [@Tomita2002] lead to good collapse of the data points falling onto the power-law curve with exponent $\nu=0.5$.
![Scaling relation between the real and imaginary parts of the leading Fisher zero. The power-law relation $\mathrm{Im}[\beta_1]\propto (\beta_c - \mathrm{Re}[\beta_1])^{1+\nu}$ is examined with the previous estimates of critical points $\beta_c$ [@Borisenko2011; @Tomita2002]. The arbitrary factor $b_p$ is adjusted for a graphical comparison between the data points of different $p$’s.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
The universal behavior observed for $p\ge 6$ implies that their finite-size influences are also indistinguishable between those $p$’s. This fast convergence of the finite-size effects is remarkable considering the limited accessible system sizes in our calculations. Although it is natural to anticipate that the finite-size corrections play a role in such small systems, the collapse of the leading-zero trajectories suggests that the finite-size effect becomes nearly independent of $p$ when $p \ge 6$.
On the other hand, the leading-zero trajectory of $p=5$ shows an apparent deviation from those of the larger $p$’s, which indicates a very different type of finite-size effects appearing in its transition point and the scaling exponent. With the transition point being fixed at the previous MC estimate of $\beta_c \simeq 1.051$ [@Borisenko2011], the leading-zero trajectory of $p=5$ does not fall onto the curve with $\nu=0.5$, giving a better fit to the one with $\nu \simeq 0.32$ within the system sizes that are accessible. The other estimates from the helicity modulus with finite twist, $\beta_c \simeq 1.059$ [@Kumano2013] and $1.058$ [@Chatelain2014], provide a larger value of $\nu \simeq 0.38$. Adjusting a transition point to be $1.075$ causes the curve to get closer to the one with $\nu=0.5$, but the curve still deviates from the line of the larger $p$’s.
While these strong finite effects at $p=5$ are distinguished from the well-converged behavior in the trajectories of the larger $p$’s, this deviation should not be misinterpreted as evidence of a different transition nature. Indeed, a strong finite-size effect at $p=5$ has also been witnessed with a different measure. In the previous study of the helicity modulus with a finite twist, the finite-size behavior of the helicity modulus was indicated at $p=5$ in the intermediate BKT region, while at $p=6$, it was almost independent of the system size as predicted in the BKT phase [@Kumano2013].
In addition, we also calculate the leading zeros in the lower-temperature side of the two transitions. Figure \[fig3\] presents the $p$ dependence of the leading zeros with rescaling. We show that the trajectory of the corresponding leading zeros moves systematically toward the zero-temperature limit of the complex $\beta$ plane as $p$ increases. In the Peierls argument [@Ortiz2012], the transition temperature would scale as $T_c \sim (1-\cos\frac{2\pi}{p})$, which recovers the $1/p^2$ behavior in the limit of large $p$. For the leading zeros, we find that both the real and imaginary parts of the zeros scale roughly with the same factor $1/(1-\cos\frac{2\pi}{p})$, showing a trend in which the trajectory of the leading zeros approaches a common curve as $p$ increases.
![Leading Fisher zeros at the lower transition. The real and imaginary parts of the leading zeros are rescaled with factor $(1-\cos\frac{2\pi}{p})$. The system sizes are limited to $L \le 16$ for reliable identification of the leading zeros.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
While the converged trajectory of the leading zeros that we have found for $p\ge 6$ at the upper transition is already clear within the system sizes examined, it is still important to precisely know the numerical limitations encountered when simulating larger systems. This would clarify the challenge in performing a conventional finite-size-scaling analysis of an explicit system-size dependence, which is avoided in our present study. For instance, it is expected that the imaginary part of the leading zero scales with system size $L$ as $\beta_I \sim (\ln bL)^{-\tilde{q}}$, where $\tilde{q} = 1 + 1/\nu$ for small $\beta_I$ in the BKT transition [@Denbleyker2014]. Comparing such a logarithmic form with the power-law ansatz of the second-order transition would hardly be conclusive in small systems as was already noticed in the previous Fisher zero study of the six-state clock model [@Hwang2009].
The numerical bottleneck is twofold in our calculations. The obvious one is the well-known large cost in computational time required for the 2D WL procedures that are essential for $p=5$, $8$, and $10$. It is hard in practice to go beyond a system of a few million energy levels. This might be improved in the future by a proposed extension of the parallel WL algorithm [@Vogel2013; @Vogel2014] to 2D energy space [@Valentim2015; @Ren2016; @Chan2017]. In addition, the special 1D WL case of $p=6$ does not suffer from a such problem since the number of energy levels scales linearly with the number of lattice sites. We have been able to reach easily up to $L=128$ in the case of $p=6$.
The more critical issue is the explosively growing uncertainty in locating the leading Fisher zeros as the system size increases. This can be best seen in the larger-system calculations at $p=6$ where a sudden increase of the uncertainty occurs at $L=32$ (see Fig. \[fig1\]) and is generally observed in all calculations that we have done. While the only source of the errors in our numerics is the stochastic WL process itself, below we explain how the small stochastic noises can be amplified quickly in the Fisher zero calculations for the $p$-state clock model and its fundamental connection to the BKT transition.
Figure \[fig4\] demonstrates how the uncertainty develops in finding the leading zero at $p=6$, where the WL simulations can be done for relatively large systems while maintaining the accuracy of the DOS samples at the same high level. In the system of $L=28$ shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a), the fluctuation of the partition function $\mathcal{\tilde{Z}}$ turns out to be almost comparable to the maximum oscillation amplitude in the region of $\beta_I > \mathrm{Im}[\beta_1]$. This implies that for smaller oscillation amplitude, the oscillatory behavior could be completely buried in the scale of the fluctuation, making our zero search unreliable. Therefore, the accuracy of the zero identified is guaranteed only when the WL estimate of $\mathcal{\tilde{Z}}$ has an oscillation amplitude larger than its statistical fluctuation in the vicinity of the zero.
![Reliability test of the leading-zero identification for the upper transition in the six-state clock model. (a) The normalized partition function $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}(\beta)$ is evaluated for $L=28$ as a function of $\beta_I$ at $\beta_R = \mathrm{Re}[\beta_1]$. The leading zero is marked by the square symbol. The error bar displayed at the points along the oscillations presents the statistical fluctuation measured by bootstrap resampling, indicating that its magnitude is typical in the range of $\beta_I$ for both of $\mathrm{Re}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ and $\mathrm{Im}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$. The envelope function $f(\beta_I)$ is obtained from the Gaussian approximation [@Alves1992]. (b) The maximum oscillation amplitude of $\mathrm{Re}[\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}]$ for $\beta_I > \mathrm{Im}[\beta_1]$ is shown for comparison with its fluctuation as a function of system size $L$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
We find that in the $p$-state clock model, the oscillation amplitude of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}$ near the leading zero decreases exponentially with increasing system size $L$, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](b) for the case of $p=6$. The zero search in this case undergoes a crossover around $L=28$ above which the fluctuation gets larger than the oscillation amplitude. This implies that considering a larger system for proper finite-size-scaling analysis would require extreme accuracy of a DOS estimate to cope with the exponentially decreasing oscillation amplitude of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}$. In the $p$-state clock model that we consider, this can be an important issue for the Fisher zero search within the MC methods that essentially come with statistical noises.
The exponential system-size scaling of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}$ and the resulting tight bound of the accessible system size is perhaps a consequence of the BKT transition where the specific heat is nondivergent [@Tobochnik1982; @Kenna2005; @Borisenko2011]. In the Gaussian approximation of energy distribution [@Alves1992], at a given $\beta_R$, the envelope function of $\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}(\beta_I)$ is calculated as $f(\beta_I)=\exp [ - C\beta_I^2 / 2\beta_R^2 ]$, where $C$ denotes heat capacity at $\beta_R$. While the Gaussian approximation is not valid at the zero, it may still work as an upper bound of the oscillation amplitudes in its vicinity, as indicated in Fig. \[fig4\](a). From the scaling forms $\beta_I \sim (\ln bL)^{-\tilde{q}}$ and $C \sim L^2$, one can see that $f(\beta_I)$ behaves as $\exp [ - a L^2 (\ln bL)^{-2\tilde{q}}]$ near the zero, which provides a rough sketch of the extreme accuracy requirement to increase the system size.
$L$ $p=5$ $p=6$ $p=8$ $p=10$
------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
$4$ $0.66172011+0.39093662i$ $0.65860056+0.39064303i$ $0.65840832+0.39041109i$ $0.65837736+0.39042101i$
$6$ $0.75420037+0.28919617i$ $0.75171500+0.29228589i$ $0.75131882+0.29245805i$ $0.75132177+0.29244077i$
$8$ $0.80211731+0.23458419i$ $0.80102406+0.23961812i$ $0.80071947+0.24008289i$ $0.80071719+0.24003913i$
$10$ $0.83229831+0.19990540i$ $0.83266310+0.20612369i$ $0.83248717+0.20686393i$ $0.83254841+0.20681163i$
$12$ $0.85348475+0.17570736i$ $0.85520368+0.18283498i$ $0.85528976+0.18355279i$ $0.85517823+0.18365398i$
$14$ $0.86925922+0.15773549i$ $0.87217137+0.16522828i$ $0.87240221+0.16648854i$ $0.87243520+0.16642103i$
$16$ $0.88179311+0.14381439i$ $0.88615585+0.15177668i$ $0.88579947+0.15300988i$ $0.88605832+0.15290659i$
$18$ $0.89159755+0.13243507i$ $0.89639149+0.14099277i$ $0.89758758+0.14180194i$ $0.89724782+0.14204027i$
$20$ $0.89976717+0.12358720i$ $0.90594030+0.13159544i$ $0.90628488+0.13322776i$ $0.90647873+0.13295482i$
$22$ $0.90739307+0.11603649i$ $0.91484763+0.12496506i$ $0.91466498+0.12579545i$
$24$ $0.91287777+0.10978935i$ $0.92291258+0.11833457i$ $0.92145896+0.11991071i$
$28$ $0.93185468+0.10765101i$
$32$ $0.94010329+0.09861775i$
\[tab:zero\_upper\]
$L$ $p=5$ $p=6$ $p=8$ $p=10$
------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
$4$ $1.14415021+0.62547361i$ $1.59178785+0.88047270i$ $2.72848984+1.52074963i$ $4.19093387+2.34143852i$
$6$ $1.18762295+0.44754788i$ $1.64349226+0.64124630i$ $2.80774534+1.11857803i$ $4.30682954+1.72881228i$
$8$ $1.19942768+0.35623721i$ $1.65356403+0.51705887i$ $2.81771511+0.90898000i$ $4.31949110+1.40970891i$
$10$ $1.20239494+0.29971424i$ $1.65333971+0.44008450i$ $2.81156339+0.77716843i$ $4.30980838+1.20851334i$
$12$ $1.20203326+0.26117339i$ $1.64959572+0.38737205i$ $2.79998220+0.69237318i$ $4.29136359+1.07360761i$
$14$ $1.20086668+0.23365741i$ $1.64443723+0.34782938i$ $2.79219279+0.62308855i$ $4.27214959+0.96335725i$
$16$ $1.19725528+0.21117272i$ $1.63927235+0.31715739i$ $2.77399083+0.57881273i$ $4.24092498+0.88298542i$
\[tab:zero\_lower\]
Conclusions and Remarks {#sec:conclusion}
=======================
We have investigated the leading Fisher zeros of the $p$-state clock model in square lattices by introducing the Wang-Landau formulation with exact energy enumeration for $p=5$, $6$, $8$, and $10$. We have found that the leading Fisher zeros show a converged trajectory at the upper transition when $p \ge 6$ including the $XY$ limit, providing strong evidence that the model with $p=6$ is in the same class with the larger $p$’s exhibiting the BKT transition. This is in contrast to the claim of the previous Fisher zero study for the six-state clock model [@Hwang2009], which argued that the transitions may not be of BKT type. Indeed, our findings are consistent with all up-to-date helicity modulus calculations [@Baek2010a; @Kumano2013; @Baek2013; @Chatelain2014], which would help to resolve the remaining discrepancy between different numerical approaches characterizing the transitions in the six-state clock model in two dimensions.
It is also interesting to see a possibility that the converged behavior with increasing $p$ could be a general feature of the $p$-state clock models in different settings [@Lupo]. For instance, it was recently reported that in the spin glass $p$-state clock model on diluted graphs, a physical observable converges quickly to the $XY$ limit as $p$ increases [@Lupo2017]. The spin glass clock models on different underlying geometries have been argued to be indeed in the same class of their $XY$ limits when $p\gtrsim 5$ [@Nobre1986; @Ilker2013; @Ilker2014], suggesting a very similar role of the discrete symmetry existing in general clock models.
We have also argued that the numerical accessibility to the leading zero is closely related to the characteristic specific heat at a phase transition. For a divergent specific heat at the first- or second-order transition, the decreasing behavior of the imaginary part of the zero $\beta_I$ is canceled out by the divergence of the heat capacity. In the case of the first-order transition in $d$ dimensions, the factor $\exp[-C\beta_I^2]$ becomes $\mathcal{O}(1)$ since heat capacity $C \sim L^{2d}$ while $\beta_I \sim L^{-d}$; in the second-order transition, the scaling forms $C \sim L^{\alpha/\nu+d}$ and $\beta_I \sim L^{-1/\nu}$ provide the same result through the hyperscaling relation when $\alpha > 0$. The system-size dependence of the uncertainty in the zero finder could be further quantifiable by the confidence range for $\beta_I$ [@Alves1992]. Although it is necessary to examine this expectation numerically in real models as it is based on the Gaussian approximation, it raises a possibility that the range of system sizes accessible with estimates under statistical noises is much wider for the ordinary phase transitions than for the BKT transitions in the search for Fisher zeros.
We thanks Chi-Ok Hwang and Seung Ki Baek for fruitful discussions and Cosimo Lupo for pointing out the similar feature in the spin glass clock models. This work was supported from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2017R1D1A1B03034669).
V. L. Berezinskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **59**, 907 (1971) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **32**, 493 (1971)\].
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. Thouless, J. Phys. C **5**, L124 (1972).
, edited by J. V. José (World Scientific, London, 2013).
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C **6**, 1181 (1973).
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C **7**, 1046 (1974).
J. V. José, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B **16**, 1217 (1977).
R. Kenna, arXiv:cond-mat/0512356; MCFA Annals, Vol. IV, <http://www.mariecurie.org/annals/>.
S. Elitzur, R. B. Pearson, and J. Shigemitsu, Phys. Rev. D **19**, 3698 (1979).
J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **13**, 1507 (1980).
J. Fröhlich and T. Spencer, Comm. Math. Phys. **81**, 527 (1981).
G. Ortiz, E. Cobanera, and Z. Nussinov, Nucl. Phys. B **854**, 780 (2012).
O. Borisenko, G. Cortese, R. Fiore, M. Gravina, and A. Papa, Phys. Rev. E [**83**]{}, 041120 (2011).
M. B. Einhorn, R. Savit, and E. Rabinovici, Nucl. Phys. B **170**, 16 (1980).
C. J. Hamer and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. B **22**, 3378 (1980).
B. Nienhuis, J. Stat. Phys. **34**, 731 (1984).
J. Tobochnik, Phys. Rev. B **26**, 6201 (1982); **27**, 6972 (1983).
M. S. S. Challa and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B **33**, 437 (1986).
Y. Tomita and Y. Okabe, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 184405 (2002).
S. K. Baek, P. Minnhagen, Phys. Rev. E [**82**]{}, 031102 (2010).
S. K. Baek, H. Mäkelä, P. Minnhagen, and B. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 012125 (2013).
D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **39**, 1201 (1977).
P. Minnhagen and G. G. Warren, Phys. Rev. B **24**, 2526 (1981).
S. K. Baek, P. Minnhagen, and B. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 063101 (2010).
C. M. Lapilli, P. Pfeifer, and C. Wexler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 140603 (2006).
Y. Kumano, K. Hukushima, Y. Tomita, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 104427 (2013).
C. Chatelain, J. Stat. Mech. (2014) P11022.
C.-O. Hwang, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 042103 (2009).
F. Wang and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 2050 (2001).
F. Wang and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E **64**, 056101 (2001).
C. N. Yang and T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**87**]{} 404 (1952).
M. E. Fisher, in *Lectures in Theoretical Physics*, Vol. 7C, ed. W. E. Brittin (University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1965), Chap. 1.
X. Peng, H. Zhou, B.-B. Wei, J. Cui, J. Du, and R.-B. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **114**, 010601 (2015).
K. Brandner, V. F. Maisi, J. P. Pekola, J. P. Garrahan, and C. Flindt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 180601 (2017).
W. Janke and R. Kenna, J. Stat. Phys. [**102**]{}, 1211 (2001).
A. Denbleyker, Y. Liu, Y. Meurice, M. P. Qin, T. Xiang, Z. Y. Xie, J. F. Yu, and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 016008 (2014); H. Zou, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.
J. C. S. Rocha, L. A. S. Mól, and B. V. Costa, Comp. Phys. Commun. **209**, 88 (2016).
B. V. Costa, L. A. S. Mól, and J. C. S. Rocha, Comp. Phys. Commun. **216**, 77 (2017).
J. C. S. Rocha, S. Schnabel, D. P. Landau, and M. Bachmann, Phys. Rev. E **90**, 022601 (2014).
M. P. Taylor, P. P. Aung, and W. Paul, Phys. Rev. E **88**, 012604 (2013).
J. H. Lee, H. S. Song, J. M. Kim, and S.-Y. Kim, J. Stat. Mech. (2010) P03020.
The case for $p=12$ is written similarly as $\cos(2\pi n/p)$ is composed of $1/2$ and $\sqrt{3}/2$ but is not considered here because of unaffordable computational cost in the WL sampling.
D. P. Landau, S.-H. Tsai, and M. Exler, Am. J. Phys. **72**, 1294 (2004).
C. Zhou, T. C. Schulthess, S. Torbrügge, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 120201 (2006).
C. J. Silva, A. A. Caparica, and J. A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 036702 (2006).
S.-H. Tsai, F. Wang, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E **75**, 061108 (2007).
W. Kwak, J. Jeong, J. Lee, and D.-H. Kim, Phys. Rev. E **92**, 022134 (2015).
M. Falcioni, E. Marinari, M. L. Paciello, G. Parisi, and B. Taglienti, Phys. Lett. **108B**, 331 (1982).
N. A. Alves, B. A. Berg, and S. Sanielevici, Nucl. Phys. B **376**, 218 (1992).
The numerical data of the leading zeros are tabulated in Table \[tab:zero\_upper\] and Table \[tab:zero\_lower\] for the upper and lower transitions, respectively.
T. Vogel, Y. W. Li, T. Wüst, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 210603 (2013).
T. Vogel, Y. W. Li, T. Wüst, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E **90**, 023302, (2014).
A. Valentim, J. C. S. Rocha, S.-H. Tsai, Y. W. Li, M. Eisenbach, C. E. Fiore, and D. P. Landau, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **640**, 012006 (2015).
Y. Ren, S. Eubank, and M. Nath, Phys. Rev. E **94**, 042125 (2016).
C. H. Chan, G. Brown, and P. A. Rikvold, Phys. Rev. E **95**, 053302 (2017).
C. Lupo (private communication).
C. Lupo and F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Phys. Rev. B **95**, 054433 (2017).
F. D. Nobre and D. Sherrington, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. **19**, L181 (1986).
E. Ilker and A. N. Berker, Phys. Rev. E **87**, 032124 (2013).
E. Ilker and A. N. Berker, Phys. Rev. E **90**, 062112 (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'D. Hutsemékers[^1], P. Hall, D. Sluse'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'Received ; accepted: '
title: 'Optical linear polarization measurements of quasars obtained with the 3.6m telescope at the La Silla Observatory.[^2]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The linear polarization of optical light is an important feature in the study of quasars and other active galactic nuclei (AGN). Usually attributed to scattering, polarization is directly related to the object symmetry axis, and is at the heart of AGN unification models.
In the present paper, we report new optical linear polarization measurements of quasars obtained with EFOSC2, the European Southern Observatory (ESO) Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera instrument attached to the 3.6m telescope at the La Silla Observatory. Although the observations were designed for various scientific goals, the quality of the data is homogeneous. In Sect. \[sec:obs\] we describe the observing procedure. Data reduction and measurements are summarized in Sect. \[sec:reduc\]. The online table with the final measurements is outlined in Sect. \[sec:data\].
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
The polarimetric observations were carried out in April 2003, April 2007, and October 2007 at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, using the 3.6m telescope equipped with EFOSC2 attached to the Cassegrain focus. Linear polarimetry is performed by inserting a Wollaston prism into the parallel beam, which splits the incoming light rays into two orthogonally polarized beams. Each object in the field has therefore two orthogonally polarized images on the charge-coupled device (CCD) detector, separated by 20$\arcsec$. To avoid image overlapping, one puts at the telescope focal plane a special mask made of alternating transparent and opaque parallel strips whose widths correspond to the splitting. The final CCD image then consists of alternate orthogonally polarized strips of the sky, two of them containing the polarized images of the object itself [@1989diSerego; @1997diSerego; @1999Lamy]. Since the two orthogonally polarized images of the object are simultaneously recorded, the polarization measurements do not depend on variable atmospheric transparency, or seeing. In order to derive the normalized Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$, four frames are obtained with the half-wave plate (HWP) at four different position angles (0$\degr$, 22.5$\degr$, 45$\degr$, and 67.5$\degr$). While only two different orientations of the HWP are sufficient to measure the linear polarization, the two additional orientations allow us to remove most of the instrumental polarization [@1989diSerego]. Polarized and unpolarized standard stars were observed to unambiguously fix the zero-point of the polarization position angle, to estimate the instrumental polarization, and to check the whole observing and reduction process.
Most targets are quasars with redshifts between one and three, and V magnitudes between 17 and 19. They were mostly selected from amongst broad absorption line (BAL), radio-loud, or red quasars that are more likely to be significantly polarized. All observations but one were obtained through the Bessel V filter (ESO\# 641), the Bessel R filter (ESO\# 642), and the Gunn i filter (ESO\# 705), with typical exposure times per frame ranging between one and ten minutes. One faint target was observed unfiltered (in “white light”). The CCD\#40 mounted on EFOSC2 is a 2k$\times$2k CCD with a pixel size of 15 $\mu$m corresponding to 0.158 on the sky in the 1$\times$1 binning mode.
Data reduction and measurements {#sec:reduc}
===============================
[lll]{} Date & Polarized & Unpolarized\
yyyy-mm-dd & &\
\
2003-04-04 & HD155197, HD298383 & HD94851\
2003-04-05 & HD155197 & HD64299\
2003-04-06 & HD298383 & HD154892\
2003-04-07 & HD126593 & HD64299\
2003-04-08 & HD155197 &\
2007-04-22 & HD155197, Ve6$-$23 &\
2007-04-23 & HD155197 & WD1615$-$154\
2007-10-04 & HD155197 &\
2007-10-05 & BD$-$14$\degr$4922, NGC2024$-$1, HD316232 & HD64299, WD1620$-$391\
2007-10-06 & HD155197 & WD0310$-$688\
2007-10-07 & BD$-$14$\degr$4922, NGC2024$-$1, BD$-$12$\degr$5133 & HD64299\
2007-10-08 & HD316232, Ve6$-$23 & WD0310$-$688, WD1620$-$391\
[lrrrr]{} Observing run & $\overline{q}_{\star}$ & $\overline{u}_{\star}$ & $\overline{\sigma}_{\star}$ & $n_{\star}$\
yyyy-mm & (%) & (%) & (%) &\
\
2003-04 & $-$0.10 & $+$0.10 & 0.14 & 64\
2007-04 & $-$0.11 & $+$0.14 & 0.14 & 31\
2007-10 & $+$0.03 & $-$0.12 & 0.14 & 86\
The $q$ and $u$ Stokes parameters are computed from the measurement of the integrated intensity ratios between the upper and lower orthogonally polarized images of the object, for the four different orientations of the half-wave plate. They are calculated with respect to the instrumental reference frame according to $$\begin{aligned}
q & = & \frac{R_q - 1}{R_q + 1} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{where} \hspace{0.5cm}
R_q^2 = \frac{I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}0}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}/I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}0}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}}
{I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}45}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}/I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}45}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}}, \;\;\; \rm{and} \nonumber\\
& &\\
u & = & \frac{R_u - 1}{R_u + 1} \hspace{0.5cm} \mbox{where} \hspace{0.5cm}
R_u^2 = \frac{I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}22.5}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}/I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}22.5}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}}
{I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}67.5}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}/I_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}67.5}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $I^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}$ and $I^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}$ refer to the intensities (electron counts) integrated over the upper and lower images of the object, respectively. The photometric measurements were done using the procedures described in @1999Lamy and @2005Sluse. The positions of the upper and lower images are measured at subpixel precision by fitting two-dimensional Gaussian profiles. The intensities are then integrated in circles centered on the upper and lower images, and the Stokes parameters are computed for various values of the aperture radius. Since the Stokes parameters are found to be stable against radius changes, we adopt a fixed aperture radius of $3.0 \times [(2 \ln 2)^{-1/2}\, \rm{HWHM}],$ where HWHM represents the mean half-width at half-maximum of the two-dimensional Gaussian profile. In a few cases, the Stokes parameters strongly fluctuate when changing the aperture radius, making their measurement unreliable. The combination of measurements using four frames obtained with different HWP orientations removes most of the instrumental polarization, and corrects the effects of image distortions introduced by the HWP [@1989diSerego; @1999Lamy]. The uncertainties $\sigma_q$ and $\sigma_u$ are evaluated by computing the errors on the intensities $I^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}u}$ and $I^{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}l}$ from the read-out noise and the photon noise in the object and the sky background, and then by propagating these errors. Typical uncertainties are around 0.2% for either $q$ or $u$.
A zero-point angle offset correction, filter dependent, is then applied to the quasar normalized Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$ in order to convert the polarization angle measured in the instrumental reference frame to the equatorial reference direction. This angle offset is determined using polarized standard stars observed every night in each filter (Table [\[tab:std\]]{}). For all stars observed during a given run and within a given filter, the values of the offset agree within 1. The polarization of unpolarized standard stars (Table [\[tab:std\]]{}) is typically around 0.10 $\pm$ 0.05 % for all runs indicating that the instrumental polarization is small and essentially removed by the observing procedure.
[lccccccccccr]{} Reference-number & RA & DEC & Distance & Obs. Date & $q$ & $u$ & $p$ & $\sigma_p$ & $p_0$ & $\theta$ & $\sigma_{\theta}$\
& h m s & $\degr$ $\arcmin$ $\arcsec$ & kpc & & % & % & % & % & & &\
\
Beers-891 & 12 47 17.77 & $-$30 41 33.8 & 10.7 & 2007-04-23 & $-$0.03 & $-$0.16 & 0.16 & 0.14 & 0.10 & 129 & 40\
Beers-923 & 13 01 06.56 & $+$27 35 06.1 & 15.9 & 2007-04-23 & $+$0.16 & $-$0.11 & 0.19 & 0.15 & 0.14 & 163 & 31\
Beers-1035 & 13 17 12.48 & $-$05 04 52.2 & 10.8 & 2007-04-22 & $+$0.01 & $+$0.18 & 0.18 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 44 & 30\
Beers-1670 & 21 31 54.40 & $-$42 35 41.0 & 19.8 & 2007-10-06 & $+$0.12 & $-$0.19 & 0.22 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 152 & 24\
Clewley-CMTF010& 22 10 32.80 & $-$16 12 09.8 & 22.4 & 2007-10-08 & $-$0.23 & $+$0.04 & 0.23 & 0.20 & 0.15 & 84 & 39\
Since on most frames field stars are simultaneously recorded, one can use them to estimate the residual instrumental polarization and/or interstellar polarization. While a frame-by-frame correction of the quasar Stokes parameters is in principle possible, it is hazardous since we are never sure that the polarization of field stars correctly represents the interstellar polarization that could affect distant quasars. Moreover, the field stars can be fainter than the quasar so that a frame-by-frame correction would introduce uncertainties on the quasar polarization larger than the residual polarization itself. We then compute the weighted average ($\overline{q}_{\star}$ and $\overline{u}_{\star}$) and dispersion ($\overline{\sigma}_{\star}$) of the normalized Stokes parameters of field stars, considering the $n_{\star}$ frames with suitable field stars obtained during a given run. These values are given in Table [\[tab:stars\]]{}. Frames centered on quasars and distant stars (Table \[tab:halo\]) are considered. We usually measure a single field star per frame; in some cases this star is made up of the combination of two to three fainter stars observed on the same frame. Only stellar polarizations with uncertainties $\sigma_q$ and $\sigma_u$ better than 0.3% are used in the average. The small values and dispersions of the average Stokes parameters reported in Table [\[tab:stars\]]{} confirm the low level of uncorrected instrumental polarization.
In order to minimize systematic errors in the sample, we conservatively take this residual instrumental and/or averaged interstellar polarization into account by subtracting the systematic $\overline{q}_{\star}$ and $\overline{u}_{\star}$ from the measured $q$ and $u$, and by adding quadratically $\overline{\sigma}_{\star}$ to their errors. Then, from the corrected $q$ and $u$ values, the polarization degree is evaluated using $p = (q^2+u^2)^{1/2}$ and the associated error using $\sigma_p \simeq \sigma_q \simeq \sigma_u$. In addition, $p$ must be corrected for the statistical bias inherent to the fact that $p$ is always a positive quantity. The debiased value $p_{0}$ of the polarization degree is obtained by using the @1974Wardle estimator, which was found to be a reasonably good estimator of the true polarization degree [@1985Simmons]. The polarization position angle $\theta$ is obtained by solving the equations $q = p\cos 2\theta$ and $u = p \sin 2\theta$. The uncertainty of the polarization position angle $\theta$ is estimated from the standard @1962Serkowski formula, where the debiased value $p_{0}$ is conservatively used instead of $p$, that is, $\sigma_{\theta} = 28\fdg65\, \sigma_p / p_{0}$ [see also @1974Wardle]. Due to the HWP chromatism over broad-band filters, an additional error $\leq 2-3\degr$ on $\theta$ should be accounted for (cf. the wavelength dependence of the polarization position angle offset in @1997diSerego).
These procedures, the values of the residual polarization, and the distribution of field star polarization are similar to those reported in @2005Sluse. We refer to that paper for more details and an exhaustive discussion of the effect of the various corrections. As a conclusion, the polarization of field stars is most often $\leq 0.3\%$ so that virtually every quasar with a polarization degree higher than $0.6\%$ is intrinsically polarized, in agreement with previous studies [@1990Berriman; @2000Lamy].
Since the distance of field stars in unknown, we have measured the V-band polarization of a few very distant stars ($d > $ 10 kpc) to further check the amount of interstellar polarization in the direction of our targets. These measurements are reported in Table \[tab:halo\]. All these stars appear to have low polarization. Although the sample is small, this confirms that, on average, contamination by interstellar polarization should be unimportant for quasars at high galactic latitudes ($|{b_{{\scriptscriptstyle\rm}II}}| > 30\degr$) and with polarization degrees higher than 0.6%.
Polarization data {#sec:data}
=================
The full Table \[tab:qsos\], available at the Strasbourg astronomical data center (CDS), summarizes the polarization measurements obtained for 192 different quasars (72 in April 2003, 28 in April 2007, and 92 in October 2007). Unreliable measurements were discarded. Eighty-nine quasars have $p \geq 0.6\%$, 18 have $p \geq 2\%$, and two have $p \geq 10\%$. Column (1) gives the quasar name from the NASA/IPAC extragalactic database (NED), Columns (2) and (3) the equatorial coordinates (J2000), Column (4) the redshift $z$, Column (5) the filter used (V, R, i, and W for no filter), and Column (6) the date of observation (year-month-day). Columns (7) and (8) give the normalized Stokes parameters $q$ and $u$ in percent corrected for the systematic residual polarization given in Table \[tab:stars\]. The normalized Stokes parameters are given in the equatorial reference frame. Columns (9) and (10) give the polarization degree $p$ and its error $\sigma_p$ in percent. Column (11) gives the debiased polarization degree $p_0$ in percent. Columns (12) and (13) give the polarization position angle $\theta$ east-of-north and its error $\sigma_{\theta}$, in degrees. When $p < \sigma_p$, the polarization angle is undefined and its value put to 999. Finally “C?” in column (14) indicate quasars with $p > 0.6\%$ and for which the polarization of the field stars is comparable or higher, that is objects whose polarization has possibly been contaminated by interstellar polarization.
Among the eight objects with $p \geq 3\%$ reported in Table \[tab:qsos\], three of them were already known for their high linear polarization: $[$HB89$]$ 0219-164 [@1990Mead], WISE J125908.45-231038.6 [@2005Sluse], and $[$HB89$]$ 2155-152 [@1984Wardle]. Moreover, the linear polarization of WISE J125908.45-231038.6 and $[$HB89$]$ 2155-152, uncorrected for the systematic polarization given in Table \[tab:stars\], has been discussed in @2010Hutsemekers together with circular polarization measurements. Among the five remaining objects with first-time polarization measurements, two are BAL quasars: SDSS J145603.07+011445.4 [@2002Hall] and SDSS J232550.73-002200.3 [@2006Trump]. $[$HB89$]$ 1243-072, WISE J131250.90-042449.9 and PKS 2140-43 are Parkes radio sources, the first two also belonging to the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope source catalog [@2012Nolan].
[lcccccrrrrrrrc]{} Name & RA & DEC & $z$ & Filter & Obs. Date & $q$ & $u$ & $p$ & $\sigma_p$ & $p_0$ & $\theta$ & $\sigma_{\theta}$ &\
& h m s & $\degr$ $\arcmin$ $\arcsec$ & & & & % & % & % & % & & & &\
\
$[$HB89$]$ 0219-164 & 02 22 00.72 & $-$16 15 16.5 & 0.700000 & V & 2007-10-09 & $-$3.07 & $-$3.91 & 4.97 & 0.53 & 4.94 & 116 & 3 &\
$[$HB89$]$ 1243-072 & 12 46 04.23 & $-$07 30 46.6 & 1.286000 & V & 2007-04-23 & 8.35 & $-$3.45 & 9.03 & 0.62 & 9.01 & 169 & 2 &\
WISE J125908.45-231038.6 & 12 59 08.46 & $-$23 10 38.7 & 0.481000 & V & 2007-04-22 & 12.74 & $-$8.99 & 15.59 & 0.21 & 15.59 & 162 & 1 &\
WISE J131250.90-042449.9 & 13 12 50.90 & $-$04 24 49.9 & 0.824900 & V & 2007-04-23 & 0.13 & 8.70 & 8.70 & 0.51 & 8.69 & 45 & 2 &\
PKS 1420-27 & 14 22 49.23 & $-$27 27 55.9 & 0.985000 & V & 2007-04-22 & $-$0.14 & 0.04 & 0.15 & 0.19 & 0.00 & 999 & 999 &\
$[$HB89$]$ 1424-118 & 14 27 38.10 & $-$12 03 50.0 & 0.802945 & V & 2007-04-23 & $-$0.96 & $-$0.34 & 1.02 & 0.18 & 1.00 & 100 & 5 & C?\
SDSS J145603.07+011445.4 & 14 56 03.08 & $+$01 14 45.5 & 2.363504 & W & 2003-04-08 & $-$7.74 & $-$5.23 & 9.34 & 0.55 & 9.32 & 107 & 2 &\
PKS 2140-43 & 21 43 33.39 & $-$43 12 47.9 & 0.650000 & V & 2007-10-09 & $-$5.19 & 2.52 & 5.77 & 0.17 & 5.77 & 77 & 1 &\
$[$HB89$]$ 2155-152 & 21 58 06.28 & $-$15 01 09.3 & 0.672000 & V & 2007-04-22 & $-$3.56 & 17.14 & 17.51 & 0.51 & 17.50 & 51 & 1 &\
SDSS J232550.73-002200.3 & 23 25 50.73 & $-$00 22 00.4 & 1.010857 & V & 2007-10-08 & 1.96 & $-$4.00 & 4.45 & 0.22 & 4.44 & 148 & 1 &\
This research has 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.
Table 4 : Polarization of 192 quasars
[^1]: Senior Research Associate F.R.S.-FNRS.
[^2]: Based on observations made with the ESO 3.6m Telescope at the La Silla Observatory under program ID 071.B-0460, 079.A-0625, 080.A-0017.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Given an equivalence class $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ in the measure algebra of the Cantor space, let $ \hat \Phi ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) $ be the set of points having density $ 1 $ in $ A $. Sets of the form $ \hat \Phi ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) $ are called $ \mathcal{T} $-regular. We establish several results about $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets. Among these, we show that $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets can have any complexity within $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ (=$ \mathbf{F}_{ \sigma\delta}$), that is for any $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ subset $ X $ of the Cantor space there is a $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set that has the same topological complexity of $ X $. Nevertheless, the generic $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$-complete, meaning that the classes $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ such that $ \hat{ \Phi} ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$-complete form a comeagre subset of the measure algebra. We prove that this set is also dense in the sense of forcing, as $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets with empty interior turn out to be $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$-complete. Finally we show that the generic $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ does not contain a $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$ set, i.e., a set which is in $ \mathbf{F}_ \sigma \cap \mathbf{G}_ \delta $.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino, via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino — Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino — Italy'
author:
- Alessandro Andretta
- Riccardo Camerlo
bibliography:
- 'density.bib'
title: The Descriptive Set Theory of the Lebesgue Density Theorem
---
Introduction
============
The measure algebra of a probability Borel measure $ \mu $ on a standard Borel space $ X $, is the quotient $${\textrm{\scshape Malg}}( X , \mu )= \frac{{\textrm{\scshape Meas}}( X , \mu ) }{{\textrm{\scshape Null}}( X , \mu ) }$$ where ${\textrm{\scshape Meas}}( X , \mu ) $ is the $ \sigma $-algebra of the $ \mu $-measurable subsets of $ X $ and $ {\textrm{\scshape Null}}( X , \mu ) $ is the $ \sigma $-ideal of the sets of $ \mu $-measure $ 0 $. It can be obtained by taking the quotient of $ {\textrm{\scshape Bor}}( X ) $, the $ \sigma $-algebra of Borel subsets of $ X $, and it is canonical, in the sense that $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}( X , \mu ) $ is unique, up to isomorphism, for any continuous probability measure $ \mu $ on a standard Borel space [@Kechris:1995kc p. 116]. The function $ \left ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \right ) \mapsto \mu \left ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}B \right ) $ is a separable complete metric that turns $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ into a Polish space.
In order to state our results in a convenient way, we will take the measure space to be the Cantor set $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ with the Lebesgue measure $ \mu $, also known as the Bernoulli or coin-tossing measure.
A point $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ is said to have [**density $ r \in [ 0 ; 1 ] $ in a measurable set $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $**]{} if $$\label{eq:Lebesguedensitylimit}
\mathcal{D}_A ( x ) {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\mu \left ( A \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{x \restriction n} \right )}
{ \mu \left ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{x \restriction n} \right )} = r ,$$ where $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s = {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{s \subset x} \right\}}$ is the basic open neighborhhod determined by the finite sequence $ s $. The map $ \mathcal{D}_A $ is called the [**density function for the set $ A $**]{}. Note that $ \mathcal{D}_A ( x ) $ does not necessarily exist for all $ x $, since the limit might not converge. However, for all $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ $$\label{eq:densitycomplement0}
\mathcal{D}_A ( x ) = 1 - \mathcal{D}_{\neg A} ( x )$$ where $ \neg A {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}{\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus A $ is the complement of $ A $, meaning that if one of the two limits exists, so does the other, and equality holds. The following result, known as the Lebesgue Density Theorem says that almost every $ x \in A $ has density $ 1 $ in $ A $.
\[th:Lebesguedensity\] Let $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ be Lebesgue measurable. Then $$\Phi ( A ) = {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ x \text{ has density \( 1 \) in } A } \right\}}$$ is Lebesgue measurable, and $ \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}\Phi ( A ) ) = 0 $. In other words, $ \mathcal{D}_A ( x ) $ agrees with the characteristic function of $ A $, for almost every $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $.
If $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ are measurable sets and $ \mu ( A{\mathop{\triangle}}B ) = 0 $, then $ \mathcal{D}_A ( x ) = \mathcal{D}_B ( x ) $ for all $ x $ hence $ \Phi ( A ) = \Phi ( B ) $. The map $ \Phi \colon {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}\to {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}$ induces a function $$\hat{\Phi} \colon {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}$$ selecting a representative in each $ \equiv $-equivalence class, where $ \equiv $ is equality up to a null set, $$A \equiv B {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A {\mathop{\triangle}}B \in {\textrm{\scshape Null}}.$$
In the literature (see e.g. [@Oxtoby:1980kr Theorem 3.21, p. 17], or [@Cohn:1993fk Corollary 6.2.6, p. 184], or [@Fremlin:2002mf Corollary 223B, p. 63]), the Lebesgue Density Theorem is stated (and proved) for $ {\mathbb{R}}^k$, rather than the Cantor space, with the density of a point $ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^k $ in a measurable set $ A \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^k $ defined as the limit $$\lim_{ \varepsilon \to 0} \frac{ \lambda^k ( A \cap \operatorname{B}_d ( x ; \varepsilon ) )}
{ \lambda^k ( \operatorname{B}_d ( x ; \varepsilon ) )},$$ where $ \operatorname{B}_d ( x ; \varepsilon ) = {\left \{{ y \in {\mathbb{R}}^k } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ d ( y , x ) < \varepsilon } \right\}}$ is the open ball centered around $ x $ of radius $ \varepsilon $, and $ d $ and $ \lambda^k $ are, respectively, the Euclidean metric and the Lebesgue measure on $ {\mathbb{R}}^k $. Density functions can be defined for every Borel measure $ \mu $ on a metric space $ ( X , d ) $, but the Lebesgue Density Theorem might not hold even when $ ( X , d ) $ is Polish (D.H. Fremlin, personal communication). On the other hand, for every Borel probability measure $ \mu $ on a standard Borel space $ X $, the algebra $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}( X , \mu ) $ admits a Borel selector, being isomorphic to the measure algebra on the Cantor set (see Proposition \[prop:Pi03\]). This paper focuses on the Cantor space, so for the reader’s benefit we include a proof of Theorem \[th:Lebesguedensity\] in Section \[sec:proofofdensitythm\].
The sets of the form $ \Phi ( A ) $ are known to be $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ — see e.g. [@Wilczynski:2002rz p. 681]. In this paper we shall follow the logicians’ notation and write $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}$ for the family of open sets, $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{n + 1} $ for the family of countable unions of $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{n}$ sets, $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{n}$ for the family of complements of $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{n}$ sets, and $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{n} $ for $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{n} \cap {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{n}$. Therefore $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ is simply the collection of all $ \mathbf{F}_{ \sigma \delta }$ sets, and, by a theorem of Wadge, an $ \mathbf{F}_{ \sigma \delta }$ set which is not $ \mathbf{G}_{ \delta \sigma }$ is complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ (see [@Kechris:1995kc Section22.B]).
We shall prove some results on the complexity of $ \Phi ( A ) $.
\[th:Pi03complete\] There is an open set $U $ and a closed set $ C $ such that $ \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) $ is complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $.
In fact there are many sets of the form $ \Phi ( A ) $ which are complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $.
\[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] If $ \emptyset \neq \Phi ( A ) $ has empty interior, then $ \Phi ( A ) $ is complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $.
Not every set $ \Phi ( A ) $ is complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ — in fact the opposite is true. In order to formulate the next result in a convenient form, recall that two subsets $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ are Wadge equivalent $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B $ just in case each one is the continuous preimage of the other. A $ {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}$-equivalence class is called a Wadge degree.
\[th:belowDelta03\] For each $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ set $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ there are an open set $ U $ and a closed set $ C $ such that $ \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A $.
Although Theorems \[th:Pi03complete\] and \[th:belowDelta03\] could be merged into a single statement
\[th:global\] For every Wadge degree $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ there are $ U \in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}$ and $ C \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1}$ such that $ \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) \in \boldsymbol{d}$.
the proofs of the two results are different enough to warrant distinct statements. Theorem \[th:global\] asserts that applying $ \Phi $ to very simple sets (like open or closed sets) every conceivable complexity below $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ can be attained. This does not mean that every $ \Phi ( A ) $ is of the form $ \Phi ( U ) $ or $ \Phi ( C ) $ with $ U $ open and $ C $ closed, since this would imply that every measurable set $ A $ is equivalent (up to a null set) to a closed or an open set, which is far from being true. Every measurable set is equivalent to a $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{2}$ (=$ \mathbf{F}_ \sigma $) and to a $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{2}$ (=$ \mathbf{G}_ \delta $) and these are the least pointclasses that intersect every equivalence class in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$.
\[th:new\] $ {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \cap {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} = \emptyset } \right\}} $ is comeager in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$.
In other words, for the generic $ A $ there is no set $ D $ which is simultaneously $ \mathbf{F}_ \sigma $ and $ \mathbf{G}_ \delta $, and such that $ \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}D ) = 0 $.
The import of Theorem \[th:global\] is that, arguing in $ {\mathsf{ZF}}+ {\mathsf{DC}}$ alone, the family of sets $$\mathcal{S} {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\operatorname{ran}( \Phi ) = {\left \{{ \Phi ( A )} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ A\in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} \right\}}$$ intersects every Wadge degree inside $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$, yet $ \mathcal{S} $ has the size of the continuum, being in bijection with the Polish space $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$. This should be contrasted with the fact that under the Axiom of Determinacy ($ {\mathsf{AD}}$) the size of $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ is much larger than the continuum [@Hjorth:1998sv; @Andretta:2007ce]. Families $ \mathcal{S} $ of size continuum intersecting every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$ can be constructed under $ {\mathsf{AD}}$ for every Borel boldface pointclass $ {\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}$, as L. Motto Ros pointed out to us; however the case of $ \mathcal{S} = \operatorname{ran}( \Phi )$ and $ {\boldsymbol{\Gamma}}= {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ is the only nontrivial, natural example of this phenomenon we know of.
Theorem \[th:global\] implies that for every Wadge degree $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$, the sets $$\mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}} = {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \Phi ( A ) \in \boldsymbol{ d} } \right\}}$$ are nonempty, hence $ {\left \{{ \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}} \right\}}$ is a partition of $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$. Since the length of the Wadge hierarchy of $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ sets is $ \omega _1^{ \omega _1}$, this defines a canonical well-quasi-order $ \preceq$ on $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ of length $ \omega _1^{ \omega _1} + 1 $, which, by the Kunen-Martin theorem, cannot be $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{1}$. Actually the complexity of $ \preceq$ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$ and its equivalence classes $ \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}}$ are provably $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{1}_{2}$ (Section \[subsec:wqoonMALG\]), hence they have the property of Baire. Clearly all but countably many $ \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}}$ must be meager — in fact all but one.
\[th:Pi03comeagre\] Let $ \boldsymbol{d} = {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} \setminus {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ be the Wadge degree of all sets which are complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$. Then $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} $ is comeager in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$.
Although most of the $ \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}} $ are meager, they are topologically dense:
\[th:dense\] If $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ is a Wadge degree and $ \boldsymbol{d} \neq {\left \{ { \emptyset} \right \}} , {\left \{ { {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \right \}} $, then $ \mathscr{W} _{\boldsymbol{d}} $ is dense in the topological space $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$, i.e. $${\forall { A \in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} \, } {\forall {\varepsilon > 0 } \, } {\exists {B \in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} \, }
\bigl ( \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}B ) < \varepsilon {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\Phi ( B ) \in \boldsymbol{d} \bigr ) .$$ In fact we can take $ B $ such that $ \Phi ( B ) = \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) $ with $ U \in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}$ and $ C \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1}$.
If we look at $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ as a Boolean algebra or, equivalently, as a forcing notion, there is a competing notion of “dense set”: if $ \mathbb{B} $ is a Boolean algebra then $ D \subseteq \mathbb{B} \setminus {\left \{ { 0_{\mathbb{B}}} \right \}}$ is dense iff $${\forall { b \in \mathbb{B} \setminus {\left \{ { 0_{\mathbb{B}}} \right \}}} \, }
{\exists { d\in D } \, } ( d \leq b ) .$$ The set of all $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ such that $ \Phi ( A ) $ has empty interior is dense in the sense of forcing, and from Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] we shall obtain
\[th:forcingdensePi03\] Let $ \boldsymbol{d} = {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} \setminus {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ be the top Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$, i.e., the Wadge degree of the complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ sets. Then $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} $ is dense in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ in the sense of forcing, and it is the unique Wadge degree with this property.
Therefore when forcing with the measure algebra, it is enough to focus on conditions that are complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ sets.
Plan of the paper. {#plan-of-the-paper. .unnumbered}
------------------
The paper is organized as follows. In Sections \[sec:notation\] and \[sec:easyfacts\] we record some basic facts and the notations used throughout the paper, while Section \[sec:Someexamples\] is devoted to some examples and counterexamples. The basics of the Wadge hierarchy of the Cantor space are developed in Section \[sec:Wadgehierarchy\], where Theorem \[th:dense\] is deduced from Theorem \[th:global\]. The main technical parts of the paper are Sections \[sec:climbing\] and \[sec:Wadge-styleconstructions\] where measure-theoretic analogues of the Wadge constructions are developed, and Theorem \[th:belowDelta03\] is proved. Finally, Theorems \[th:Pi03complete\], \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\], \[th:new\], \[th:Pi03comeagre\], and \[th:forcingdensePi03\] are proved in Section \[sec:ClosedsetswithcomplicatedD\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
Several people contributed with helpful discussion on the material of this paper. In particular we wish to thank David Fremlin, Luca Motto Ros, and Asger Törnquist. We owe a particular debt to Greg Hjorth — to whom this paper is dedicated — for most illuminating conversations at the early stages of this work.
Notation {#sec:notation}
========
For the basics of descriptive set theory, measure theory, and the density topology, the reader is referred to [@Kechris:1995kc; @Oxtoby:1980kr; @Wilczynski:2002rz].
The length of $ x \in {\prescript{ \leq\omega }{}{2}}{\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}{\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} \cup {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ is $ \operatorname{dom}( x ) $ and it is usually denoted by $ \operatorname{lh}( x ) $. If $ s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} $ and $ x \in {\prescript{ \leq\omega }{}{2}} $, the concatenation of $ s $ with $ x $ is denoted with $ s {{}^\smallfrown}x $, or even $ s x $, if there is no danger of confusion. When $ x = {\left \langle i \right \rangle} $ and $ i \in {\left \{ {0, 1} \right \}}$ we simply write $ s {{}^\smallfrown}i $, while $ i^{(n)} $ denotes the sequence of length $n $ and constant value $ i $. Two sequences $ s , t \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} $ are incompatible, in symbols $ s \perp t $, if $ s ( n ) \neq t ( n ) $ for some $ n < \operatorname{lh}( s ) , \operatorname{lh}( t ) $. If $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and $ s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} $ then $${{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} = {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{s {{}^\smallfrown}x \in A } \right\}}$$ is the [**localization**]{} of $ A $ at $ s $. In particular can be restated as $$\mathcal{D}_A ( x ) =
\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu \left ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n}\rfloor}} \right ) = r .$$ Similarly, if $ T $ is a tree on $ 2 $, then $${{T}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} = {\left \{{u \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{s {{}^\smallfrown}u \in T} \right\}}$$ is the localization of $ T $ at $ s $.
The Lebesgue measure $ \mu $ on the Cantor space is the unique Borel measure such that $ \mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s ) = 2^{- \operatorname{lh}( s ) }$, and for any measurable set $ A $, $$\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) =
\frac{1}{2} ( \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0}\rfloor}} ) + \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}} ) )$$ hence for every $ n $ $$\mu ( A ) = 2^{-n} \bigl ( \sum_{\smash{s \in {\prescript{n}{}{2}} }} \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \bigr ) .$$ Therefore $$\label{eq:series2}
\begin{split}
\mu ( A ) & = \sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{-n - 1} \mu ( A )
\\
& = \sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{- 2n - 1} \sum_{s \in {\prescript{n}{}{2}} } \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )
\\
& = \sum_{\smash{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} }} 2^{- 2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 1} \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )
\end{split}$$ and in particular, when $ A = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ $$\label{eq:series1}
1= \sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } 2^{- 2\operatorname{lh}( s ) - 1} .$$
Let $ \mathcal{A} \subseteq {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$ be an antichain, i.e. a family of pairwise incompatible nodes. Then the $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s $ ($ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$) are pairwise disjoint hence $$\label{eq:measureantichain}
\sum_{s \in \mathcal{A}} 2^{- \operatorname{lh}( s ) } = \mu \bigl ( \bigcup_{s \in \mathcal{A}} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s \bigr ) \leq 1 .$$
\[lem:approximation\] Let $ \mathcal{B} $ be a nonempty collection of measurable sets, closed under the operations $$B \mapsto D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B$$ where $ D \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1}$ and $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t \cap D = \emptyset $. Then $${\forall {A\in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} \, } {\forall { \varepsilon > 0} \, } {\exists {B \in \mathcal{B}} \, }
\bigl ( \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}B ) < \varepsilon \bigr ) .$$ In other words: $ {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{B \in \mathcal{B}} \right\}} $ is topologically dense in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$.
Let $ A \in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}$, $ B \in \mathcal{B}$ and $ \varepsilon > 0 $ be given. Fix a clopen set $ D \neq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ such that $ \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}D ) < \varepsilon / 2 $. Let $ t $ be such that $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t \cap D = \emptyset $ and $ 2^{- \operatorname{lh}( t ) } < \varepsilon /2$. Then $ D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B \in \mathcal{B} $ by assumption, and $ \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}( D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B ) ) < \varepsilon $.
The [**interior**]{} and [**closure**]{} of a set $ A $ are denoted by $ \operatorname{Int}A $ and $ \operatorname{Cl}A $, respectively, while the symbol $ \overline{A} $ is reserved for a different concept (see Section \[subsec:Wadgesconstructions\]). The [**frontier**]{} of $ A $ is the set $ \operatorname{Fr}A = \operatorname{Cl}A \cap \operatorname{Cl}( \neg A ) = \operatorname{Cl}A \setminus \operatorname{Int}A $.
If $ \mu $ is a finite Borel measure on a second countable topological space $ X $, the [**support**]{} of $ \mu $ is the smallest co-null closed set, that is $$X \setminus \bigcup {\left \{{U \subseteq X} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ U \text{ open and } \mu ( U ) = 0 } \right\}} .$$ This notion suggests the following definition. If $ A $ is measurable, the [**inner support**]{} of $ A $ $$\operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) = \bigcup {\left \{{U} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \mu ( U ) = \mu ( U \cap A ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}U \text{ open}} \right\}}$$ is the largest open set $ V $ such that $ \mu ( V ) = \mu ( V \cap A ) $. The [**outer support**]{} of $ A $ $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) & = \neg \operatorname{supt}^- ( \neg A )
\\
& = \bigcap {\left \{{C} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \mu (A \setminus C ) = 0 {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}C \text{ closed}} \right\}}
\end{split}$$ is the smallest closed set $ C $ that contains $ A $ up to a null set. It is immediate to check that $ \operatorname{Int}A \subseteq\operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $ and $ \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}A $, but the inclusions can be strict as $ \operatorname{supt}^+ $and $ \operatorname{supt}^-$ are invariant up to null sets.
Easy facts {#sec:easyfacts}
==========
A coding of Pi03 sets {#subsec:codingofPi03}
---------------------
A clopen $ D \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ is completely determined by a finite tree $ T $ on $ {\left \{ {0,1} \right \}}$ such that $ D = \bigcup {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ t \text{ a terminal node of } T} \right\}}$. In order to have a unique such $ T $ we require that there is no $ t $ such that both $ t {{}^\smallfrown}0 $ and $ t {{}^\smallfrown}1$ are terminal nodes of $ T $. Let $ \mathcal{T} $ be the collection of all such trees. A clopen subset of $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \times \omega \times \omega \times \omega $ — where this space is endowed with the product topology, and $ \omega $ is taken to be discrete — can be identified with a function $ ( k , m , n ) \mapsto T_{k , m , n} \in \mathcal{T} $. By standard arguments, every such function can be coded as an element of the Cantor space, so let $ \mathcal{K} \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ be the set of all such codes, and let $$\pi \colon \mathcal{K} \to {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1} ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \times \omega \times \omega \times \omega )$$ be the decoding bijection. The map $$\psi \colon {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1} ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \times \omega \times \omega \times \omega )
\to {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ),
\qquad D \mapsto \bigcap_n \bigcup_m \bigcap_k D_{k,m,n} ,$$ where $$D_{k,m,n} = {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ ( x , k , m , n ) \in D} \right\}}$$ is surjective, hence $ \pi \circ \psi \colon \mathcal{K} {\twoheadrightarrow}{\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ) $ can be construed as a coding of the $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ subsets of the Cantor space.
By the Lebesgue Density Theorem \[th:Lebesguedensity\], for any measurable sets $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ $$A \equiv B {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}{\forall {s \in {\prescript{< \omega}{}{2}} } \, } \left ( \mu \left ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} \right ) =
\mu \left ({{B}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} \right ) \right ),$$ and for any $ m \in \omega $ and $ r \in [ 0 ; 1 ) $ the set $${\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction m}\rfloor}} ) > r} \right\}}$$ is clopen. Therefore the set $$\label{eq:closedfordensity}
\tilde{A} = {\left \{{( x , m , n , k ) \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \times \omega \times \omega \times \omega } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ m \geq n {\Rightarrow}\mu \left ({{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction m}\rfloor}} \right ) > 1 - 2^{-k - 1}} \right\}}$$ is clopen. (The reason for the extra coordinate $ n $ in the definition of $ \tilde{A} $ will be clear shortly.) Moreover $ \tilde{A} $ depends on the equivalence class $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$, rather than on the set $ A $, i.e. $$A \equiv B {\Rightarrow}\tilde{A} = \tilde{B} ,$$ and the map $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1} ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \times \omega \times \omega \times \omega ) $, $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \mapsto \tilde{A} $ is Borel — in the sense that its composition with $ \pi^{-1} $ yields a Borel function $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to \mathcal{K} $. (In fact this map falls short of being continuous in that the preimage of an open set is a Boolean combination of open sets.) Since $$\label{eq:folklore}
x\in \Phi (A) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\forall k \exists n \forall m \geq n
\left (\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction m}\rfloor}} ) > 1 - 2^{-k - 1} \right )$$ then $$\hat{\Phi} ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) = \bigcap_k \bigcup_n \bigcap_m \tilde{A}_{m ,n , k} .$$
\[prop:Pi03\]
\[prop:Pi03-a\] $ \Phi ( A ) \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ for all measurable $ A $, and
\[prop:Pi03-b\] the map $ \hat{\Phi} \colon {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ is Borel in the codes, i.e. there is a Borel map $ \mathcal{F} \colon {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to \mathcal{K}$ such that $ \mathcal{F} ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) $ is a code for $ \hat{\Phi} ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) $.
Part \[prop:Pi03-a\] is folklore and it follows from when the ambient space is $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ — see [@Wilczynski:2002rz] for a proof that $ \Phi ( A ) $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ when the ambient space is $ [ 0 ; 1 ] $ and $ \mu $ is the Lebesgue measure.
For \[prop:Pi03-b\] just take $ \mathcal{F} ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) = \tilde{A} $.
Properties if Phi {#subsec:propertiesifPhi}
-----------------
Let us list some easy facts about the density map $ \Phi $.
$$\begin{aligned}
& A \subseteq B {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\Phi ( A ) \subseteq \Phi ( B ) , \label{eq:densitymonotone}
\\
& \Phi ( \Phi ( A ) ) = \Phi ( A ) , \label{eq:idempotence}
\\
& \Phi ( A \cap B ) = \Phi ( A ) \cap \Phi ( B ), \label{eq:densityintersection}
\\
& \Phi ( \emptyset ) = \emptyset \text{ and } \Phi ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ) = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ,\label{eq:Phi(empty)}
\\
&\Phi ( \neg A ) \subseteq \neg \Phi ( A ) , \label{eq:densitycomplement}
\\
&\Phi ( A \cup B ) \supseteq \Phi ( A ) \cup \Phi ( B ) \text{, and more generally,}\label{eq:densityunion}
\\
& \Phi ( \bigcup_{i \in I} A_i ) \supseteq \bigcup_{i \in I} \Phi ( A_i ) . \label{eq:densityunion2}\end{aligned}$$
The inclusions in and cannot be replaced by equalities, as can be seen by constructing appropriate counterexamples or by the following metamathematical argument. If $ \Phi ( \neg A ) = \neg \Phi ( A ) $ for all $ A $ or, equivalently, $ \Phi ( A \cup B ) = \Phi ( A ) \cup \Phi ( B )$ for all $ A , B $, then $ \Phi \colon {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}\to {\textrm{\scshape Bor}}$ would be a homomorphism of Boolean algebras such that $ \Phi ( A ) \equiv A $. Such homomorphisms are called Borel liftings, and by work of Shelah [@Shelah:1983fk] their existence is independent of $ {\mathsf{ZFC}}$.
By , , and the family $$\mathcal{T} = {\left \{{A \in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ A \subseteq \Phi ( A ) } \right\}}$$ is a topology on the Cantor set, and it is called the [**density topology**]{}. If $ A $ is open and $ x \in A $, then $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{x \restriction n} \subseteq A $ for all large enough $ n $, so $$\label{eq:densityopen}
A \in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}A \subseteq \Phi ( A ) ,$$ hence $ \mathcal{T} $ refines the standard topology. Since $ \Phi ( A \setminus N ) = \Phi ( A ) \supseteq A \supseteq A \setminus N $, for any null set $ N $ and any open set $ A $, it follows that $ \mathcal{T} $ is strictly finer than the standard topology. Note that the inclusion in can be strict by Example \[xmp:densityopen\] below. Here is a list of the properties of $ \mathcal{T} $ — for proofs see [@Wilczynski:2002rz] and the reference therein:
For any $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ $$\operatorname{Int}_ \mathcal{T} A = A \cap \Phi ( B )$$ where $ B $ is any measurable kernel of $ A $, that is: any measurable set $ B \subseteq A $ such that $ \mu ( B ) = \mu _* ( A ) $, with $ \mu _* $ the inner measure.
$ \mathcal{T} $ is neither first countable (hence not second countable) nor separable, but it is Baire.
$ A $ is null if and only if it is meager in the topology $ \mathcal{T} $, if and only if it is nowhere dense in the topology $ \mathcal{T} $, if and only if it is closed and discrete in the topology $ \mathcal{T} $.
$ A = \Phi ( A ) $ if and only if $ A $ is a regular open set of the topology $ \mathcal{T} $, that is $ A = \operatorname{Int}_\mathcal{T} \operatorname{Cl}_\mathcal{T} A $.
In view of this last property, a measurable set $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ such that $ A = \Phi ( A ) $ is called [**$ \mathcal{T} $-regular**]{}.
Clearly $$\label{eq:densityclopen}
A \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}A = \Phi ( A )$$ but the converse implication does not hold — as we shall see below, there are sets $ A $ such that $ \Phi ( A ) = A $ of arbitrarily high complexity in the pointclass $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$.
By and $$\label{eq:densityclosed}
A \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\Phi ( A ) \subseteq A.$$ (Again by Example \[xmp:densityopen\] the inclusion can be strict.) By monotonicity $$\label{eq:densityinteriorclosure0}
\operatorname{Int}A \subseteq \Phi ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}A .$$ Thus if $ A = \Phi ( C ) $ for some closed $ C $, then by and monotonicity we may assume that $ C = \operatorname{Cl}A $, hence $$\label{eq:Phi(closed)}
A\in \operatorname{ran}\left ( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} \right ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A = \Phi ( \operatorname{Cl}A ) .$$ Similarly $$\label{eq:Phi(open)}
A\in \operatorname{ran}\left ( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} \right ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A = \Phi ( \operatorname{Int}A ) .$$
If $ A \equiv B $ then $ \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^- ( B ) $ and $ \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^+ ( B ) $, in particular the inner/outer support of $ A $ is the same as the inner/outer support of $ \Phi ( A ) $, but in general $ A \not\equiv \operatorname{supt}^\pm ( A )$. In fact the sets $ \operatorname{supt}^\pm ( A ) $ are not complete invariants for the relation of measure equivalence — in other words, the map $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\to {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} \times {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} $, $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \mapsto ( \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) , \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) ) $ is not injective (Proposition \[prop:supports\]).
Using the preceding results, can be refined to $$\label{eq:densityinteriorclosure}
\operatorname{Int}A \subseteq \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) \subseteq \Phi ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}A ,$$ hence $$ \mu \left (\operatorname{Fr}A \right ) = 0
{\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\operatorname{Int}A \equiv \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) \equiv
A \equiv \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) \equiv \operatorname{Cl}A$$ and thus $$A = \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mu ( \operatorname{Fr}A ) = 0 {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A = \Phi ( \operatorname{Cl}A ) = \Phi ( \operatorname{Int}A ) .$$ Therefore a $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set is the image via $ \Phi $ of an open and of a closed set if and only if its frontier is null, i.e. $$\label{eq:D(closed)}
A = \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mu ( \operatorname{Fr}A ) = 0 {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A \in \operatorname{ran}(\Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} )
\cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) .$$
If $ A \equiv B $ then $ \Phi ( A ) = \Phi ( B ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}B $ hence $ \operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}B $. Therefore $ \Phi ( A ) $ is a set $ X \equiv A $ such that $ \operatorname{Cl}X $ is minimal.
\[lem:closureofDissupt\] $ \operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) $ and $ \operatorname{Int}\Phi ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $.
As $ \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) $ is closed, it is enough to show that $ \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( A ) $. Let $ x \in \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) $: then $ \mu ( U \cap A ) > 0 $ for every open neighborhood $ U $ containing $ x $, and since $ \mu \left (A {\mathop{\triangle}}\Phi ( A ) \right ) = 0 $ then $ \mu \left ( U \cap \Phi ( A ) \right ) > 0 $. Therefore $ U \cap \Phi ( A ) \neq \emptyset $ hence $ x \in \operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( A ) $. This proves the first equality.
For the second, as $ \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $ is open, it is enough to show that $\operatorname{Int}\Phi ( A ) \subseteq \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $. Let $ x \in V \subseteq \Phi ( A ) $ with $ V $ open: as $ V \cap A\equiv V \cap \Phi ( A ) = V $ then $ \mu ( V \cap A) = \mu ( V ) $, hence $ V \subseteq \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $.
If $ C $ is closed and $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, then $ \neg C $ is open hence $ \Phi ( \neg C ) = \neg C $ by , and . Therefore $$\label{eq:closedT-regular=>complementT-regular}
C \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} \text{ and \( \mathcal{T} \)-regular } {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\neg C
\text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-regular.}$$ Example \[xmp:opennotdualistic\] shows that fails if $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} $ is replaced by $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} $.
\[def:D(A)\] For $ A$ a measurable set of positive measure, let $${\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) = {\left \{{s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) > 0 } \right\}} .$$
Then $ {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ is a pruned tree, and by the Lebesgue Density Theorem it has no isolated branches. Thus $$x \in \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}x \in {\left [ { {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) } \right ]} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mathcal{D}_A ( x ) = 1 .$$
$ {\left [ {{\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) } \right ]} = \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) $.
Clearly $ A \setminus {\left [ {{\boldsymbol{D}}( A )} \right ]} $ is null. If $ \mu ( A \setminus {\left [ { T } \right ]} ) = 0 $ for some pruned tree $ T $, then $$s \notin T {\Rightarrow}\mu ( A \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s ) = 0 {\Rightarrow}\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) = 0 {\Rightarrow}s \notin {\boldsymbol{D}}( A )$$ that is: $ {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) \subseteq T $.
By , $$\label{eq:Phidensitytree}
C \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\Phi ( C ) = \Phi ( {\boldsymbol{D}}( C ) ) .$$
\[prop:climb\] For every $ s \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $, if $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) < r < 1 $ then $$\exists t \supset s \left ( \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}} )\geq r {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\forall u \left (s \subseteq u \subset t {\Rightarrow}\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {u}\rfloor}} ) \geq \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \right ) \right ) .$$
Replacing $ {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} $ with $ A $ we may assume that $ s = \emptyset $. Let $$\mathcal{B} = {\left \{{t \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}}) \geq r {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\forall t' \subset t \left (\mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {t'}\rfloor}} < r ) \right )} \right\}} .$$
$ \mathcal{B} $ is a maximal antichain in $ {\boldsymbol{D}}( A )$.
It is clear that $ \mathcal{B} $ is an antichain. Suppose $ s \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $: by the Lebesgue Density Theorem, there is an $ x \in \Phi ( A ) \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s$. Let $ n $ be least such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n}\rfloor}} ) \geq r $. Then $ x \restriction n \in \mathcal{B}$ and $ x \restriction n $ is compatible with $ s $.
Towards a contradiction, suppose that for every $ t \in \mathcal{B} $ there is a minimal $ u_t \subset t $ such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {u_t}\rfloor}} ) < \mu ( A ) $, and let $ \mathcal{A} $ be the set of all these $ u_t $. It is easy to check that $ \mathcal{A} $ is also a maximal antichain in $ {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $.
$ \mu ( A ) = \sum_{ u\in \mathcal{A}} 2^{- \operatorname{lh}( u ) } \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {u}\rfloor}} ) $.
It is enough to show that $ N = A \setminus \bigcup_{u \in \mathcal{A}} u {{}^\smallfrown}{{A}_{\lfloor {u}\rfloor}} $ is null. Otherwise, let $ x \in N \cap \Phi ( A ) $ and let $ n $ be least such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n}\rfloor}} ) \geq r $. Therefore $ x \restriction n \in \mathcal{B} $ hence $ \exists u \in \mathcal{A} \left ( u \subseteq x \restriction n \right ) $: a contradiction.
Therefore by $$\mu ( A ) < \sum_{ u \in \mathcal{A}} 2^{-\operatorname{lh}( u )} \mu ( A ) \leq \mu ( A ) ,$$ a contradiction.
Dualistic sets {#subsec:dualisticsets}
--------------
By , $ \Phi ( \neg A ) = \neg \Phi ( A ) $ for $ A $ clopen, or more generally if $ A $ has the following property.
\[def:manic\] A set is **dualistic** if it belongs to the family $$\mathcal{M} = {\left \{{A \in {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\forall {x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \, }
\left ( \mathcal{D}_A ( x ) \text{ exists and it is equal to either \( 0 \) or } 1 \right) } \right\}} .$$
Sets in $ \mathcal{M} $ have a very black-or-white vision of the points of the space, so they should perhaps be called Manichæan (hence the $ \mathcal{M} $). If $ x $ witnesses that $ A \notin \mathcal{M} $, then such $ x $ belongs to the complement of $ \Phi ( A ) \cup \Phi ( \neg A ) $, so the inclusion in will be proper.
The family $ \mathcal{M} $ is an algebra containing $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{1}$, and it is the largest algebra $ \mathcal{N} \subseteq {\textrm{\scshape Meas}}$ such that $ \Phi \restriction \mathcal{N} \colon \mathcal{N} \to {\textrm{\scshape Bor}}$ is a lifting, i.e. a selector that is a homomorphism. It does not contain every open or closed set and therefore it is not a $ \sigma $-algebra (Example \[xmp:opennotdualistic\]), but it contains sets of arbitrarily high complexity. In fact $$\label{eq:dualisticclosedunderequivalence}
A \in \mathcal{M} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}B \equiv A {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}B \in \mathcal{M}$$ hence $ \mathcal{M} \supset {\textrm{\scshape Null}}$, and since the ideal $ {\textrm{\scshape Null}}$ contains sets of arbitrary complexity, the claim is proved. On the other hand, if $ A \in \mathcal{M} $ then $$x \in \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\exists{n} {\forall {m \geq n} \, }\left ( \mu
\left ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction m}\rfloor}} \right ) > 1/2 \right )$$ hence using that $ \tilde{A}$ is clopen (see ), $ \Phi ( A ) $ is easily seen to be $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{2} $. Since $ \neg \Phi ( A ) = \Phi ( \neg A ) $ and $ \neg A \in \mathcal{M} $, it follows that $$A \in \mathcal{M} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\Phi ( A ) \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} .$$ By Example \[xmp:densityopen\] not every $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} $ (and therefore: not every $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} $) set is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, hence $ \operatorname{ran}\left ( \Phi \restriction \mathcal{M} \right ) \neq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} $, and by Theorem \[th:T-regularDelta02\], $ \operatorname{ran}\left ( \Phi \restriction \mathcal{M} \right ) $ intersects every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} $.
By $A \in \mathcal{M} {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\Phi ( A ) \in \mathcal{M}$, and it is easy to check that $$\label{eq:T-regularcomplement=>dualistic}
A = \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\neg A = \Phi ( \neg A ) {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}A , \neg A\in \mathcal{M}.$$ The notions of dualistic and $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set are independent: not every $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set is in $ \mathcal{M} $, as there are sets $ X $ such that $ \Phi ( X ) $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} $ complete (Theorem \[th:Pi03complete\]) and not every set in $ \mathcal{M} $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular — see or Example \[xmp:densityopen\].
A set is $ \mathcal{T} $-clopen iff $ A = \Phi ( A ) $ and $ \neg A = \Phi ( \neg A ) $, so both $ A $ and $ \neg A $ are dualistic by . Therefore $$\label{eq:T-regulardualisticPhiclopen}
A \text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-regular and dualistic} {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A \text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-clopen.}$$ If $ A $ and $ B $ are clopen or, more generally, dualistic, the inclusion in can be replaced with equality. But if $ A $ is such that $ \Phi ( \neg A ) \subset \neg \Phi ( A ) $ then $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} = \Phi ( A \cup \neg A ) \supset \Phi ( A ) \cup \Phi ( \neg A ) $.
Examples {#sec:Someexamples}
--------
Given a function $ f \colon \omega \to \omega \setminus{\left \{ {0} \right \}} $ consider the sets $$\begin{aligned}
U_f & = \bigcup {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \exists {n \in \omega } \left ( s = 0^{( n )} 1^{( f ( n ) )} \right ) } \right\}}
\\
V_f & = \bigcup {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\forall {n \in \omega } \, } \left ( s \perp 0^{( n )} 1^{( f ( n ) )}\right ) } \right\}}
\\
& = \bigcup {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \exists{n} \exists{m} \left ( 0 < m < f ( n ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}s = 0^{(n)} 1^{(m)}0 \right ) } \right\}}.\end{aligned}$$ By construction $ U_f $ and $ V_f $ are disjoint open sets, and together with $ {\left \{ {0^{(\infty)}} \right \}} $ they partition $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. Also $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Cl}U_f & = U_f \cup {\left \{ { 0^{( \infty )}} \right \}}
\\
\intertext{and}
U_f & = \neg \left ( V_f \cup {\left \{ {0^{( \infty )}} \right \}} \right )
\in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} \setminus {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} .\end{aligned}$$ Every point in $ U_f $ or in $ V_f $ has density $ 1$ in the respective set, so $ 0^{( \infty )} $ is the only point where density must be established.
\[xmp:densityopen\]Dualistic sets which are open or closed but not $ \mathcal{T} $-regular.
Suppose $ {\forall^{\infty} {n} \, } f ( n ) = 1 $. Then $ V_f $ is clopen. Since $ 0^{( \infty )} $ has density $ 1 $ in $ U_f $, then $ \Phi ( U_f ) = U_f \cup {\left \{ {0^{( \infty )}} \right \}}$.
Therefore $ U= U_f $ and its complement $ F = V_f \cup {\left \{ { 0^{( \infty )}} \right \}} $ are examples of open (resp. closed) sets which are dualistic, but not $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, since $ \Phi ( U ) \supset U $ and $ \Phi ( F ) \subset F $.
\[xmp:opennotdualistic\] An open $ \mathcal{T} $-regular set which is not dualistic.
Suppose that $${\exists^{\infty} {n} \, } ( f ( n ) = 1 ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}{\exists^{\infty} {n} \, } ( f ( n ) \neq 1 ) .$$ If $ f ( n ) = 1 $ then $$\begin{split}
\mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n )}}\rfloor}} \bigr ) & = \frac{1}{2} \mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n + 1)}}\rfloor}} \bigr )
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n )}1}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\\
& > \frac{1}{2} \mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n )}1}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\\
& = \frac{1}{2},
\end{split}$$ and if $ f ( n ) > 1 $ then $$\mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n )}}\rfloor}} \bigr )
= \frac{1}{2} \mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n + 1)}}\rfloor}} \bigr )
+ \frac{1}{4} \mu \bigl ({{( U_f )}_{\lfloor {0^{( n )}11}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\leq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} .$$ Therefore the density of $ 0^{(\infty )} $, if it exists, is neither $ 0 $ nor $ 1 $. This implies that $ U_f $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, and that neither $ U_f $ nor its complement $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus U_f $ are dualistic.
Note that $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus U_f $ is not $ \mathcal{T} $-regular by .
\[xmp:closedT-regular\] Dualistic $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets which are open or closed.
Suppose $ \lim_{n \to \infty} f ( n ) = + \infty $. Fix $ k $ and choose $ N $ such that $ f ( n ) \geq k $ for all $ n \geq N $, so that $$\mu \left ( {{(U_f)}_{\lfloor {0^{(n)}}\rfloor}} \right ) \leq 2^{- k} \sum_{i= 0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^i} = 2^{-k + 1}$$ which goes to $ 0 $ as $ k \to \infty $. Therefore $ 0^{(\infty )} $ has density $ 0 $ in $ U_f $ and $$F = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus U_f = V_f \cup {\left \{ {0^{( \infty )}} \right \}}$$ is an example of a $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, nonempty closed set, hence by and $ F $ and its complement $ U_f $ are in $ \mathcal{M} $.
The Wadge hierarchy on the Cantor space {#sec:Wadgehierarchy}
=======================================
If $ X $ and $ Y $ are topological spaces and $ A \subseteq X $ and $ B \subseteq Y $ we write $$( X , A ) {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}( Y , B )$$ just in case $ A = f^{-1} ( B ) $ for some continuous $ f \colon X \to Y $. If $ X $ and $ Y $ are metric spaces and the function $ f $ is Lipschitz, that is $ d_Y ( f ( x_1 ) , f ( x_2 ) ) \leq d_X ( x_1 , x_2 )$, we write $$( X , A ) {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}( Y , B ) .$$ Whenever $ X = Y $ and the ambient space $ X $ is understood from the context, we simply write $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B $ or $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B $, and the relations $ {{\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}} $ and $ {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}$ are pre-orders on $ {\mathscr{P}}( X ) $ with remarkable properties, at least when $ X $ is Polish and zero-dimensional. W. Wadge was the first to conduct a systematic analysis in [@Wadge:1983sp] of these preorders on the Baire space $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $, whence $ {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}$ and $ {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}$ became known as [**Wadge reducibility**]{} and [**Lipschitz reducibility**]{}, respectively. Their induced equivalence relations are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B & {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A
\\
A {\equiv_{\mathrm{L}}}B & {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}B {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}A \end{aligned}$$ and their equivalence classes are called, respectively, [**Wadge degrees**]{} and [**Lipschitz degrees**]{}. The Wadge degree of $ A $ is denoted by $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $. The structure of the Wadge and Lipschitz degrees of the Borel subsets of $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $ has been completely analyzed in [@Wadge:1983sp] and there are several accounts of the basic facts about Wadge degrees in $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $, see e.g. [@Andretta:2003th; @Andretta:2006xv; @Louveau:1983dk; @Louveau:1988mi; @Van-Wesep:1978fv]. Most of the results and techniques apply to the Cantor space as well, but other parts of the theory require some reworking, so for the reader’s benefit we will briefly summarize the main facts in this area.
Let us assume from now on that, unless otherwise stated, all sets in sight are Borel subsets of the Cantor space. Thus $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B $ and $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B $ mean that $ ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} , A) {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} , B ) $ and $ ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} , A) {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} , B ) $, respectively. Since the subsets of the Cantor space are also subsets of the Baire space, we might want to study Wadge or Lipschitz reducibility within the ambient space $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $, and in this case we will write $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}^* B $ and $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}^* B $ for $ ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , A) {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , B ) $ and $ ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , A) {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{ \omega }} , B ) $.
A set $ A $ is [**self-dual**]{} if $ A{\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}\neg A$ or, equivalently, if $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}\neg A$, otherwise it is said to be [**non-self-dual**]{}. These notions are invariant under $ {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}$ so we will speak of self-dual/non-self-dual degrees. The [**Lipschitz game**]{} $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $ is the zero-sum, perfect information game of length $ \omega $ on $ {\left \{ {0 , 1} \right \}} $ $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (II) at (0,0) [anchor=base] { \( {\mathbf{II}}\)};
\node (I) at (0,1) [anchor=base] {\( {\mathbf{I}}\)};
\node (x_0) at (1,1) [anchor=base] {\( a_0 \)};
\node (x_1) at (2,0) [anchor=base] {\(b_0 \)};
\node (x_2) at (3,1) [anchor=base] {\( a_1\)} ;
\node (x_3) at (4,0) [anchor=base] {\( b_1 \)};
\node at (5.5,1) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node at (5.5,0) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node (dots) at (5.5,0) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node (A) at (x_3.south -| II.east) {}; \node (B) at (I.north -| II.south east) {}; \node (C) at ($0.5*(A) +0.5 *(B)$){}; \draw (II.south east) -- (I.north -| II.south east) (II.north west |- C.center) -- (dots.east |- C.center); \node at (C-|II.south west) [anchor=east]{\( {G_{\mathrm{L}}}(A , B ) \)};
\begin{pgfonlayer}{background}
\fill[gray!30,rounded corners]
(II.south west) rectangle (dots.east |- I.north);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ where $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins iff $$(a_n )_n \in A {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}( b_n )_n \in B .$$ Then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has a winning strategy in $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $ iff $ A{\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B $. The [**Wadge game**]{} $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( A , B ) $ is similar to $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $ but $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has the option of passing at any round, with the proviso that he must play infinitely many times. Then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has a winning strategy for $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( A , B ) $ iff $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B $.
The moves of the games $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}$ and $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}$ are in $ {\left \{ {0,1} \right \}}$ since we are dealing with subsets of the Cantor space $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. In most papers on the Wadge hierarchy the underlying space is the Baire space $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $ so the moves are in $ \omega $, and here we will denote this variant by $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}^* $ and $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}^* $: the definition is as before and for $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $ $$\begin{aligned}
( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , A ) {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , B ) &
{\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}{\mathbf{II}}\text{ has a winning strategy in } {G_{\mathrm{L}}}^* ( A , B )
\\
( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , A ) {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} , B ) &
{\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}{\mathbf{II}}\text{ has a winning strategy in } {G_{\mathrm{W}}}^* ( A , B )\end{aligned}$$
By results of Wadge and Martin, for all Borel sets $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ Wadge’s Lemma holds, that is $$\label{eq:Wadge'sLemma}
A{\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}\neg B {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}A,$$ and the relation $ {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}$ is well-founded on Borel sets. Analogous results hold for $ {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}$ as well.
The Wadge rank $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ of a Borel set $ A $ is its height in the pre-order $ {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}$ — for technical reasons we start counting from $ 1 $ rather than $ 0 $. At the bottom of the hierarchy we have two non-self-dual degrees, namely $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{\emptyset} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} = {\left \{ {\emptyset} \right \}} $ and $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} = {\left \{ { {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \right \}} $, and the self-dual degrees and non-self-dual pairs alternate, and since the Cantor space is compact, there is a non-self-dual pair at all limit levels: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[degree/.style={circle,ball color=gray!60,inner sep=6pt},]
\foreach \x in {0,2,4,10} \foreach \y in {0,2}
\node at (\x,\y) [degree] {};
\foreach \z in {1,3,5,9,11}
\node at (\z,1) [degree] {};
\node at (6.5,1) {\( \cdots \cdots \)};
\node at (12.5,1) {\( \cdots \cdots \)};
\node at (8,2) [degree] {};
\node (A) at (8,0) [degree,pin=270:{\tiny limit level}]{};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ This should be contrasted with the case of the Wadge hierarchy in the Baire space, where self-dual degrees occur at limit levels of countable cofinality while non-self-dual pairs occur at all other limit levels. Let us briefly justify the diagram above.
If $ A$ is non-self-dual then $$\label{eq:oplus}
A\oplus \neg A = 0{{}^\smallfrown}A \cup 1 {{}^\smallfrown}\neg A$$ is a self-dual set immediately above $ A $.
If $ A $ is self-dual, then $$A^\triangledown = \bigcup_{n} 0^{(n)}{{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}A
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
A^\circ = A^\triangledown \cup {\left \{ {0^{(\infty )}} \right \}}$$ are a non-self-dual pair immediately above $ A $.
The tree $ {\boldsymbol{T}}( A ) = {\left \{{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} } \right\}} $ detects the self-duality of $ A $ in the following sense. If $ s $ is a terminal node of $ {\boldsymbol{T}}( A ) $ then $${{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}} , {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1}\rfloor}} {<_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}}
\oplus {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1}\rfloor}} = {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A$$ and by Wadge’s Lemma either $ {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}} $ or $ \neg {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}}$: the former would imply $ {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1}\rfloor}} $ which is impossible, so $ \neg {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}}$ holds. Similarly $ \neg {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}0 }\rfloor}} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}{{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}}$ so $ {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}}$ (and hence $ A $) is self-dual. Therefore if $ A $ is non-self-dual then the tree $ {\boldsymbol{T}}( A ) $ is pruned. Conversely, suppose $ A $ is self-dual. By a result of Steel and Van Wesep $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}\neg A $, and since $ {{A}_{\lfloor {i}\rfloor}} {<_{\mathrm{L}}}A $ for $ i \in {\left \{ {0 , 1} \right \}} $, any branch of $ {\boldsymbol{T}}( A ) $ would yield an infinite $ {<_{\mathrm{L}}}$-descending chain: a contradiction. Therefore if $ A $ is self-dual then the tree $ {\boldsymbol{T}}( A ) $ is well-founded, hence finite by König’s lemma. This implies that at limit levels there is always a pair of non-self-dual degrees.
If $ A_n {<_{\mathrm{W}}}A_{n + 1} $ for all $ n $ then $$\label{eq:trianglecircle}
( A_n )_n^\triangledown {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\bigcup_{n} 0^{(n)}{{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}A_n
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
( A_n )_n^\circ {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}{\left \{ {0^{(\infty )}} \right \}} \cup ( A_n )_n^\triangledown$$ give the least non-self-dual pair immediately above the $ A_n $s.
Proof of Theorem \[th:dense\] {#subsec:proofofThmdense}
-----------------------------
We can now show how Theorem \[th:global\] implies that the sets $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} $ are topologically dense.
Let $ A \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} \setminus {\left \{ {\emptyset , {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \right \}}$ and let $ \boldsymbol{d} = {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $. By Theorem \[th:global\] there is a $ \mathcal{T} $-regular $ B \in {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ such that $ B = \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) $ for some open set $ U $ and closed set $ C $. Let $ D \neq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ be clopen and let $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t \cap D = \emptyset $. The function $ x \mapsto t {{}^\smallfrown}f ( x ) $ witnesses that $ A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B $, where $ f $ reduces $ A $ to $ B $. Conversely $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B , A ) $ as follows:
> $ {\mathbf{II}}$ passes until $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a position inside $ D $, or else reaches a position oustide $ D \cup {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t $, or else reaches $ t $. In the first case $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays an $ x \in B $, in the second case $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays an $ x \notin B $ in the third case $ {\mathbf{II}}$ applies the reduction witnessing $ B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A$.
Therefore $ D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B \in {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $, and moreover $ D \cup t {{}^\smallfrown}B $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular. Hence Lemma \[lem:approximation\] can be applied to the family $$\mathcal{B} =
{\left \{{X \in {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\exists {U \in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}} \, } {\exists {C \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1}} \, }
( X = \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( C ) ) } \right\}} = \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}} . \qedhere$$
Wadge’s constructions {#subsec:Wadgesconstructions}
---------------------
Wadge defined the sum of two subsets of the Baire space as $$A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B = {\left \{{s^+ {{}^\smallfrown}0 {{}^\smallfrown}a} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{ \omega}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}a\in A} \right\}} \cup B^+$$ where $ B^+ = {\left \{{b^+} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ b\in B} \right\}} $ and for $ x \in {\prescript{ \leq \omega }{}{ \omega }}$ let $ x^+ = {\left \langle x ( i ) + 1 {\boldsymbol\mid}i \in \operatorname{dom}( x ) \right \rangle}$. Since in the current set-up $ x \in {\prescript{ \leq \omega }{}{ 2 }} $, i.e., it is a sequence taking values values in $ 2 $ (rather than $ \omega $), then $ x^+ $ is replaced by $$\overline{x} \colon 2 \cdot \operatorname{dom}( x )\to 2 , \qquad {\forall {i \in \operatorname{dom}( x )} \, }
( \overline{x} ( 2i ) = \overline{x} ( 2i+ 1 ) = x ( i ) ) ,$$ the sequence obtained from $ x $ by doubling each entry. If $ T $ is a tree on $ 2 $ and $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ set $$\overline{T} = {\left \{{ \overline{t}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ t\in T} \right\}} \quad \text{and} \quad
\overline{A} = {\left \{{\overline{a}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ a\in A} \right\}} . \label{pag:double}$$ Then for $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ let $$A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B = {\left \{{ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}t {{}^\smallfrown}a} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{ 2}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}t \in {\left \{ {01 , 10} \right \}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}a \in A} \right\}} \cup \overline{B} .$$ A straightforward adaptation of Wadge’s arguments (see [@Andretta:2007ce] for proofs) yields that if $ A $ is self-dual, then $$\begin{gathered}
A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }\emptyset {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\triangledown {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }{\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\circ ,
\\
B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}C {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}A{\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }C ,
\\
A {<_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\Rightarrow}\exists C {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B \left ( A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }C {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B \right ) ,
\\
{{\left \Vert A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} + {{\left \Vert B \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}},\end{gathered}$$ and for any $ A $ (not necessarily self-dual) $$\label{eq:emptyinterior}
{{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} \geq \omega {\Rightarrow}A \setminus \operatorname{Int}A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A .$$
Starting from $ \emptyset $ and $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and using the operations $(A , B ) \mapsto A \oplus B $, $ (A , B) \mapsto A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B$ and the constructions in and it is easy to construct subsets of the Cantor space in any Wadge degree of rank $ < \omega _1 $. To reach further heights we modify again two constructions from [@Wadge:1983sp]. Let $$\begin{aligned}
A^\natural & ={\left \{{\overline{s_1} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline {s_2} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_2 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots
{{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_n} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_n {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{a}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{n \in \omega {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}s_i \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{ 2 }} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\eta_i \in {\left \{ {01, 10} \right \}}{\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}a \in A } \right\}}
\\
A^\flat & = A^\natural \cup {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\exists^{\infty} {n} \, } \left (x ( 2n )\neq x ( 2n+1) \right ) } \right\}} .\end{aligned}$$ Both $ A^\natural $ and $ A^\flat $ have a self-similarity property, in the sense that $ {{A^\natural }_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}} = A^\natural $ and $ {{A^\flat }_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}} = A^\flat $ for any $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$. The intuition behind the definition of $ A^\natural $ is that it is the union of $ \omega $-many layers — at each layer there is a copy of $ \overline{A} $ and in order to leave the $ n $-th layer and enter the $ n + 1 $-st layer we must follow a string of the form $$\overline{s_1} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline {s_2} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_2 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots
{{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_n} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_n {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_{n+1}} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_{n+1}$$ where the $ \eta_i $’s are $ 01 $ or $10 $. Wadge’s original definition was given for subsets of the Baire space $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} $ $$\begin{aligned}
A^\natural & ={\left \{{s_1 ^+ {{}^\smallfrown}0 {{}^\smallfrown}s_2^+ {{}^\smallfrown}0 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots
{{}^\smallfrown}s_n^+ {{}^\smallfrown}0 {{}^\smallfrown}x^+} {\boldsymbol\mid}{n \in \omega , s_i \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{ \omega }} , x \in A } \right\}}
\\
A^\flat & = A^\natural \cup {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{\omega}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\exists^{\infty} {n} \, } \left ( x ( n ) = 0 \right ) } \right\}},\end{aligned}$$ and in [@Wadge:1983sp] it is shown (see [@Andretta:2006xv] for detailed proofs) that whenever $ A $ is self-dual then:
$$\begin{aligned}
& A^\natural \text{ and \( A^\flat \) are non-self-dual,} \label{eq:Wadgenatural1}
\\
& A^\natural {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}\neg A^\flat , \label{eq:Wadgenatural2}
\\
& {{\left \Vert A^\natural \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = {{\left \Vert A^\flat \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}}\cdot \omega _1 . \label{eq:Wadgenatural3}\end{aligned}$$
The proofs of and generalize to the Cantor space with minor adjustments. For we must show that
\[en:WadgenatA\] for every $ 1 \leq \alpha < \omega _1 $ there is a self-dual set $ A_ \alpha $ of Wadge rank $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} \cdot \alpha $ if $ \alpha $ is a successor, or $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} \cdot \alpha + 1 $ if $ \alpha $ is limit, and such that $ A_ \alpha {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural , A^\flat $, and
\[en:WadgenatB\] if $ B {<_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural , A^\flat $ then $ B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A_ \alpha $, for some $ \alpha $.
The sets $ A_ \alpha $ are constructed by induction on $ \alpha $ by taking $ A_1 = A $, $ A_{ \alpha + 1} = A_ \alpha {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A$ and, for $ \lambda $ limit, $ A_ \lambda = (A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\triangledown
\oplus (A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\circ $, where $ (\alpha _n)_n $ is increasing and converging to $ \lambda $. To check that $ A_ \lambda {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural , A^\flat $ for $ \lambda $ limit it is enough to check that $$( A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\triangledown {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural \qquad
\text{and} \qquad (A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\circ {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural .$$ To prove the first inequality it is enough to show that $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( (A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\triangledown , A^\natural ) $ as follows:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays $ 0$ let $ {\mathbf{II}}$ enumerate $ \overline{b} $, for some $ b \notin A $. If $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays $ 1 $ at round $ n $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ 0 1 $ and then follows a reduction witnessing $ A_{ \alpha _n} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural $.
If the real $ b $ is taken to be in $ A $, the strategy above shows that $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( (A_{ \alpha _n})_n^\circ , A^\natural ) $. Therefore \[en:WadgenatA\] is proved. To prove \[en:WadgenatB\] fix a set $ B {<_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural $. By (a simple adaptation of) [@Andretta:2007ce Claim 3.9, p. 49] we may assume that $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( B , A^\natural )$ via some strategy $ \tau $ that always yields reals in $ ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} )^\natural $. Let $ \mathcal{T} $ be the tree of attempts to construct a play for $ {\mathbf{I}}$ such that $ \tau $’s reply is an element of $ {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{{\exists^{\infty} {n} \, } \left (x ( 2n )\neq x ( 2n+1) \right ) } \right\}}$. To be more precise: call $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$ a position for $ {\mathbf{I}}$ [**special**]{} if:
$ \tau $ does not pass when pitted against $ s $, that is $ \tau ( s ) \in {\left \{ {0,1} \right \}}$, and
$ {\mathbf{II}}$’s position after this inning is of even length and of the form $ u {{}^\smallfrown}( 1-i){{}^\smallfrown}i $.
Then $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{T} = {\left \{ { \emptyset} \right \}} \cup\bigl \{ {\left \langle s_0 , \dots , s_n \right \rangle} {\boldsymbol\mid}{\forall {i \leq n } \, }
( s_0 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}s_i \text{ is special} )
\\
{} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\forall t \subseteq s_0 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}s_n \left ( t \text{ special} {\Rightarrow}{\exists {i\leq n} \, }
\left (t = s_0 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}s_i \right ) \right ) \bigr \} .
\end{gathered}$$ By assumption on $ \tau $, the tree $ \mathcal{T}$ is well-founded, hence of rank $ \alpha < \omega _1$. We will show that $ B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A_{ \alpha +1} $. If $ \alpha =0$ then $ \tau $ induces a continuous function $ f \colon {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \to \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}}} $ witnessing that $ B = f^{-1} ( \overline{A} ) $. Thus $ B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A = A_1$. Suppose now $ \alpha > 0 $: as long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ never reaches a special position, then $ \tau $ reduces $ B $ to $ \overline{A} $ as before; if at some stage $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a special position $ s $ for the first time, then the rank of the node $ {\left \langle s \right \rangle}$ in $ \mathcal{T} $ will be $ \beta < \alpha $, hence by inductive assumption there is a continuous reduction of $ {{B}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} $ to $ A_{ \beta +1} {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A_ \alpha $. Therefore $ B {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A_{ \alpha } {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A = A_{ \alpha +1}$, as required. This proves \[en:WadgenatB\], hence is established.
The hierarchy of Delta03 sets in the Cantor space {#subsec:Delta03hierarchy}
-------------------------------------------------
Since every winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $ or in $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( A , B ) $ can easily be extended to a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}^* ( A , B ) $ or in $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}^* ( A , B ) $, then $$A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\Rightarrow}A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}^* B \quad\text{and}\quad A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B {\Rightarrow}A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}^* B .$$ The converse is not necessarily true: for example $ 0 {{}^\smallfrown}{}{\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}^* {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ but $ 0 {{}^\smallfrown}{}{\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} {\nleq_{\mathrm{W}}}{\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $.
Suppose $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and $ B$ has empty interior in $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. Then $$A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}^* B {\Rightarrow}A {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}B \quad\text{and}\quad A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}^* B {\Rightarrow}A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B.$$
Let $ \tau $ be a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in the game $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}^* ( A , B ) $. We will transform $ \tau $ into $ \tilde{\tau }$, still a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in the same game so that its restriction to $ {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}}$ is a winning strategy in $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $. (The result for Wadge reductions is proved similarly.) Suppose that at some round of $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $ $ {\mathbf{I}}$ has reached a position $ p $ and that $ {\mathbf{II}}$, following $ \tau $, has reached a position $ q $. Call such a $ p $ [**critical**]{} iff its length is $ n + 1 $ and
- $ p \in {\prescript{ n+1}{}{2}}$,
- $ \forall k < n \left ( q ( k ) \in {\left \{ {0,1} \right \}} \right ) $, and
- $ q ( n ) \in \omega \setminus {\left \{ {0,1} \right \}}$.
(Note that $ {{A}_{\lfloor {p}\rfloor}} {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}^* {{B}_{\lfloor {q}\rfloor}} = \emptyset $ hence $ {{A}_{\lfloor {p}\rfloor}} = \emptyset $.) As $ {{B}_{\lfloor {q \restriction n}\rfloor}} \neq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}}$ by our assumption on $ B $, fix $ b_p \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus B $ such that $ b_p \supseteq q \restriction n $. We are now ready to define $ \tilde{ \tau} $:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ does not reach a critical position, the $ \tilde{ \tau }$ is just $ \tau $. As soon as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a critical position $ p $, then from this point on $ \tilde{ \tau } $ follows $ b_p $.
We leave it to the reader to check that $ \tilde{ \tau } $ is a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in the game $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}^* ( A , B ) $ such that its restriction to $ {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}}$ is a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ in $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A , B ) $.
By we obtain
\[cor:equivalenceofWadgereducibility\] If $ A , B \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and $ {{\left \Vert B \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} \geq \omega $, then $$A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}^* B {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}A {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}B.$$ In particular the map $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}}\mapsto {{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}}^* $ is well defined and injective, as long as $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}}\geq \omega $.
Wadge showed [@Wadge:1983sp] that the length of the Wadge hierarchy of $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} $ and $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ subsets of the Baire space is, respectively, $ \omega _1 $ and $ \omega _1^{ \omega _1} $, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sup {\left \{{{{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{A \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} } \right\}} & \leq \omega _1
\\
\sup {\left \{{{{\left \Vert B \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{B \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} } \right\}} & \leq \omega _1^{\omega_1} .\end{aligned}$$
\[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire\] Let $ \mathcal{A} \subseteq {\mathscr{P}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ) $ be the smallest family containing $ \emptyset $ and ${\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and closed under the operations
1. \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-1\] $ A \mapsto \neg A$,
2. $ ( A , B ) \mapsto A{\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B $,
3. $ ( A , B ) \mapsto A \oplus B $,
4. $ (A_n )_n \mapsto (A_n )_n^\triangledown$, and
5. \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-5\] $ (A_n )_n \mapsto (A_n )_n^\circ$,
and let $ \mathcal{B} \subseteq {\mathscr{P}}( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} )$ be the smallest family containing $ \emptyset $ and ${\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and closed under the operations \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-1\]–\[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-5\] above and also closed under
1. \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-6\] $ A \mapsto A^\natural $,
2. \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-7\] $ A \mapsto A^\flat$.
Then $ \mathcal{A} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$ and $ \mathcal{B} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ and $ \mathcal{A} $ intersects every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$ and $ \mathcal{B} $ intersects every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
& \forall X \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \left ( X \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}
{\Rightarrow}\exists A\in \mathcal{A} \left ( A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}X \right ) \right )
\\
&\forall X \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \left ( X \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}
{\Rightarrow}\exists B\in \mathcal{B} \left ( B {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}X \right ) \right ) .\end{aligned}$$
It is immediate to check that both $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$ and $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ are closed under \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-1\]–\[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-5\] and that $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ is closed under \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-6\] and \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-7\]. It is enough to prove by induction on $ \alpha $ that
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\left \Vert X \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = \alpha < \omega _1 & {\Rightarrow}\exists A \in \mathcal{A} \left (A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}X \right ) \label{eq:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire1}
\\
{{\left \Vert X \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = \alpha < \omega _1^{\omega_1} & {\Rightarrow}\exists B \in \mathcal{B} \left ( B {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}X \right ) .
\label{eq:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire2}\end{aligned}$$
So fix $ {{\left \Vert X \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = \alpha < \omega _1^{ \omega _1}$.
If $ \alpha = 1$ then $ X = \emptyset$ or $ X = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $, so $ X $ belongs to both $ \mathcal{A} $ and $ \mathcal{B} $.
If $ \alpha = \beta + 1$, then there is a set $ Y $ of rank $ \beta $ which is in $ \mathcal{A} $ if $ \alpha < \omega _1$ or in $ \mathcal{B}$ otherwise. If $ X $ is self-dual, then $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}Y \oplus \neg Y $, and if $ X $ is non-self-dual, then either $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}Y^\triangledown $ or else $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}Y^\circ $, so the theorem is proved when $ \alpha $ is a successor.
Suppose now $ \alpha $ is limit.
If $ \operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) = \omega $ choose an increasing sequence $ \alpha _n \to \alpha $ and sets $ Y_n $ such that $ {{\left \Vert Y_n \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}}= \alpha _n $: then either $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}(Y_n)_n^\triangledown$ or else $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}(Y_n)_n^\circ $. Since $ \operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) = \omega $ when $ \alpha < \omega _1$, then is proved.
Suppose now $ \operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) = \omega _1$.
If $ \alpha = \beta _1 + \beta _2 $ with $ \beta _1 , \beta _2 < \alpha $, then — by replacing $ \beta _1 $ with its successor if needed — we may assume that any set of Wadge rank $ \beta _1$ is self-dual. By inductive assumption there are $ B_1 , B_2 \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $ {{\left \Vert B_i \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = \beta _i$ and $ B_1 {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B_2 {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}X $. Since $ \mathcal{B}$ is closed under addition of sets we are done.
Therefore we may assume that $ \alpha $ is additively indecomposable, hence $ \alpha = \omega _1^ \xi \cdot \nu $ with $ 1 \leq \nu < \omega _1$. As $ \operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) > \omega $, then $ \nu $ cannot be a limit or a successor ordinal $ > 1 $, hence $ \nu =1 $, so $ \alpha = \omega _1 ^ \xi $. Again by $ \operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) > \omega $ it follows that $ \xi $ cannot be limit, so $ \alpha = \omega _1^ { \gamma}\cdot \omega _1 $. If $ \gamma = 0 $ then $ \alpha = \omega _1$ and therefore either $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}D^ \natural$ or else $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}D^\flat $ with $ D $ self-dual, hence holds. Thus we may assume that $ \gamma > 0 $. By inductive hypothesis there is a set $ B \in \mathcal{B}$ of Wadge rank $ \omega _1^ { \gamma} + 1$, and since $ \omega _1^ { \gamma} $ is limit then $ B $ is self-dual. As $ \alpha = ( \omega_1^ \gamma + 1 ) \cdot \omega _1 $ hence by it follows that either $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B^\natural $ or else $ X {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B^\flat $, and since $ \mathcal{B}$ is closed under operations \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-6\] and \[th:WadgehierarchyinCantorandBaire-7\], then holds for $ \alpha $.
This completes the induction and the theorem is proved.
\[cor:lengthofWadge\] The length of the Wadge hierarchy on $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ restricted to $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$ is $ \omega _1$, and restricted to $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ is $ \omega _1^{ \omega _1} $.
A well-quasi-order on [$ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$]{} {#subsec:wqoonMALG}
-----------------------------------------------------
The Wadge hierarchy induces a well-quasi-order $ \preceq$ on $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ $${{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \preceq {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}{\exists { f } \, } {\forall {x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \, }
\bigl ( x\in \hat{ \Phi } ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}f ( x ) \in \hat{ \Phi } ( {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) \bigr )$$ which is $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$. Similarly, for any Borel set $ C $ the sets $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\leq C} = & {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{{\exists { f } \, } {\forall {x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \, }
\bigl ( x\in \hat{ \Phi } ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}f ( x ) \in C \bigr )} \right\}}
\\
P_{C \leq } = & {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{{\exists { f } \, } {\forall {x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } \, }
\bigl ( x\in C {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}f ( x ) \in \hat{ \Phi } ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) \bigr )} \right\}}\end{aligned}$$ are $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$. Therefore if $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ is a Wadge degree then $$\begin{split}
\mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} & = {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \Phi ( A ) \in \boldsymbol{ d} } \right\}}
\\
& = P_{\leq A_0} \cap P_{A_0 \leq}
\end{split}$$ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$, where $ A_0 $ is a Borel set such that $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{A_0} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} \in \boldsymbol{d}$.
We will now observe that the $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}}$ are $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{1}_{2}$. Since $ {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \Phi ( A ) \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} } \right\}} = P_{ \leq C} $ with $ C $ a complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{3}$ set, if $ \boldsymbol{d} = {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} \setminus {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ then $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{1}_{2}$ hence $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{1}_{2} $. If $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3} $ we take cases, accordingly to whether it is self-dual or non-self-dual. If $ \boldsymbol{d} $ is self-dual, choose $ B_1 , B_2 , B_3 , B_4$ such that $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{B_1} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} , {{{\boldsymbol [}{B_2} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ are the immediate predecessors of $ \boldsymbol{d} $ and $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{B_3} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} , {{{\boldsymbol [}{B_4} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ are the immediate successors of $ \boldsymbol{d} $: then $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\setminus \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}} = P_{\leq B_1} \cup P_{\leq B_2}
\cup P_{\geq B_3} \cup P_{\geq B_4} $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$. If $ \boldsymbol{d} $ is self-dual, choose $ B $ such that $ {{{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}}_{\mathrm{W}}} = \breve{\boldsymbol{d}} $: then $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}\setminus \mathscr{W}_{\boldsymbol{d}} = P_{\leq B} \cup P_{\geq B} $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{1}_{2}$.
Theorems \[th:Pi03complete\] and \[th:belowDelta03\] will guarantee that every $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}} $ is nonempty, hence the well-quasi-order $ \preceq$ has length $ \omega_1^{\omega_1} + 1 $.
Climbing the Delta02-hierarchy {#sec:climbing}
==============================
In this and the next section, the constructions of Section \[subsec:Wadgesconstructions\] will be modified so that they take $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets into $ \mathcal{T} $-regular sets.
If $ A $ and $ B $ are $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, so is $ A \oplus B $. But even if every $ A_n $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, there is no guarantee that $ (A_n )_n^\triangledown $ and $ ( A_n )_n^\circ $ will be $ \mathcal{T} $-regular. Our first goal is to fix this problem.
The sets $ U_f $ of the examples of Section \[sec:Someexamples\] are obtained by appending $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ to the terminal nodes of the tree $${\left \{{s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \exists{n} \left ( s \subseteq 0^{( n)} 1^{( f ( n ) )} \right ) } \right\}} ,$$ which is shaped like a rake (Figure \[fig:rake\]).
(0,0)–(-5, -5); (-5, -5) – (-6,-6) node \[below\] [$ 0^{( \infty )} $]{}; (0,0)–++(2,-2) circle (2pt) node \[right\][$ 1^{( f ( 0 ) )}$]{} (-1,-1)– ++(1,-1) circle (2pt) node \[right\][$0 1^{( f ( 1 ) )}$]{} (-2,-2)– ++(3,-3) circle (2pt) node \[right\][$0^{( 2 )} 1^{( f ( 2 ) )}$]{} (-3,-3)– ++(1,-1) circle (2pt) node \[right\][$0^{(3)} 1^{( f ( 3 ) )}$]{} (-4,-4)– ++(2,-2) circle (2pt) node \[right\][$0^{(4)} 1^{( f ( 4 ) )}$]{};
This construction can be generalized by appending different sets at the terminal nodes: for any $ f \colon \omega \to \omega \setminus {\left \{ {0} \right \}} $ and any sequence of sets $ A_n $ ($n \in \omega $), let $$\operatorname{Rake}( f ; ( A_n )_n ) = \bigcup_{n} 0^{(n)} 1^{(f ( n ))} {{}^\smallfrown}A_n .$$ When $ A_n = A $ for all $ n $, we write $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; A ) $. Note that the sets $ U_f $ of Section \[sec:Someexamples\] are exactly the sets $\operatorname{Rake}( f ; {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} ) $.
There are times when we need rakes with a pole and densely packed tines. In our case we need the tree whose terminal nodes are the sequences $ 0^{(n)} 1 {{}^\smallfrown}s $ of length $n + f ( n ) $ — in Figure \[fig:rake+\] the nodes different from the ones of the form $ 0^{( n)} 1^{( f ( n ) )} $ are drawn in a paler shade of gray.
(0,0)–(-5, -5); (-5, -5) – (-6,-6) ;(0,0)–++(2,-2) circle (2pt) (-1,-1)– ++(0.7,-1) circle (2pt) (-2,-2)– ++(3,-3) circle (2pt) (-3,-3)– ++(0.7,-1) circle (2pt) (-4,-4)– ++(2,-2) circle (2pt) ;(1,-1)–+(-0.7,-1) circle (2pt) (-1,-3)–+(-0.7,-1) (0,-4)–+(-0.7,-1) circle (2pt) (-3,-5)–+(-0.7,-1) circle (2pt); (-1.7, -4)–+(-0.5 ,-1) circle (2pt); (-1.7, -4)–+(0.5 ,-1) circle (2pt);
Let $ {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; ( A_n )_n )$ be the set obtained by appending a copy of $ A_n $ to the $ n $th terminal node circle (2pt);, and by taking the basic open sets in all other terminal nodes circle (2pt);, together with the zero-sequence, that is $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; ( A_n )_n ) = {\left \{ {0^{( \infty )}} \right \}} \cup \operatorname{Rake}( f ; ( A_n )_n ) \cup {}
\\
\bigcup {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \exists n
\left (\operatorname{lh}( t ) = n + f ( n ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}t \neq 0^{(n)}1^{(f ( n ))} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}t \supseteq 0^{(n)} 1 \right )} \right\}}.\end{gathered}$$ Note that the $ \operatorname{Rake}$ and $ {\operatorname{Rake}^+}$ constructions commute with the $ \Phi $ operation, in the sense that if $ \lim_n f ( n ) = + \infty $, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi \left ( \operatorname{Rake}( f , (A_n)_n ) \right ) & = \operatorname{Rake}( f , ( \Phi (A_n) )_n )
\\
\Phi \left ( {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f , (A_n)_n ) \right ) & = {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f , ( \Phi (A_n) )_n ) .\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:Rake\] Let $ f \colon \omega \to \omega \setminus {\left \{ {0} \right \}} $ and $ A_n \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. Then $$( A_n )_n^\triangledown {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}\operatorname{Rake}( f ; ( A_n )_n ) .$$ Suppose moreover that $ \lim_n f ( n ) = \infty $. Then:
- if $ A_n \in \mathcal{M} $ for every $ n $, then $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \mathcal{M} $,
- if $ A_n \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ for every $ n $, then $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $,
- if $ A_n \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $ for every $ n $, then $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $.
$ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}(( A_n)_n^\triangledown , \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) ) $ as follows:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays $ 0 $’s then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves. If $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a position $ 0^{(n )} 1 $ then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ 1 $ from now on until position $ 0^{( n)} 1^{(f ( n ) )} $ is reached: at this point $ {\mathbf{II}}$ will copy the moves $ {\mathbf{I}}$ played after position $ 0^{(n)} 1$.
Conversely $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) , ( A_n)_n^\triangledown ) $ as follows:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays $ 0 $’s then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves. If after $ 0^{(n )} $ $ {\mathbf{I}}$ starts playing $ 1 $s, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ passes until $ {\mathbf{I}}$ has reached position $ 0^{(n)} 1^{( f ( n ) )} $: at that point $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ 1 $ and from now on copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves.
>
> If instead ${\mathbf{I}}$ does not reach $ 0^{(n)} 1^{( f ( n ) )} $, i.e., $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ 0 $ after $ 0^{(n)} 1^{(m)} $ with $ m < f ( n ) $ so that his play will not be in $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) $, then $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays $ 0 $’s from now on so that the resulting play will be $ 0^{( \omega )} \notin ( A_n)_n^\triangledown$.
Suppose now that $ f ( n ) \to \infty $. If $ A_n = \Phi ( C_n ) $ with $ C_n $ closed for all $ n $, then $$\operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) = \Phi \bigl ( {\left \{ {0^{(\infty )}} \right \}}
\cup \operatorname{Rake}( f ; ( C_n)_n ) \bigr ) .$$ Similarly if $ A_n = \Phi (U_n ) $ with $ U_n $ open, then $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) = \Phi ( \operatorname{Rake}( f ; ( U_n)_n ) ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1})$. Finally, if $ A_n \in \mathcal{M} $ for all $ n $, then $ \operatorname{Rake}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \mathcal{M} $.
Arguing as in Proposition \[prop:Rake\] we obtain:
\[prop:Rakep\] Let $ f \colon \omega \to \omega \setminus {\left \{ {0} \right \}} $ and $ A_n \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. Then $$( A_n )_n^\circ {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}{\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; ( A_n )_n ) .$$ Suppose moreover that $ \lim_n f ( n ) = \infty $. Then:
- if $ A_n \in \mathcal{M} $ for every $ n $, then $ {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \mathcal{M} $,
- if $ A_n \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ for every $ n $, then $ {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $,
- if $ A_n \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $ for every $ n $, then $ {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f ; (A_n)_n ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi\restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[th:belowDelta03\] for Wadge degrees contained in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$.
\[th:T-regularDelta02\] The class $$\mathcal{N} {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\mathcal{M} \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap
\operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} )$$ intersects every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$, that is $ {\forall {A \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}} \, } {\exists {B \in \mathcal{N} } \, } \bigl ( A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B \bigr ) $.
The result is proved by induction on $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} < \omega _1 $, using the fact that $ A \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}{{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} < \omega _1 $ (Corollary \[cor:lengthofWadge\]). The case $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} = 1 $ is trivial, since it implies that $ A = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ or $ A = \emptyset $ hence $ A $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular and $ A \in\mathcal{N}$, so we may assume that $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} > 1 $. If either $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ is limit, or $ A $ is non-self-dual and $ {{\left \Vert A \right \Vert}_{\mathrm{W}}} $ is a successor ordinal, then apply the inductive assumption to Propositions \[prop:Rake\] and \[prop:Rakep\] so that $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B $ where either $ B = \operatorname{Rake}( f , ( A_n )_n ) \in \mathcal{N}$ or $ B = {\operatorname{Rake}^+}( f , ( A_n )_n ) \in \mathcal{N}$. If $ A $ is self-dual then $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}C \oplus \neg C $, hence by inductive assumption there are $ B_1 , B_2 \in \mathcal{N} $ such that $ C {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B_1 $ and $ \neg C {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B_2 $. Then $ B_1 \oplus B_2 \in \mathcal{N}$ and $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B_1 \oplus B_2 $.
As every Wadge degree in $ {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} $ is obtained via these operations, the result is proved.
Using the results proved so far, together with Example \[xmp:opennotdualistic\] for the last inclusion we obtain
\[cor:ManicheanDelta02\] If $ \mathcal{T} $ is the density topology, then $${\left \{{A} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ A\text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-clopen}} \right\}} = \operatorname{ran}( \Phi ) \cap \mathcal{M}
= \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction \mathcal{M} ) \subset {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}\cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi) .$$
Wadge-style constructions {#sec:Wadge-styleconstructions}
=========================
The next goal is to define operations on subsets of the Cantor space that are the analogues of $ \overline{A}$, $ A {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }B $, $ A^\flat $, and $ A^\natural$, and that preserve $ \mathcal{T}$-regularity. In order to avoid repetitions, let’s agree that in this section, unless otherwise stated, $ A $ and $ B $ vary over measurable subsets of $ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ and $ 0 < \mu ( A ) , \mu (B) < 1 $.
Since $ \overline{A} $ is always null, we must add some extra open sets on the side. To this end we define canonical clopen sets.
\[def:O(r)\]For $ r \in [ 0 ; 1 ) $ let $$k = k( r ) = \text{the least \( h > 0 \) such that } r \leq 1 - 2^{- h} ,$$ and let $${\boldsymbol u}( r ) = 0^{( k - 1 )} 1 ,$$ and let $$O ( r ) = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{ {\boldsymbol u}( r )} =
{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{0^{(k)}}\cup \bigcup_{m + 1< k} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{0^{(m)} 1} .$$
Figure \[fig:u(r)\] may help the reader to visualize the node $ {\boldsymbol u}( r ) $ and the set $ O ( r ) $ as the union of $ k$ basic open sets.
\[rmk:O(r)\] The definition of $ {\boldsymbol u}(r) $ (and hence of $ O ( r ) $) seems unduly strange, but it has the merit that given any $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus {\left \{ {0^{( \infty )}} \right \}} $ there is a unique $ u \subset x $ that is of the form $ {\boldsymbol u}( r ) $, a crucial fact for proving .
It is easy to check that $$ r \leq \mu \left (O ( r ) \right ) = 1 - 2^{ k ( r ) } < 1 ,$$ and that for any measurable set $ B $ $$\label{eq:O(r)increasing}
r < r' {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\mu \left ( O ( r ) \cup {\boldsymbol u}( r ) {{}^\smallfrown}B \right ) \leq
\mu \left ( O ( r' ) \cup {\boldsymbol u}( r' ) {{}^\smallfrown}B \right ) .$$
\(1) at (1 , -1) \[label=90:$ 1 $\]; (01) at (0 , -2) \[label=90:$ 01 $\]; (001) at (-1 , -3) \[label=90:$ 001 $\]; (00000) at (-5 , -5) \[label=90:$ 0^{(k)}$\]; (1 , -1)–(0.5 , -2)–(1.5 , -2)–cycle; (0 , -2) –(-0.5 , -3)–(0.5 , -3)–cycle; (-1 , -3) –(-1.5 , -4)–(-0.5 , -4)–cycle; (-5 , -5) –(-5.5 , -6)–(-4.5 , -6)–cycle; (-4, -4) – (-3 , -5) circle (2pt) node \[right\] [$ {\boldsymbol u}( r ) $]{}; (0,0)–(-2.5,-2.5) (-3.5,-3.5) – (-5 , -5) (0,0)–(1, -1)–(0.5 , -2) (1, -1)–(1.5 , -2) (-1,-1) –(0 , -2) –(-0.5 , -3) (0 , -2) –(0.5 , -3) (-2,-2)– (-1 , -3)–(-1.5 , -4) (-1 , -3)–(-0.5 , -4) (-5 , -5) –(-5.5 , -6) (-5 , -5)–(-4.5 , -6); (-2.5, -2.5) – (-3.5,-3.5);
We are now ready to define the analogue of $ \overline{A} $.
The analogue of A-
------------------
Fix once and for all $$( r_n )_n \text{ a strictly increasing sequence of reals in \( ( 0 ; 1 ) \) such that } \lim_n r_n = 1 .$$
\[def:Plus\] For $ r \in [ 0 ; 1) $ $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Plus}(A , ( r_n )_n , r )
\\
{} = \overline{A} \cup
\bigcup {\left \{{\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}O ( \max {\left \{ { r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s ) } \cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}}) } \right \}} )} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\eta \in {\left \{ {01,10} \right \}} } \right\}} .\end{gathered}$$ When there is no danger of confusion we will simply write $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) $ and if $ r = 0 $ we write $ \operatorname{Plus}(A ) $.
The naive approach would suggest to define $ \operatorname{Plus}( A ) $ as the union of $ \overline{A} $ and the sets of the form $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}O ( \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) ) $. The problem is that if $ A $ has full measure when localized at $ s $, then $ O ( \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) ) $ should be an open set of measure $ 1 $, and there would be no room left to move out of $ \operatorname{Plus}( A ) $. Thus the values $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) $ are reduced by the factor $ r_{\operatorname{lh}( s ) } $. The parameter $ r $ is needed for Definition \[def:FLAT(A)\], but for the time being the reader can safely ignore it and always think of $ r = 0 $.
Note that $$\label{eq:FrPlus}
\operatorname{Fr}( \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) ) \subseteq \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } ,$$ hence $ \operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) $ is null. The set of exit nodes for $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) $ is the set $$\mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , ( r_n )_n , r ) = \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r )$$ of all nodes of the form $$\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} )$$ and let $${\boldsymbol m}( s , r ) = {\boldsymbol m}( s ) = \operatorname{lh}( {\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} ) )$$ so that by construction $$\mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} ) )
= 1 - 2^{- {\boldsymbol m}( s )} .$$ Note that $ z \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ is not in $ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) $ if and only if either
- $ z = \overline{x} $ and $ x \notin A$, or else
- $ z \supset e $ for some unique $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r ) $, that is: $ z $ *exits* from $ \overline{A} $ through $ e $, hence the reason for the name *exit nodes*.
The analogue of A+B {#subsec:A+B}
-------------------
\[def:Sum\] For $ r \in [ 0 ; 1 ) $ let $$\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , (r_n )_n , r ) = \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) \cup \bigcup_{e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r )} e {{}^\smallfrown}B .$$
Note that for all $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} $ $${{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , ( r_n)_n , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{s}}\rfloor}} = \operatorname{Plus}({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}}, (r_n)_{n \geq \operatorname{lh}( s )} , r )$$ and $$\begin{split}
{{\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , (r_n)_n , r )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}} & = {{\operatorname{Plus}( A , (r_n )_n , r )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}}
\cup \bigcup {\left \{{e {{}^\smallfrown}B} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r )} \right\}}
\\
& = \operatorname{Sum}( B , {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} , (r_n)_{n \geq \operatorname{lh}( s )} , r ).
\end{split}$$ Therefore for any $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} $ and any $ i \in 2 $, $$\label{eq:measurelocalizationSum}
\mu ( {{ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) }_{\lfloor {\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) }\rfloor}} )
= \mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ { r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )}
\cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} ) )
+ \frac{\mu ( B )}{ 2^{{\boldsymbol m}( s )}}
\leq 1 .$$ As $ \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } $ is null, then and imply that $$\label{eq:mu(Plus)}
\begin{split}
\hskip -0.7cm \mu \left ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) \right ) &
= \smash{\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } }
2^{-2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 2} \Bigl [ \mu ({{\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}01}\rfloor}} )
\\
&\hphantom{{} = \smash{\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } }
2^{-2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 2} \Bigl [} {} + \mu ({{ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) }_{\lfloor {\overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}10}\rfloor}} ) \Bigr ] \\
& \leq \frac{1}{2} \Bigl [ \mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ { r , r_0
\cdot \mu ( A) } \right \}} ) ) + \frac{ \mu (B)}{2^{{\boldsymbol m}(\emptyset ) }} \Bigr ]
\\
& \qquad\qquad \qquad{}+ \sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}}\setminus {\left \{ { \emptyset} \right \}} }
2^{- 2 \operatorname{lh}( s) -1}
\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ { r , r_0
\cdot \mu ( A) } \right \}} ) ) + \frac{ \mu (B)}{2^{{\boldsymbol m}(\emptyset ) + 1 }} + \frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}$$ Note that if $ \mu ( B ) < 1 $ then the inequality in and hence the one in are strict. Since $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) = \operatorname{Sum}( \emptyset , A , r ) $ we obtain an upper bound for the measure of $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) $: if $ m $ is least such that $ r , r_0 \cdot \mu ( A ) \leq 1-2^{- m} $ so that $ \mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ { r , r_0 \cdot \mu ( A ) } \right \}} ) ) = 1 - 2^{-m} $, then $$\label{eq:upperbound}
\mu \left ( \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) \right ) < 1 - 2^{ - m - 1} .$$ Since $ \max{\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )} \right \}} \geq r , r_0 \cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) $, we obtain two lower bounds for the measure of $ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) $. The first one, which is only of interest when $ r > 0 $, is $$\mu \left ( \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) \right ) \geq r \cdot\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } 2^{- 2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 1}
= r ,$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:estimate1}
\mu \bigl ({{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}} \bigr ) \geq r$$ for any $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} $. For the second one, by we have $$\label{eq:estimate2}
\mu \left ( \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) \right ) \geq \sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} }
\frac{ r_0 \cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) }{2^{ 2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) + 1}} = r_0 \cdot \mu \left ( A \right ) .$$
Then and imply that $$\label{eq:SpAT-regular}
r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )}\cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \leq
\mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{s}}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\leq 1 - 2^{ - m - 1} ,$$ where $ m $ is least such that $ r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \leq 1-2^{-m} $. Therefore for $ i \in 2 $ $$\begin{split}\label{eq:SpAT-regular2}
\mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{s}{{}^\smallfrown}i}\rfloor}} \bigr ) &
= \frac{1}{2} \cdot \mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{s}{{}^\smallfrown}ii}\rfloor}} \bigr )
+ \frac{1}{2} \cdot \mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{s}{{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i)}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\\
& \geq \frac{ r_{\operatorname{lh}( s ) + 1}\cdot \mu \bigl ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s{{}^\smallfrown}i}\rfloor}} \bigr ) +
\max {\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )} \right \}} }{2} .
\end{split}$$
\[prop:A\^+equivalentPlus(A)\] If $ r \in [ 0 ; 1) $ then $$\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A .$$
Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( B {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A , \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) $ via the following strategy:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s positions are of the form $ \overline{s}$ or $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i) $ with $ i \in 2 $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves. If ever $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a position of the form $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i ) $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ {\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ {r , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} ) $ reaching the exit node extending his current position, and then copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves.
Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has a winning strategy in the game $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) , B {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A )$:
> As long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s positions are of the form $ \overline{s}$ or $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i) $ with $ i \in 2 $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves. If ever $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches a position of the form $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i) $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ passes until $ {\mathbf{I}}$ commits himself by either reaching the exit node extending his current position, or else reaches a position incompatible with such exit node: then in the first case $ {\mathbf{II}}$ copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves, and in the second case $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays a sequence in $ B $.
Therefore $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }A $.
By a similar argument one could show that $ \overline{A} {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}\operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) $ if the set $ A $ is dense, but we have no use for this fact.
If $ x \in \Phi ( A ) $ then $ r_n \cdot \mu \bigl ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n}\rfloor}} \bigr ) \to 1$, so $ \mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{x}\restriction 2n}\rfloor}} \bigr ) \to 1 $ by , and since by $$\mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor {\bar{x}\restriction 2n + 1}\rfloor}} \bigr ) \geq
\frac{ r_{n + 1}\cdot \mu \bigl ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n + 1}\rfloor}} \bigr ) +
\max {\left \{ {r , r_n \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n }\rfloor}} )} \right \}} }{2} \to 1 ,$$ then $ \bar{x} \in \Phi \bigl ( \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) \bigr ) $. Conversely, if $ x \notin \Phi ( A ) $ pick an increasing sequence $ n_k $ such that $ \sup_k \mu \left ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n_k}\rfloor}} \right ) < 1$, hence there is an $ m $ such that for all $ k $ $$r , r_{n_k} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n_k }\rfloor}} ) < 1-2^{-m}$$ thus by $$\mu \bigl ( {{\operatorname{Plus}(A , r )}_{\lfloor { \overline{x \restriction n_k} }\rfloor}} \bigr ) \leq 1 - 2^{-m - 1}$$ and therefore $ \bar{x} \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) ) $. Therefore we have shown that $$x \in \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\overline{x} \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) ) .$$ If $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}}\setminus \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } $ it is easy to check that $ x \in \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}x \in \Phi \left ( \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) \right ) $, so that $$\label{eq:T-regular=>T-regular}
A \text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-regular} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\operatorname{Plus}(A , r ) \text{ is \( \mathcal{T} \)-regular.}$$
\[prop:Sumisregular\] If $ A $ and $ B $ are $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, then so is $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) $.
Moreover if $ A, B \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $, then $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r )\in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $.
Let $ x \in \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) $. If $ x \in \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) $, then $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) )$ by hence $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) )$ by monotonicity of $ \Phi $. If instead $ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}b $ with $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r ) $ and $ b \in B $, then $ x\in \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) $ as $ b \in \Phi ( B ) $. Therefore $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) \subseteq \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) )$.
Conversely, suppose $ x \notin \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) $, which means that either
\[prop:Sumisregular-a\] $ x = \overline{y}$ with $ y\notin A $, or else
\[prop:Sumisregular-b\] $ x = e{{}^\smallfrown}y$ with $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} ( A , r )$ and $ y \notin B $.
If \[prop:Sumisregular-a\] holds pick an increasing sequence $ ( n_k )_k $ such that $ \sup_k \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction n_k }\rfloor}} ) < 1 $, and let $$\tilde{r} = \max {\left \{ { r , \textstyle\sup_k r_{n_k} \cdot\mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction n_k }\rfloor}} ) } \right \}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad \tilde{u} = {\boldsymbol u}( \tilde{r} ) .$$ We must show that there is a fixed $ m > 0 $ such that for all $ k $ $$\begin{split}
\mu ( {{\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , ( r_n )_n , r )}_{\lfloor {x \restriction 2 n_k }\rfloor}} ) & =
\mu (\operatorname{Sum}( B , {{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction n_k}\rfloor}} , ( r_n )_{n \geq n_k} , r ) )
\\
& < 1 - 2^{-m - 1}
\end{split}$$ hence $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) $. Choose $ m $ such that $$\mu ( O ( \tilde{r} ) ) + 2^{-\operatorname{lh}( \tilde{u} )}\cdot \mu ( B ) < 1 - 2^{-m} .$$ To simplify the notation let $$S_k = \operatorname{Sum}( B , {{A}_{\lfloor {y\restriction n_k}\rfloor}} , (r_n)_{n \geq n_k} , r )
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\rho_k = r_{n_k} \cdot\mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction n_k }\rfloor}} ) .$$ Arguing as in and and using $$\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft
\mu \bigl(\operatorname{Sum}(B , {{A}_{\lfloor {y\restriction n_k}\rfloor}} , (r_n)_{n \geq n_k} , r ) \bigr )
\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \Bigl [ \mu ( O ( \max {\left \{ { r , \rho _k } \right \}} ) )
+ \frac{ \mu ( B ) }{2^{ \operatorname{lh}{\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ { r , \rho_k } \right \}} ) }} \Bigr ]
+\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} \setminus{\left \{ {\emptyset} \right \}} }
2 \cdot \mu \bigl (\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}01 {{}^\smallfrown}{{(S_k)}_{\lfloor {\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}01 }\rfloor}} \bigr )
\\
& \leq \frac{1}{2} \Bigl [ \mu ( O ( \tilde{r} ) ) + \frac{ \mu ( B ) }{2^{ \operatorname{lh}{\boldsymbol u}( \tilde{r} ) }} \Bigr ]
+ {\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} \setminus{\left \{ {\emptyset} \right \}} } }
2 \cdot \mu \bigl (\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}01 {{}^\smallfrown}{{(S_k)}_{\lfloor {\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}01 }\rfloor}} \bigr )
\\
& < \frac{1}{2} ( 1 - 2^{-m} ) + \smash{\sum_{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} \setminus{\left \{ {\emptyset} \right \}} }
2^{-2 \operatorname{lh}( s )- 1}}
\\
& = 1 - 2^{-m - 1 }\end{aligned}$$ which is what we had to prove.
If instead \[prop:Sumisregular-b\] holds then $ {{\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) }_{\lfloor {x \restriction\operatorname{lh}( e ) + n }\rfloor}} = {{B}_{\lfloor {y \restriction n}\rfloor}}$ for all $ n $, hence $ y \notin B = \Phi (B ) $ and therefore $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) $.
Thus either way $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) $, and this completes the proof that $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) $ is $ \mathcal{T}$-regular.
Suppose now $ A , B \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap
\operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ towards proving that $$\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap
\operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) .$$ By and regularity of $ \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) $, it is enough to show that $ \mu (\operatorname{Fr}B ) = 0 $ implies that $ \mu ( \operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) = 0 $. Since $$\operatorname{Fr}( \operatorname{Sum}( B , A , r ) ) \setminus \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} }
= \textstyle\bigcup_{e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Plus}} (A , r)} e {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Fr}B$$ is a countable union of null sets and $ \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}}} $ is null, the result follows.
Since $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) = \operatorname{Sum}( \emptyset , A , r ) $, we obtain at once
\[cor:Plusregular\] If $ A $ is $ \mathcal{T}$-regular, then so is $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r )$. Moreover if $ A \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ then $ \operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $.
The analogues of A-natural and A-flat.
--------------------------------------
All the constructions seen so far, as well as the ones in this section, are based on the idea of attaching a set to a node of a tree — but sometimes the set needs to be padded before attaching it.
For $ n > 0 $, the [**$ n $-th padding**]{} of a set $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ is $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{P}_n ( A ) & = \left (1^{ ( n ) } {{}^\smallfrown}A \right ) \cup \bigcup {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ s\in {\prescript{ n}{}{2}}\wedge s \neq 0^{ ( n ) } , 1^{ ( n ) }} \right\}}
\\
& = \left (1^{ ( n ) } {{}^\smallfrown}A \right ) \cup \left ( {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} \setminus ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{0^{ ( n ) } }
\cup {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{1^{ ( n ) }} ) \right ) .
\end{split}$$
Thus $ \mathrm{P}_1 ( A ) = 1 {{}^\smallfrown}A $ and $ {{ ( \mathrm{P}_n ( A ) ) }_{\lfloor {1^{ ( n ) }}\rfloor}} = A $. Moreover $$\label{eq:padding}
\mu ( \mathrm{P}_n ( A ) ) = 1 - 2^{ - n } \bigl ( 2 - \mu ( A ) \bigr ) .$$
We start with defining $ \operatorname{Nat}( A ) $, the analogue of $ A^\natural$. First define $$\mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) = \bigcup_{n> 0} \mathcal{E}_n ^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) ,$$ the set of all exit nodes for $ \operatorname{Nat}( A ) $, where $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n (A) $ is the set of all sequences of the form $$v_1 {{}^\smallfrown}1{{}^\smallfrown}v_2 {{}^\smallfrown}1{{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}v_n$$ where $$v_i = \overline{s_i} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_i {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s_i )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { s_i }\rfloor}} ) )$$ and $ s_1 , \dots , s_n \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} $ and $ \eta _1 , \dots , \eta _n \in {\left \{ {01 , 10} \right \}} $. If $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n (A) $ and $ e' \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_{n'} (A)$ then exactly one of the disjuncts below holds: $$\label{eq:incompatiblenodesofE}
\left (e \subset e' {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}n < n' \right ) {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}\left ( e' \subset e {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}n' < n\right ) {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}\left ( e = e' {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}n = n' \right ) {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}\left ( e \perp e' \right ) .$$ In particular, the elements in $ \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $ are pairwise incompatible, and $${\forall {e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n ( A )} \, } {\forall {j < n} \, }
{\exists ! {e' \in \mathcal{E}_j^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A )} \, } ( e' \subset e )$$ so that if $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ passes through infinitely many points of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $ then $$\label{eq:xcrossesinfinitelymanylayers}
x = \bigcup_{n} e_n$$ with $ e_n \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) $ and $ e_1 \subset e_2 \subset e_3 \subset \cdots $.
\[def:NAT(A)\] $\operatorname{Nat}( A ) = \bigcup_{ e \in \mathcal{E} ^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) }
e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A ) $.
Two remarks on $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $’s definition are in order.
$ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $ is obtained by attaching the $ 1 $-padding of $ \operatorname{Plus}(A) $ to each $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $, hence it can be seen as a tree of sets: to move from a set at level $ n $ to a set at level $ n + 1 $ we exit level $ n $ by following a node of the form $ \overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) ) {{}^\smallfrown}1 $ — choosing different strings $ s $ will take us to different nodes at level $ n + 1 $. The digit ‘$ 1 $’ that separates different levels will ensure that every $ x $ as in will not have density $ 1 $ in $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $, implying $ \mathcal{T} $-regularity.
Given any $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ we have five mutually exclusive possibilities:
$ x $ does not extend any node of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) $, hence $ x \notin \operatorname{Nat}(A) $,
$ x $ extends infinitely many nodes of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) $, hence it is of the form and it is a branch of the tree of sets. Also in this case $ x \notin \operatorname{Nat}(A) $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}0 $ with $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $. Then $ x \notin \operatorname{Nat}(A) $ by part \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\] below.
$ x $ is of the form $ e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} $, and $ e $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. Then $ x \in \operatorname{Nat}(A) {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}y \in A $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta $ for some $ \eta \in {\left \{ { 01 , 10 } \right \}}$, and $ e $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. By maximality $ x \supset e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}v $ for some $ v \perp {\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )) $ hence $ x \in \operatorname{Nat}(A) $.
\[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\] Let $ e , e' \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) $:
\[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-a\] If $ e \subset e' $ then $ \left (e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A ) \right ) \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e'} = \emptyset $, hence $$e \neq e' {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\left ( e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A ) \right ) \cap
\left ( e' {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A ) \right ) = \emptyset .$$
\[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] $ {\forall {e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}(A) } \, }
\left ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e {{}^\smallfrown}0} \cap \operatorname{Nat}(A) = \emptyset \right ) $.
\[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-a\] Let $ e = v_1 {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}v_2 {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}v_n $ and $ e' = e {{}^\smallfrown}1{{}^\smallfrown}v_{n+1} {{}^\smallfrown}1{{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}v_{n+k}$. Towards a contradiction suppose that there is an element of the Cantor space of the form $ e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}x $ with $ x\in \operatorname{Plus}( A ) $ that belongs to $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e' }$, that is $$x = \overline{s_{n+1}} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_{n+1} {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s_{n+1} ) }
\cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s_{n + 1} }\rfloor}}) ) {{}^\smallfrown}y ,$$ for some $ y $. As $ x \notin \overline{ A} $ then $ x $ belongs to some $ \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}O ( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )) $ for some $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$ and $ i \in 2 $. This implies that $ s = s_{n+1} $ and $ \eta_{n+1} = i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) $ and $${\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s_{n + 1}) }\cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s_{n + 1} }\rfloor}}) ) {{}^\smallfrown}y
\in O ( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s_{n + 1} ) } \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) ) ,$$ which contradicts Definition \[def:O(r)\].
\[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] It is enough to show that $${\forall {e , e' \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A) } \, }
\left ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e' {{}^\smallfrown}0} \cap \left ( e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r ) \right ) = \emptyset \right ) .$$ If $ e' \subseteq e $ then $e' {{}^\smallfrown}0\perp e {{}^\smallfrown}1 $ hence the result holds at once. If instead $ e \subset e' $ we apply part \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-a\].
We now construct $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $, the analogue of $ A^\flat $. First define $$\mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) = \bigcup_{n> 0} \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} _n ( A ) ,$$ the set of all exit nodes of $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $, where $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} _n (A) $ is the set of all sequences of the form $$w_1 {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( 1 ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}w_2 {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( 2 ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\dots {{}^\smallfrown}1 ^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n - 1 ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}w_n$$ with $$w_i = \overline{s_i} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_i {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}(\max {\left \{ {r_i, r_{\operatorname{lh}( s_i )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { s_i}\rfloor}} )} \right \}})$$ and $ s_1 , \dots , s_n \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} $, $ \eta_1 , \dots , \eta_n \in {\left \{ {01 , 10} \right \}}$ and $${\boldsymbol{h}}( i ) = \min k \left ( 1 - 2^{ - k + 1 } \geq r_i \right ) .$$ Notice that the elements of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ differ from the ones of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $ in that the $ {\boldsymbol u}$ part is different and we use $ 1^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( r_i ) )}$ to separate the blocks. We leave it to the reader to check that the elements of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}(A) $ have properties similar to the ones in $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} (A)$ — in particular holds if $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_n (A) $ and $ e' \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_{n'} (A)$.
\[def:FLAT(A)\] $$\operatorname{Flat}( A ) = \Bigl ( \bigcup_{n>0} \bigcup_{ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}}(A) }
e {{}^\smallfrown}\mathrm{P}_{{\boldsymbol{h}}( n )} ( \operatorname{Plus}( A , r_n ) ) \Bigr )
\cup {\left \{{x} {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) \left ( e \subseteq x \right )} \right\}} .$$
$ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $ is the disjoint union of two sets. The first one, like the case of $ \operatorname{Nat}( A ) $, can be seen as a tree of sets hence it is stratified in layers, the second one is the set of all branches through this tree.
Given any $ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ we have six mutually exclusive possibilities:
$ x $ does not extend any node of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) $, hence $ x \notin \operatorname{Flat}(A) $,
$ x $ extends infinitely many nodes of $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) $, hence it is in $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $. In this case we will see that $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}0^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} $ with $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_n ( A ) $. Then $ x \notin \operatorname{Flat}(A) $ by part \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT\] below.
$ x $ is of the form $ e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) } {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} $, and $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. Then $ x \in \operatorname{Flat}( A ) {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}y \in A $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{({\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta $ for some $ \eta \in {\left \{ { 01 , 10 } \right \}}$, and $ e $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. By maximality $ x \supset e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{({\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}v $ for some $ v \perp {\boldsymbol u}(\max {\left \{ {r_{ n + 1 } , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} ) $ hence $ x \in \operatorname{Flat}(A) $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}t $ with $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_n ( A ) $ and $ t \in {}^{ {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) } 2 \setminus {\left \{ { 0^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ))} , 1^{ ({\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )}} \right \}} $. Then $ x \in \operatorname{Flat}( A ) \cap \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $.
The following is proved as Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\].
\[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT\] Let $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_n (A) $ and $ e' \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}}_{n'} (A) $:
\[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT-a\] If $ e \subset e' $ then $ \left (e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) } {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r_n ) \right ) \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e'} = \emptyset $, hence $$e \neq e' {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\left ( e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) } {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r_n ) \right ) \cap
\left ( e' {{}^\smallfrown}1^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n' ) ) } {{}^\smallfrown}\operatorname{Plus}( A , r_{n'} ) \right ) = \emptyset .$$
\[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT-b\] $ {\forall {e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) } \, }
\left ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e {{}^\smallfrown}0^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) }} \cap \operatorname{Flat}( A ) = \emptyset \right ) $.
Fix an $ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$. Since $ {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s}}\rfloor}} \supseteq {{\operatorname{Plus}(A , r_n )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}}\rfloor}} $ when $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A)$, then implies $$\label{eq:localizedFlat0}
{\forall {e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) } \, }
\bigl ( \mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s}}\rfloor}} ) \geq r_n \bigr ) .$$
\[lem:intermediatevalues\] $ {\forall {e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) } \, } {\forall {k \leq {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) } \, }
\bigl ( \mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( k)} }\rfloor}} ) \geq r_n\bigr ) $.
The case $ k = {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) $ is the preceding inequality with $ s = \emptyset $, and for $ 0 < k < k' $ use that $ \mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( k)} }\rfloor}} ) \geq \mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( k' )} }\rfloor}}) $. If $ k = 0 $ then use .
By Definition \[def:Plus\] $$\mu \bigl ( {{\operatorname{Plus}( A, r_n ) }_{\lfloor { \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i)}\rfloor}} \bigr ) =
\mu ( O (\max {\left \{ {r_n , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )}\cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )} \right \}}) ) \geq r_n ,$$ hence, arguing as in , $ \mu ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A , r_n )}_{\lfloor {\overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}i}\rfloor}} ) \geq r _n $ too. Therefore for all $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A) $, all $ s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} $, and $ i \in 2 $ $$\label{eq:localizedFlat}
\mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i }\rfloor}} ) ,
\mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i )}\rfloor}} ) \geq r_n .$$ To simplify the notation, let $ \eta = i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i )$ and $ e' = e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}u \in \mathcal{E}_{n + 1} ^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ where $$u = {\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ { r_{n+1} , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s)}\cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}}) .$$ If $ v \subset u $ then $ u = 0^{(m)} 1$ and $v = 0^{(k)} $ for some $k \leq m $.
(1 , -1)–(0.5 , -2)–(1.5 , -2)–cycle; (0 , -2) –(-0.5 , -3)–(0.5 , -3)–cycle; (-4 , -4) –(-4.5 , -5)–(-3.5 , -5)–cycle; (-2 , -4) – (-2.5 , -5)–(-1.5 , -5)–cycle; at (-1,-1)\[inner sep=1pt, label=0:$ 0$\]; at (1,-1)\[inner sep=1pt, label=180:$ 1$\]; at (0,-2)\[inner sep=1pt, label= 180:$ 01$\]; at (-3,-3)\[inner sep=1pt, label= 0:$ 0^{(m-k)}$\]; at (-2,-4)\[inner sep=1pt, label= 0:$ 0^{(m-k)}1$\]; at (-4,-4)\[inner sep=1pt, label= 0:$ 0^{(m-k+1)}$\]; at (-2,-5)\[inner sep=0pt, label=270:$ {{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e'}\rfloor}}$\]; (0,0)–(-1.5,-1.5) (-2.5,-2.5) – (-4 , -4) (0,0)–(1, -1)–(0.5 , -2) (1, -1)–(1.5 , -2) (-1,-1) –(0 , -2) –(-0.5 , -3) (0 , -2) –(0.5 , -3) (-3,-3)–(-2,-4) (-4, -4) – (-3.5 , -5) (-4, -4) – (-4.5 , -5) ; (-1.5, -1.5) – (-2.5,-2.5); (2,0) – (2, -6) ; at (2,-3) \[anchor=west\] [$ {}= {{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )}{{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}0^{(k)}}\rfloor}}$]{};
Thus (see Figure \[fig:natural\]) $${{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )}{{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}0^{(k)}}\rfloor}} =
{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_1 \cup {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{01} \cup \dots \cup 0^{( m - k )}1{{}^\smallfrown}{{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e'}\rfloor}} \cup {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{0^{( m - k +1 )}}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}0^{(k)}}\rfloor}} )
& = 1 - \frac{1}{2^{m-k+1}} + \frac{\mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e'}\rfloor}})}{2^{m-k+1}}
\\
& \geq 1 - \frac{1}{2^{m-k+1}} + \frac{r_{n+1}}{2^{m-k+1}}
\\
& \geq r_{n+1} .
\end{split}$$ Therefore $$\label{eq:e_n}
{\forall {e_n \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A)} \, }
{\forall { e_{ n + 1} \in \mathcal{E}_{n + 1}^{\operatorname{Flat}} (A)} \, }
{\forall {t} \, }
\bigl ( e_n \subset t \subseteq e_{n + 1}
{\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\mu \bigl ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}} \bigr ) \geq r_{n} \bigr ) .$$
\[prop:NAT<=>nat\] If $ A \neq \emptyset , {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ then $$\operatorname{Nat}(A) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\natural \qquad\text{ and }\qquad \operatorname{Flat}(A) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A^\flat .$$
We first look at $ \operatorname{Nat}(A)$ and $ A^\natural $. Fix $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $: we will show that $ A^\natural {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}{{\operatorname{Nat}( A )}_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1}\rfloor}} $, hence $ A^\natural {\leq_{\mathrm{L}}}\operatorname{Nat}( A ) $. Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{L}}}( A^\natural , {{\operatorname{Nat}(A) }_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1 }\rfloor}} ) $ by copying $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves and playing an appropriate $ {\boldsymbol u}$-node followed by $ 1 $ whenever $ {\mathbf{I}}$ breaks a sequence $ \overline{s} $ by playing $ 01$ or $ 1 0 $. Conversely $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins $ {G_{\mathrm{W}}}( \operatorname{Nat}(A) , A^\natural ) $ as follows:
> Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ enumerates a sequence $ \overline{a} $ with $ a \notin A$, until $ {\mathbf{I}}$ reaches, if ever, a position $ \overline{s_1} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_1 {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s _1 ) } \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s_1}\rfloor}} ) ) {{}^\smallfrown}1 $ with $ \eta_1 \in {\left \{ {01 ,10} \right \}}$. Suppose $ {\mathbf{I}}$ has reached such position: then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays $ 01$ and from now on copies $ {\mathbf{I}}$’s moves, removing the sequences of the form $ {\boldsymbol u}{{}^\smallfrown}1 $. This works as long as $ {\mathbf{I}}$ plays inside the tree generated by the nodes in $ \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $. Suppose at some stage $ {\mathbf{I}}$ goes astray and leaves this tree:
>
> if $ {\mathbf{I}}$ enters an open set of the form $ O ( r ) $ then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ plays from now on $ \overline{a} $ with $ a \in A $,
>
> if $ {\mathbf{I}}$ followed the relevant $ {\boldsymbol u}$ node but after that played $ 0 $ instead of $ 1 $, then $ {\mathbf{II}}$ from now enumerates a sequence $ \overline{a} $ with $ a \notin A $.
This proves the first equivalence. The second equivalence is similar and it is left to the reader.
\[lem:nullfrontierFLAT\] The set $ {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A )\left ( e \subset x \right )} \right\}} $ is null. Similarly for $ {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A )\left ( e \subset x \right )} \right\}}$.
We shall prove only the first statement, leaving the second to the reader. Let $ U_n = \bigcup_{e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) } {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e} $ and $ U_0 = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $. Then $ U_{n + 1} \subseteq U_n $ and $$\bigcap_{n} U_n =
{\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e
\in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) \left ( e \subset x \right )} \right\}} .$$ The result will be proved by establishing that $ \mu ( U_{n + 1} ) \leq \mu ( U_n ) / 2 $. As $ U_{n+1} $ is the disjoint union $ \bigcup_{e\in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n ( A )} V_e$ where $ V_e = \bigcup {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e'}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ e \subset e'
\in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_{n + 1} ( A )} \right\}}$, it is enough to show that $ \mu ( V_ e ) \leq \mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_e ) / 2 $ for all $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n ( A ) $. Fix $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}}_n ( A ) $ and let $ E = {\left \{{ e' \in \mathcal{E}_{n + 1}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ e \subset e'} \right\}} $. If $ e_0 , e_1 \in E $ are distinct, then by Definition \[def:O(r)\] of the nodes $ {\boldsymbol u}$, there are $ s_0 , s_1 \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{ 2}}$, $ \eta_0 , \eta_1\in {\left \{ {01, 10} \right \}}$ and $ k_i \in \omega $ such that $ e_i = e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_i} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_i {{}^\smallfrown}0^{( k _ i )} {{}^\smallfrown}1 $, hence $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_0} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_0 {{}^\smallfrown}0^{( k_0 )}} \cap
{{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s_1} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta_1 {{}^\smallfrown}0^{( k_1 )}} = \emptyset $. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_e ) & \geq \sum_{ e' \in E}
\mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{ e' \restriction \operatorname{lh}( e' ) - 1})
\\
& = \sum_{ e' \in E }
2 \mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{ e' })
\\
& = 2 \mu ( V_e ) \end{aligned}$$ as required.
\[prop:NATisT-regular\] If $ A $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular then $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $ and $ \operatorname{Flat}( A )$ are $ \mathcal{T} $-regular.
Moreover, if $ A $ is in $ \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $, then so are $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $ and $ \operatorname{Flat}( A )$.
First we deal with $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) $. Suppose $ x \in \operatorname{Nat}(A) $: then there is $ n \in \omega $, $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n ^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $ and $ y \in \operatorname{Plus}( A ) = \Phi ( \operatorname{Plus}( A ) ) $ such that $ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}y $. As $$\lim_{m \to \infty} \mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Nat}(A)}_{\lfloor {x \restriction m}\rfloor}} \bigr )
\geq \lim_{m \to \infty} \mu \bigl ( {{ \operatorname{Plus}(A )}_{\lfloor {y \restriction m}\rfloor}} \bigr ) = 1$$ then $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}(A) ) $.
Suppose now $ x \notin \operatorname{Nat}(A) $ towards proving that $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}(A) ) $. We distinguish four cases.
\[caseA\] $ x $ extends no $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $. The either
$ x \supset \overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}v $ with $ \eta \in {\left \{ {01 , 10} \right \}}$ and $ v \perp {\boldsymbol u}( r_{\operatorname{lh}( s ) } \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) ) $, or else
$ x = \overline{y} $ for some $ y \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $.
In the first case $ x \in {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{\overline{s}{{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}v }$ and this basic open set is disjoint from $ \operatorname{Nat}( A ) $, hence $ \mathcal{D}_{ \operatorname{Nat}( A )} ( x ) = 0 $.
In the second case: given $ m $, for any $ \eta \in {\left \{ {01,10} \right \}}$ there is an $ i \in 2$ such that $ {{\operatorname{Nat}( A ) }_{\lfloor { x \restriction 2 m {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}i}\rfloor}} = \emptyset $, hence $ \mu ( {{\operatorname{Nat}( A ) }_{\lfloor { x \restriction 2 m }\rfloor}} ) \leq 3/4$. In particular, $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}( A ) )$.
\[caseB\] $ x = \bigcup_{n} e_n $ with $ e_n \in \mathcal{E}_n^\mathrm{Nat} ( A ) $, hence $ \mu \bigl ( {{\operatorname{Nat}(A)}_{\lfloor {e_n }\rfloor}} \bigr ) \leq \frac{1}{2}$ by part \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\], and therefore $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}(A) ) $.
$ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}0 $ for some $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A ) $. Then $ \mathcal{D}_{ \operatorname{Nat}( A )} ( x ) = 0 $ by part \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\].
$ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} $ with $ y \notin A $, and $ e $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. Since $ A = \Phi ( A ) $, fix an increasing sequence $ ( m_k )_k $ and an $ \varepsilon > 0 $ such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { y \restriction m_k }\rfloor}} ) < 1 - \varepsilon $, for all $ k \in \omega $. Then there is an $ L \in \omega $ such that $$\operatorname{lh}{\boldsymbol u}\bigl ( r_{m_k} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction m_k}\rfloor}} ) \bigr ) \leq L$$ for all $ k \in \omega $. By part \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromNAT\], $ {{\operatorname{Nat}( A )}_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} \restriction 2 m_k }\rfloor}}$ is disjoint from the two basic open neighborhoods given by $ i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}( r_{m_k} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction m_k}\rfloor}} ) ) {{}^\smallfrown}0 $ with $ i \in {\left \{ {0,1 } \right \}}$, hence $$\forall k \Bigl ( \mu \bigl ({{\operatorname{Nat}( A )}_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1 {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} \restriction 2 m_k }\rfloor}} \bigr )
\leq 1 - 2^{-L - 2} \Bigr ) ,$$ proving that $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}(A) ) $.
Therefore $ \operatorname{Nat}(A) = \Phi ( \operatorname{Nat}(A) ) $.
Now we turn to $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $. If $ x $ extends infinitely many $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{ \operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ then $ \mu ( {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n}\rfloor}} ) \to 1$ by , hence $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $. Suppose now $ x \in \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $ and $ x \supset e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ for some largest $ n $. Then either
$ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}s {{}^\smallfrown}y $ with $ s \in {}^{ {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) }2 $ and $ s \neq 1^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} , 0^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} $. Then $ x $ is in the interior of $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $ hence $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $.
$ x \supset e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}\eta {{}^\smallfrown}v $ with $ v \perp {\boldsymbol u}( \max {\left \{ { r_{n + 1} , r_{\operatorname{lh}( s )} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} )} \right \}}) $ and $ \eta \in {\left \{ {01,10} \right \}}$. Again $ x $ is in the interior of $ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $.
$ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) } {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} $ with $ y\in A = \Phi ( A ) $. By $ \mathcal{T} $-regularity $ \overline{y} \in \operatorname{Plus}( A , r_n ) $, and since $ {{ \operatorname{Flat}( A ) }_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )}{{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} \restriction m}\rfloor}}
\supseteq {{\operatorname{Plus}( A , r_n )}_{\lfloor {\overline{y} \restriction m}\rfloor}} $ it follows that $ x \in \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $.
Therefore $$x \in \operatorname{Flat}( A ) {\Rightarrow}x\in \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) .$$ Suppose now $ x \notin \operatorname{Flat}( A ) $ towards proving that $ x \notin \Phi ( \operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) $. We distinguish three cases.
Case E
: $ x $ extends no $ e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $. Then proceed as in Case A.
Case F
: $ x $ extends $ e {{}^\smallfrown}0^{ ( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) ) } $ for some $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $. Then $ \mathcal{D}_{ \operatorname{Flat}( A )} ( x ) = 0 $ by part \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT\].
Case G
: $ x = e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} $ with $ y \notin A $, and $ e \in \mathcal{E}_n^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A ) $ is the largest exit node contained in $ x $. As in Case D, fix an increasing sequence $ ( m_k )_k $ and an $ \varepsilon > 0 $ such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { y \restriction m_k }\rfloor}} ) < 1 - \varepsilon $, for all $ k \in \omega $. Then there is an $ L \in \omega $ such that $ \forall k \left ( \operatorname{lh}( {\boldsymbol u}_k ) \leq L \right ) $, where $${\boldsymbol u}_k = {\boldsymbol u}\bigl ( \max {\left \{ { r_{n+1} , r_{m_k} \cdot \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {y \restriction m_k}\rfloor}} ) } \right \}} \bigr ) .$$ By part \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT-b\] of Lemma \[lem:opendisjointfromFLAT\], $ {{\operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} \restriction 2 m_k }\rfloor}}$ is disjoint from the two basic open neighborhoods given by $ i {{}^\smallfrown}(1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}{\boldsymbol u}_k {{}^\smallfrown}0^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n + 1 ) )} $ with $ i \in {\left \{ {0,1 } \right \}}$, hence $$\forall k \Bigl ( \mu \bigl ({{ \operatorname{Flat}( A )}_{\lfloor { e {{}^\smallfrown}1^{( {\boldsymbol{h}}( n ) )} {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{y} \restriction 2 m_k }\rfloor}} \bigr )
\leq 1 - 2^{-1 -L - {\boldsymbol{h}}( n + 1 ) } \Bigr ) .$$
Suppose now $ A = \Phi ( A ) $ towards proving that $ \mu ( \operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Nat}( A ) ) = \mu ( \operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Flat}( A ) ) = 0 $, and hence that $ \operatorname{Nat}( A ) , \operatorname{Flat}( A ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) \cap
\operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1} ) $, by . Using it is easy to check that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Nat}( A ) & \subseteq {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Nat}} ( A )\left ( e \subset x \right )} \right\}}
\cup \bigcup_{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} } s {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} }
\\
\operatorname{Fr}\operatorname{Flat}( A ) & \subseteq {\left \{{ x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{\exists^\infty e \in \mathcal{E}^{\operatorname{Flat}} ( A )\left ( e \subset x \right )} \right\}}
\cup \smash{\bigcup_{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} }}s {{}^\smallfrown}\overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} }\end{aligned}$$ and since $ \overline{ {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } $ is null, we are done.
Proof of Theorem \[th:belowDelta03\]
------------------------------------
By Corollary \[cor:lengthofWadge\] it is enough to show by induction on $ \alpha < \omega _1^{ \omega _1} $ that for each Borel set $ A $ of Wadge rank $ \alpha $, there is an open set $ U $ and a closed set $ D $ such that $ \Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( D ) {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}A$. Theorem \[th:T-regularDelta02\] takes care of the case when $ \alpha < \omega _1$ so we may assume that $ \alpha \geq \omega _1 $. Let $ A \subseteq {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $ be a set of Wadge rank $ \alpha $. If $ \alpha $ is either a successor ordinal or a limit ordinal of countable cofinality proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[th:T-regularDelta02\], so we may assume that $$\label{eq:cof(alpha)=omega1}
\operatorname{cof}( \alpha ) = \omega _1 .$$ Suppose that $ \alpha = \beta + \gamma $ with $ \beta , \gamma < \alpha $: by replacing $ \beta $ with $ \beta + 1$ if needed, we may assume that any $ B $ of Wadge rank $ \beta $ is self-dual. Then $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}B {\mathbin{\boldsymbol{+}} }C $ for some $ C $ of Wadge rank $ \gamma $. By inductive assumption and Proposition \[prop:Sumisregular\] then $ A {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}\Phi ( U ) = \Phi ( D ) $ for some $ U \in {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}$ and $ D \in {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} $. Therefore we may assume that $$\label{eq:alphaadditivelyindecomposable}
\alpha \text{ is additively indecomposable.}$$ Write $ \alpha = \omega_1^\xi \cdot \delta + \mu $ with $ \mu , \xi < \omega _1$: by indecomposability $ \mu = 0 $ and therefore $ \delta $ is not a successor ordinal $ > 1 $, while by $ \delta $ cannot be limit. Thus $ \alpha = \omega_1^\xi $: by $ \xi $ cannot be be limit hence we may assume that $$ \alpha = \omega _1 ^{\nu + 1}.$$ Let $ B $ be a set of Wadge rank $ \omega _1^ \nu + 1 $, so that $ B $ is self-dual. Then $ A $ is Wadge equivalent to either $ B^\natural $ or else to $ B^\flat $. By inductive assumption $ B {\equiv_{\mathrm{W}}}C $ for some $ C \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1}) \cap \operatorname{ran}( {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ hence $ \operatorname{Nat}( C ) , \operatorname{Flat}( C ) \in \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}^{0}_{1})
\cap \operatorname{ran}( \Phi \restriction {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{1} ) $ by Proposition \[prop:NATisT-regular\]. By Proposition \[prop:NAT<=>nat\] $ A $ is Wadge equivalent to either $ \operatorname{Nat}( C ) $ or $ \operatorname{Flat}( C ) $, and this completes the proof of Theorem \[th:belowDelta03\].
Attaining the maximal complexity {#sec:ClosedsetswithcomplicatedD}
================================
In this section we shall prove Theorems \[th:Pi03complete\], \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\], \[th:Pi03comeagre\] and \[th:forcingdensePi03\], and a result on supports (see Section \[sec:easyfacts\]).
Proof of Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\]
-----------------------------------------
Let $ A\neq \emptyset $ be $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, with empty interior. We will show that $ \mathbf{P}_3 {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}A $, where $$\mathbf{P}_3 = {\left \{{z \in {\prescript{ \omega \times \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\forall {n} \, }
{\forall^{\infty} {m} \, } z ( n , m ) = 0 } \right\}}.$$ Since $ \mathbf{P}_3 $ is a complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{^0}_{3} $ set [@Kechris:1995kc p. 179] the result follows. Recall that $ {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ is the tree of Definition \[def:D(A)\]. Given a $ 0 $-$ 1 $ matrix $ a = {\left \langle a ( i , j ) {\boldsymbol\mid}i , j < n \right \rangle} $ of order $ n $, a sequence $ \varphi ( a ) \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ will be constructed so that $$a \subset b {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\varphi ( a ) \subset \varphi ( b )$$ and therefore $$f \colon {\prescript{ \omega \times \omega }{}{2}} \to {\left [ { {\boldsymbol{D}}( A )} \right ]}, \qquad
f ( z ) = \bigcup_{n} \varphi ( z \restriction n \times n )$$ is continuous. The function $ f $ will witness that $ \mathbf{P}_3 {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}\Phi ( A ) $.
Let $ I_n = [ 1 - 2^{ - n } ; 1 - 2^{ - n - 1} ) $ and let $ \rho \colon {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) \to \omega $ be $$\rho ( s ) = n {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \in I_n .$$ The map $ \rho $ is well defined since $ \mu ({{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \neq 1 $ for all $ s $, by the assumption on $ A $. If $ s \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ then $$ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \geq 1 - 2^{- n} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}i }\rfloor}} ) = 2 \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) - \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) }\rfloor}} )
\geq 1 - 2^{- n + 1}$$ hence $$\label{eq:descending}
{\forall {s \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) } \, } {\forall {n > 0} \, } \bigl ( \rho ( s) \geq n {\Rightarrow}\rho ( s {{}^\smallfrown}0 ) , \rho ( s {{}^\smallfrown}1 ) \geq n - 1 \bigr ) .$$ It follows at once that $$x \in \Phi ( A ) {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}x \in {\left [ { {\boldsymbol{D}}( A )} \right ]} \wedge \lim_{n \to \infty} \rho ( x \restriction n ) = \infty .$$
\[cl:descending\] Suppose $ s \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $. For any $ j < \rho ( s ) $ there is a $s \subset t \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ such that $ \rho ( t ) = j $ and $ \forall u \left ( s \subseteq u \subseteq t {\Rightarrow}\rho ( u ) \geq j \right ) $.
Let $ x \in {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s $ have density $ 0 $ in $ A $. By let $ t \subset x $ be the shortest node extending $ s $ such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}} ) < 1 - 2^{- j - 1} $.
If $ a $ is the empty matrix, then $ \varphi ( a ) = \emptyset $, and if $ a = {\left \langle a( i , j ) {\boldsymbol\mid}i , j \leq n \right \rangle} $ is a matrix of order $ n + 1 $, we set $$\varphi ( a ) = t$$ where $ t $ is defined as follows:
Case 1
: $ {\forall {j \leq n} \, } a ( j , n ) = 0 $. By Proposition \[prop:climb\] let $ t \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ be an extension of $ \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) $ such that $ \rho ( t ) = n + 1 $ and $$\forall u \left ( \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) \subseteq u \subseteq t
{\Rightarrow}\rho ( u ) \geq \rho \circ \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) \right ) .$$
Case 2
: $ {\exists {j \leq n} \, } a ( j , n ) = 1 $. Let $ j_0 $ be the least such $ j $ and by Proposition \[prop:climb\] and Claim \[cl:descending\] let $ t \in {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) $ be such that $ t \supset \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) $, $ \rho ( t ) = j _0 $, and $$\forall v \left ( \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) \subseteq v \subseteq t
{\Rightarrow}\rho ( v ) \geq \min {\left \{ { \rho ( \varphi ( a \restriction n \times n ) ) , \rho ( t ) } \right \}} \right ).$$
Suppose $ z \in \mathbf{P}_3 $. For every $ k \in \omega $ choose $m_k $ such that $ {\forall {m \geq m_k } \, } a( k , m ) = 0 $ and let $$M_k = \max {\left \{ {m_0 , \dots , m_k} \right \}} .$$ Therefore for every $ n \geq \max {\left \{ { k , M_k } \right \}}$ the least $ j \leq n $ such that $ z ( j , n ) = 1 $ — if such $ j $ exists — is larger than $ k $ and therefore $ \rho ( \varphi ( z \restriction n \times n ) ) \geq k $. This shows that $ \lim_{i \to \infty } \rho ( f ( z ) \restriction i ) = \infty $ hence $ f ( z ) \in \Phi ( A ) $.
Conversely suppose $ z \notin \mathbf{P}_3 $. Let $ n_0 $ be the least $ n $ such that the $ n $th row contains infinitely many $ 1 $s, i.e. $ {\exists^{\infty} {m} \, } z ( n_0 , m ) = 1 $ and $ {\forall {i < n_0} \, } {\forall^{\infty} {m} \, } z ( i , m ) = 0 $. Then for arbitrarily large $ n $, $ \varphi ( z \restriction n \times n ) $ is computed as in Case 2, hence $ \rho ( f ( z) \restriction i ) = n_0 $ for infinitely many $ i $. In particular $ \lim_{i \to \infty} \rho \left (f ( z ) \restriction i \right ) \neq \infty $, hence $ f ( z ) \in {\left [ { {\boldsymbol{D}}( A ) } \right ]} \setminus \Phi ( A ) $.
This finishes the proof of Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\].
Closed sets with empty interior and the proof of Theorem \[th:Pi03complete\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[th:densePi03complete\] Let $ S $ be a perfect pruned tree such that $ \mu {\left [ {S} \right ]} > 0 $ and let $ \varepsilon > 0 $ be given. Then there is a pruned tree $ T \subseteq S $ such that $ {\left [ {T} \right ]} $ has empty interior in $ {\left [ {S} \right ]} $, $ \mu ( {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) + \varepsilon > \mu ( {\left [ {S} \right ]} )$.
The tree $ T $ will be defined as $$T = {\left \{{u \in S } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\forall {n \left ( t_n \nsubseteq u \right )} \, } } \right\}}$$ for an appropriate sequence $( t_n )_n \subseteq S$. Density amounts to say that $$\label{eq:conditionsont1}
{\forall {s \in S } \, } \exists {n}
\left ( s \subseteq t_n {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}t_n \subseteq s \right )$$ and since the sets $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{t_n } \cap {\left [ {S} \right ]} $ are disjoint, $$\label{eq:conditionsont2}
n \neq m {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}t_n \perp t_m .$$ Let $ ( \ell_n )_n $ be a strictly increasing sequence of natural numbers such that $ \ell_0 > 0 $. A sequence $ (t_n )_ n $ that satisfies , and $$\begin{gathered}
\forall n , m < \omega \left (n < m {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\operatorname{lh}( t_n ) < \operatorname{lh}( t_m ) \right ) \label{eq:conditionsont3}
\\
\exists ^{\infty} n \left (\operatorname{lh}( t_{n + 1} ) > \operatorname{lh}( t_n ) + 1 \right ) \label{eq:conditionsont4}
\\
\forall n \left ( \ell_n \leq \operatorname{lh}( t_n ) \right ) \label{eq:conditionsont5}\end{gathered}$$ is called a [**sparse sequence of order $ ( \ell_n )_n $ for $ S $**]{}. By $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{-\operatorname{lh}( t_n )} \leq \sum_{n=0}^\infty 2^{- \ell_n}$$ so if $ ( \ell_n )_n $ grows fast enough, then $ \mu ( {\left [ {S} \right ]} \setminus {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) < \varepsilon $ as required.
To show the existence of such sequence, let $ \lhd $ be the well-order of $ {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}}$ obtained by ordering the nodes according to their length and comparing nodes of equal length given by the lexicographic order: $$\label{eq:triangleorder}
s \mathrel{\lhd} t {\mathbin{\, \Leftrightarrow \,}}\operatorname{lh}( s ) < \operatorname{lh}( t ) {\mathbin{\, \vee \,}}\left ( \operatorname{lh}( s ) = \operatorname{lh}( t ) {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}s {<_{\mathrm{lex}}}t \right ) .$$ We shall define inductively $ t_n , u_n \in S $ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
& u_n \text{ is the \( \lhd \)-least \( u \in S \) such that } {\forall {i < n} \, } ( u \perp t_i ) , \label{eq:conditionsonu_n1}
\\
& t_n \supset u_n {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\operatorname{lh}( t_n ) \geq \max {\left \{ {\ell _n , t_{n-1} } \right \}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\exists u \in S
\left ( u \perp t_n {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}{\forall {i < n} \, } ( u \perp t_i ) \right ) . \label{eq:conditionsonu_n2}\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $ u_i , t_i $ have been defined for all $ i < n $ and satisfy and . By there is a $ \lhd $-least $ u_n \in S $ which is incompatible with $ t_0 , \dots , t_{n-1} $. As $ S $ is perfect, there exist $ t_n , u \in S $ incompatible extensions of $ u_n $, such that $ \operatorname{lh}( t_n ) \geq \ell_n , \operatorname{lh}( t_{n - 1} ) $. Since $ t_n \supseteq u_n $ and $ u_n \perp t_i $ for $ i < n $, it follows that the $ t_n $’s are pairwise incompatible, i.e. holds. Given $ s \in S $ such that $ t_k \nsubseteq s $ for all $ k $, pick $ n $ least such that $ s \lhd u_{n + 1} $: since $ s = u_n \subseteq t_n $ is impossible, then $ s $ must be compatible with some $ t_i $ with $ i \leq n $, hence $ s \subset t_i $. Therefore holds. Moreover it is trivial to arrange the construction so that $ \operatorname{lh}( t_n ) + 1 < \operatorname{lh}( t_{n+1} ) $ for infinitely many (or even for every) $ n $, hence holds as well.
In particular, taking $ S = {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}}$, a closed set of positive measure and empty interior $ C = {\left [ {T} \right ]} $ is obtained. By $ \Phi ( C ) \subseteq C $ hence also $ \Phi ( C ) $ has empty interior and therefore $ \Phi ( C ) $ is complete $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ by Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\]. In other words we have shown that $$\exists T \text{ perfect pruned tree such that \( \Phi ( {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) \) is complete } {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$$ which is half of Theorem \[th:Pi03complete\]. To prove the other half, for any $ r \in ( 0 ; 1 ] $ pick an increasing sequence $ ( n_k )_k $ such that $ r = \sum_{k = 0}^\infty 2^{-n_k - 1} $ and let $$O^* ( r ) = \bigcup_{k \in \omega } {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{ 0^{ ( n_k - 1 )} 1 } .$$ The set $ O^* ( r ) $ is open, $ \operatorname{Fr}( O^* ( r ) ) = {\left \{ { 0^{ ( \infty ) }} \right \}}$, and $ \mu ( O^* ( r ) ) = r $. For $ T $ as above, consider the open set $$W = \bigcup_{s \in T} \bigcup_{i \in 2} \overline{s} {{}^\smallfrown}i {{}^\smallfrown}( 1 - i ) {{}^\smallfrown}O^* ( \mu {\left [ {{{T}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} } \right ]} ) .$$ Then $ \operatorname{Fr}W \subseteq \overline{{\left [ {T} \right ]}} \cup {\left \{{x \in {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{{\forall^{\infty} { n} \, } x ( n ) = 0 } \right\}}$ is null hence $ \Phi ( W ) = \Phi ( \operatorname{Cl}( W ) ) $. It is enough to prove
The map $ x \mapsto \overline{x} $ witnesses $ \Phi ( {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) {\leq_{\mathrm{W}}}\Phi ( W )$.
By $$\begin{split}
\mu ( {{W}_{\lfloor {\overline{t}}\rfloor}}) & = \sum_{ s \in {{T}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}}} 2^{- 2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 1} \mu {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor {t {{}^\smallfrown}s}\rfloor}} } \right ]}
\\
& = \sum_{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} } 2^{- 2 \operatorname{lh}( s ) - 1} \mu {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor {t {{}^\smallfrown}s}\rfloor}} } \right ]}
\\
& = \mu {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}} } \right ]} .
\end{split}$$ Suppose $ x \in \Phi ( {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) $. Then $ \mu ( {{W}_{\lfloor { \overline{x} \restriction 2 n }\rfloor}} ) = \mu ( {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n}\rfloor}} } \right ]} ) \to 1$. Since $ \mu ( {{W}_{\lfloor { \overline{x} \restriction 2 n + 1 }\rfloor}} ) = \frac{1}{2} \mu ( {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n}\rfloor}} } \right ]} )
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu ( {\left [ { {{T}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n + 1 }\rfloor}} } \right ]} ) \to 1 $, then $ \overline{x} \in \Phi ( W )$. Conversely, if $ x\notin \Phi ( {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) $, take $ ( n_k )_k $ such that $ \mu ({\left [ {{{T}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n_k}\rfloor}} } \right ]} ) < 1 - \varepsilon $ for some $ \varepsilon $, hence $ \mu ( {{W}_{\lfloor { \overline{x} \restriction 2 n_k }\rfloor}} ) = \mu ( {\left [ {{{T}_{\lfloor { x \restriction n_k }\rfloor}} } \right ]} ) < 1 - \varepsilon $, hence $ \overline{x} \notin \Phi ( W ) $.
Using sparse sequences it is possible to show that the assumption in Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] cannot be weakened by requiring that $ A $ be $ \mathcal{T} $-regular and with a frontier of positive measure.
\[cor:regularwithlargefrontier\] There is a $ \mathcal{T} $-regular open set $ U $ such that $ \mu ( \operatorname{Fr}U ) > 0 $.
Let $ \ell_n = 2n $ and let $ T $ be the closed set with empty interior constructed from a sparse sequence of order $ ( \ell_n )_n $. Let $ U = \neg {\left [ {T} \right ]} $. Then $ \mu ( U ) = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty 2^{-2n - 2} = 2 / 3$ and for $ t \in T $, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu ( {{U}_{\lfloor {t}\rfloor}} ) & = 2^{\operatorname{lh}( t ) } \sum_{ t_n \supset t} 2^{- \operatorname{lh}( t_n )}
\\
& \leq 2^{\ell _k - 1 } \sum_{n = k}^\infty 2^{- \ell_n} &&(\text{for some } k = k ( t ))
\\
& \leq 2^{2 k + 1} \sum_{n = k}^\infty 2^{- 2 n - 2 }
\\
& = \textstyle\frac{2}{3} .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $ \Phi ( U ) = U $ but $ \operatorname{Fr}( U ) = {\left [ {T} \right ]} $ has positive measure.
Supports are not complete invariants
------------------------------------
Using a sparse sequence it is possible to show that the inner and outer supports are not complete invariants for measure equivalence.
\[prop:supports\] There are measurable sets $ A \not \equiv B $ such that $$\operatorname{supt}^{- } ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^{- } ( B ) \quad\text{and}\quad \operatorname{supt}^{+ } ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^{+ } ( B ) .$$
Let $ U $ and $ T$ be as in Corollary \[cor:regularwithlargefrontier\]. For $ \ell_n ' = 3n+2 $ let $ ( t'_n )_n $ be a sparse sequence of order $ ( \ell_n' )_n $ in $ T $, and let $ T' = {\left \{{u \in T} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \forall n \left (t'_n \nsubseteq u \right )} \right\}}$. Finally let $$A = U \qquad\text{and}\qquad B = U \cup {\left [ {T'} \right ]} .$$ As $ \mu {\left [ {T} \right ]} = \frac{1}{3} > \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 2^{ - 3 n - 2} $ it follows that $ \mu {\left [ {T'} \right ]} > 0 $, hence $ \mu ( A ) < \mu ( B ) < 1 $. As $ U $ is open and dense, then $ \operatorname{supt}^+ ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^+ ( B ) = {\prescript{\omega}{}{2}} $,
By Corollary \[cor:regularwithlargefrontier\] and , $ U = \Phi ( A ) = \operatorname{supt}^- ( A ) $ hence it is enough to show that $ U = \operatorname{supt}^- ( B )$. Again by it is enough to show that $ U = \operatorname{Int}\Phi ( B ) $. By monotonicity $ U = \Phi ( A ) \subseteq \Phi ( B ) $, so it is enough to check that $ \operatorname{Int}\Phi ( B ) \subseteq U $. Given $ x \in {\left [ {T} \right ]} $ and $ n \in \omega $ it is enough to show that there are elements in $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{x \restriction n}$ whose density in $ B $ is not $ 1 $. But this is immediate since $ {\left [ {T} \right ]} \setminus {\left [ {T'} \right ]} $ is open and dense in $ {\left [ {T} \right ]} $.
By Lemma \[lem:closureofDissupt\] we obtain
There are measurable sets $ A \not \equiv B $ such that $$\operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( A ) = \operatorname{Cl}\Phi ( B ) \quad\text{and}\quad \operatorname{Int}\Phi ( A ) = \operatorname{Int}\Phi ( B ) .$$
Density in the sense of forcing and the proof of Theorem \[th:forcingdensePi03\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Boolean algebra $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ is endowed with a partial order $$\begin{split}
{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} & {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}\mu ( A \setminus B ) = 0
\\
& {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}A \cap B \equiv A .
\end{split}$$ The minimum of $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ is $ {{\boldsymbol [}{ \emptyset} {\boldsymbol ]}}$ the collections of null sets, and is denoted by $ 0 $. If $ A , B $ are $ \mathcal{T} $-regular, then implies that $${{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} {\mathbin{\Leftrightarrow }}A \subseteq B .$$ We will say that $ {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ has empty interior just in case $ \operatorname{Int}( \Phi ( B ) ) = \emptyset $, hence if $ {{\boldsymbol [}{B } {\boldsymbol ]}} $ has empty interior, then every $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ has also empty interior. From Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] we obtain
If $ 0 < {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ has empty interior then $ \Phi ( A ) $ is $ {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3}$ complete, for every $ 0 < {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} $. In particular, $ \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}}$ is not dense in the sense of forcing in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ for any Wadge degree $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$.
On the other hand,
\[prop:densebelownonemptyinterior\] For every Wadge degree $ \boldsymbol{d} \subseteq {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{3}$ and every $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ with nonempty interior, there is a $ {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \mathscr{W}_{ \boldsymbol{d}}$ with $ {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} $.
Suppose $ A $ is $ \mathcal{T} $-regular and suppose $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s \subseteq A $. By Theorem \[th:belowDelta03\] let $ D = \Phi ( D ) \in \boldsymbol{d}$: since $ s {{}^\smallfrown}D \in \boldsymbol{d}$ is also $ \mathcal{T} $-regular we are done.
Given $ A $ of positive measure and an $ \varepsilon > 0 $, choose a perfect pruned tree $ S $ such that $ {\left [ {S} \right ]} \subseteq A$ and $ \mu ( A \setminus {\left [ {S} \right ]} ) < \varepsilon / 2$. Let $ T \subseteq S $ be a perfect pruned tree such that $ \mu ( {\left [ {S} \right ]} \setminus {\left [ {T} \right ]} ) < \varepsilon / 2 $ and such that $ C = {\left [ {T} \right ]}$ has empty interior in $ {\left [ {S} \right ]} $. Then $ {{\boldsymbol [}{C} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ and since $ \Phi ( C ) \subseteq C $ then $ {{\boldsymbol [}{C} {\boldsymbol ]}} $ has empty interior. Therefore we have shown that
Let $ \mathscr{W} $ be the collection of all $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ with empty interior. Then $${\forall { \varepsilon > 0} \, } {\forall { {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} \, } {\exists { {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \mathscr{W} } \, }
\bigl ( {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \leq {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}B ) < \varepsilon \bigr ).$$
This and Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] yield (a slight strengthening of) Theorem \[th:forcingdensePi03\].
Proofs of Theorems \[th:new\] and \[th:Pi03comeagre\]
-----------------------------------------------------
Fix $ ( V_n )_n $ an enumeration without repetitions of $ {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ s \in {\prescript{ < \omega }{}{2}} } \right\}} $.
The set $$\mathscr{A} = {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \forall n \left ( \mu ( A \cap V_n ) > 0 {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mu ( V_n \setminus A ) > 0 \right )} \right\}}$$ is comeager in $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$.
We will show that the sets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{A} ^- &= {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}\in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \forall n \left ( \mu ( V_n \setminus A ) > 0 \right )} \right\}}
\\
\mathscr{A} ^+ &= {\left \{{ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}\in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \forall n \left ( \mu ( A \cap V_n ) > 0 \right )} \right\}}\end{aligned}$$ are comeager, and this will suffice since $ \mathscr{A} = \mathscr{A}^- \cap \mathscr{A} ^+ $. Let us start with $ \mathscr{A}^- $.
By a result of Banach and Mazur (see [@Kechris:1995kc Theorem 8.33]), it is enough to show that Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has a winning strategy in the game $ G^{**} ( \mathscr{A}^-) $ in which the two players choose alternatively nonempty open subsets of $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (II) at (0,0) [anchor=base] { \( {\mathbf{II}}\)};
\node (I) at (0,1) [anchor=base] {\( {\mathbf{I}}\)};
\node (x_0) at (1,1) [anchor=base] {\( U_0 \)};
\node (x_1) at (2,0) [anchor=base] {\(U_1 \)};
\node (x_2) at (3,1) [anchor=base] {\( U_2 \)} ;
\node (x_3) at (4,0) [anchor=base] {\( U_3 \)};
\node at (5.5,1) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node at (5.5,0) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node (dots) at (5.5,0) [anchor=base] {\( \cdots \)};
\node (A) at (x_3.south -| II.east) {}; \node (B) at (I.north -| II.south east) {}; \node (C) at ($0.5*(A) +0.5 *(B)$){}; \draw (II.south east) -- (I.north -| II.south east) (II.north west |- C.center) -- (dots.east |- C.center); \node at (C-|II.south west) [anchor=east]{\( G^{**} ( \mathscr{A}^- ) \)};
\begin{pgfonlayer}{background}
\fill[gray!30,rounded corners]
(II.south west) rectangle (dots.east |- I.north);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ such that $ U_0 \supseteq U_1 \supseteq U_2 \supseteq U_3 \supseteq \dots $, and $ {\mathbf{II}}$ wins iff $ \bigcap_{n} U_n \subseteq \mathscr{A}^- $. Since $ {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}$ is a metric space with distance $ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) = \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}B ) $, without loss of generality we may assume that each $ U_n $ is an open ball $$U_n = \operatorname{B}_ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_n} {\boldsymbol ]}} ; \varepsilon _ n )
= {\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{B} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{A_n} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) < \varepsilon _n } \right\}} .$$ The strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$ requires that
1. \[th:Pi03comeagre-ii\] $ \operatorname{Cl}U_{ 2 n + 1 } \subseteq U_{2n}$,
2. \[th:Pi03comeagre-iii\] $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } < 2^{-n} $,
3. \[th:Pi03comeagre-iv\] $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } \leq \mu ( V_n \setminus A_{2 n + 1 } ) $.
Conditions and are easily satisfied. For pick $ A_{ 2 n + 1 } ' $ such that $$r {\stackrel{\text{\tiny\rm def}}{=}}\mu ( A_{ 2 n } {\mathop{\triangle}}A_{ 2 n + 1 }' ) = \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{ 2 n } } {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{ 2 n + 1 } ' } {\boldsymbol ]}} ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n } ,$$ and let $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } ' < \min {\left \{ { \varepsilon _{ 2 n } - r, 2^{-n} } \right \}}$. We have two cases.
Case 1
: $ \mu ( V_n \cap A'_{ 2 n + 1 } ) = 0 $. Then let $ A_{2 n + 1} = A_{2 n + 1} ' $ and $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } \leq
\varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } ' , \mu ( V_n ) $.
Case 2
: $ \mu ( V_n \cap A_{ 2 n + 1 }' ) > 0 $. Then take $ V'_n \subseteq A_{2 n + 1}' \cap V_n $ such that $$0 < \mu ( V_n' ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n } - r .$$ Let $ A_{2 n + 1 } = A_{ 2 n + 1 }' \setminus V_n' $. Then $$\begin{split}
\delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{ 2 n}} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{2 n + 1} } {\boldsymbol ]}} ) & \leq
\delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{ 2 n}} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{2 n + 1} '} {\boldsymbol ]}} ) + \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{ 2 n + 1 }'} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{2 n + 1} } {\boldsymbol ]}} )
\\
& < r + \varepsilon _{ 2 n} - r
\\
&= \varepsilon _{ 2 n} ,
\end{split}$$ hence $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{ 2 n + 1 }} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \operatorname{B}_ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{2 n}} {\boldsymbol ]}} ; \varepsilon _{ 2 n } ) $. Choose $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1} \leq \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1} ' , \mu ( V_n ' ) / 2 $ such that $ \operatorname{Cl}\operatorname{B}_ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{2 n + 1}} {\boldsymbol ]}} ; \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } )
\subseteq \operatorname{B}_ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{2 n}} {\boldsymbol ]}} ; \varepsilon _{ 2 n } ) $.
We leave it to the reader to verify that conditions – are verified.
Let us check that this is a winning strategy for $ {\mathbf{II}}$. Conditions and imply that $ ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_n} {\boldsymbol ]}} )_n $ is a Cauchy sequence converging to some $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A_ \infty} {\boldsymbol ]}} $, and that $ \bigcap_{n} U_n = {\left \{ { {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_\infty } {\boldsymbol ]}}} \right \}}$. Since $ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{A_\infty} {\boldsymbol ]}} , {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{ 2 n + 1} } {\boldsymbol ]}} ) = \mu ( A_\infty {\mathop{\triangle}}A_{ 2 n + 1 } ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 }$, condition implies that $ \mu ( V_n \setminus A_\infty ) > 0 $.
We are now going to show that Player $ {\mathbf{II}}$ has a winning strategy in $ G^{**} ( \mathscr{A}^+ ) $, proving thus that $ \mathscr{A}^+ $ is comeager. Conditions and are as before, while is replaced by
1. \[th:Pi03comeagre-v\] $ \varepsilon _{n + 1} \leq \mu ( V_n \cap A_{ 2 n + 1} ) $.
To satisfy \[th:Pi03comeagre-v\] pick $ A'_{2 n + 1}$ such that $ r = \mu ( A_{ 2 n} {\mathop{\triangle}}A_{ 2 n + 1} ' ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n} $ and let $ \varepsilon '_{ 2 n + 1} < \min {\left \{ { \varepsilon _{ 2 n } - r, 2^{-n} } \right \}}$ as before. We have two cases.
Case 1${}'$
: $ \mu ( V_n \cap A_{ 2 n + 1} ' ) > 0 $. Then take $ A _{ 2 n + 1} = A _{ 2 n + 1}' $ and $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1}\leq \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1 } ' , \mu ( V_n \cap A _{ 2 n + 1}' ) $.
Case 2${}'$
: $ \mu ( V_n \cap A_{ 2 n + 1} ' ) = 0 $. Then take $ V'_n \subseteq V_n $ such that $ \mu ( V_n' ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n } - r $ and let $ A _{ 2 n + 1} = A _{ 2 n + 1}' \cup V'_n $ so that $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A_{ 2 n + 1}} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \operatorname{B}_ \delta ( {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_{ 2 n}} {\boldsymbol ]}} ; \varepsilon _{ 2 n} ) $. Choose $ \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1} \leq \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1}' , \varepsilon _{ 2 n} - r $.
As before, playing according to this strategy guarantees that $ \bigcap_{n} U_n = {\left \{ { {{\boldsymbol [}{ A_\infty } {\boldsymbol ]}} } \right \}} $ with $ \mu ( A_\infty ) > 0 $ and since $ \mu ( A_\infty {\mathop{\triangle}}A_{ 2 n + 1} ) < \varepsilon _{ 2 n + 1} $, condition \[th:Pi03comeagre-v\] implies that $ \mu ( A_\infty \cap V_n ) > 0 $.
Theorems \[th:Pi03comeagre\] and \[th:new\] now follow easily.
Let $ A = \Phi ( A ) $ and $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \mathscr{A} $. Then $ V_n \nsubseteq A $ for all $ n $, hence $ \operatorname{Int}( A ) = \emptyset $. Therefore by Theorem \[th:emptyinteriorPi03\] $$\mathscr{A} \setminus{\left \{ { {{\boldsymbol [}{ \emptyset} {\boldsymbol ]}}} \right \}} \subseteq
{\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}\in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ \Phi ( A ) \text{ is complete } {\boldsymbol{\Pi}}^{0}_{3} } \right\}} \qedhere$$
Let $ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \in \mathscr{A} $ and, towards a contradiction, suppose $ \mu ( A {\mathop{\triangle}}D ) = 0 $ with $ D \in {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2}$. By construction $ \mu ( D \cap V_n ) , \mu ( V_n \setminus D ) > 0 $ for all $ n $, hence $ D $ would be dense and co-dense, contradicting Baire’s category theorem. Therefore $$\mathscr{A} \setminus{\left \{ { {{\boldsymbol [}{ \emptyset} {\boldsymbol ]}}} \right \}} \subseteq
{\left \{{{{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}}\in {\textrm{\scshape Malg}}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {{\boldsymbol [}{A} {\boldsymbol ]}} \cap {\boldsymbol{\Delta}}^{0}_{2} = \emptyset } \right\}} \qedhere$$
Proof of the Lebesgue density theorem in the Cantor space {#sec:proofofdensitythm}
=========================================================
It is enough to show that $ A \setminus \Phi ( A ) $ is null for every measurable set $ A $. As $ A \setminus \Phi ( A ) \subseteq \bigcup_{ \varepsilon \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+ } B_ \varepsilon $ where $$B_ \varepsilon = {\mathopen \{{x \in A}{\boldsymbol\mid}{\liminf_{n \to \infty} \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {x \restriction n}\rfloor}} ) <1 - \varepsilon } \mathclose\}},$$ it is enough to show that each $ B_ \varepsilon $ is null. Arguing as on page , it is easy to check that each $ B_ \varepsilon $ is measurable. Towards a contradiction, suppose that $ B = B_ \varepsilon $ is not null for some fixed $ \varepsilon < 1$. Choose $ U \supseteq B $ open and such that $ \mu ( U ) < \mu ( B ) / (1 - \varepsilon ) $. Let $$\mathcal{B} = {\left \{{s \in {\prescript{< \omega }{}{2}} } {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s \subseteq U {\mathbin{\, \wedge \,}}\mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor { s}\rfloor}} )
\leq 1 - \varepsilon } \right\}}.$$ By definition of $ B $, any one of its points has arbitrarily small neighborhoods $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s $ such that $ \mu ( {{A}_{\lfloor {s}\rfloor}} ) \leq 1 - \varepsilon $, that is $$\label{eq:th:Lebesguedensity1}
{\forall {x \in B} \, } {\exists^{\infty} {m} \, } \left ( x \restriction m \in \mathcal{B} \right ) .$$ If $ \mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{B} $ is an antichain (i.e., $ {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_t = \emptyset $ for distinct $ s , t \in \mathcal{A} $) then $$\begin{split}
\mu ( B \cap \textstyle\bigcup_{s \in \mathcal{A}} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s ) &
\leq \textstyle \sum_{s \in \mathcal{A}} \mu ( A \cap {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s )
\\
& \leq ( 1 - \varepsilon ) \cdot \textstyle\sum_{s \in \mathcal{A}} \mu ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s )
\\
& \leq ( 1 - \varepsilon ) \cdot \mu ( U )
\\
& < \mu ( B ) ,
\end{split}$$ hence $$\label{eq:th:Lebesguedensity2}
{\forall {\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{B}} \, } \left ( \mathcal{A} \text{ antichain} {\mathbin{\, \Rightarrow \,}}\mu ( B \setminus \textstyle\bigcup_{s \in \mathcal{A}} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_s ) > 0 \right ) .$$ Construct pairwise incompatible $ s_n \in \mathcal{B} $ as follows. Let $ s_0 \in \mathcal{B} $ be arbitrary, and suppose $ s_0 , \dots , s_n $ have been chosen: by the set $ B \setminus \left ( {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{s_0} \cup \dots \cup {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{s_n} \right ) $ is not null, and for any $ x $ in this set there are arbitrarily large $ m $ such that $ x \restriction m \in \mathcal{B} $ by . In particular, the collection $ \mathcal{B}_n = {\left \{{ s \in \mathcal{B}} {\boldsymbol\mid}{ {\forall {i \leq n} \, } \left ( s_i \perp s \right ) } \right\}} $ is nonempty, so let $ s_{n + 1 }$ be an element of $ \mathcal{B} $ of minimal length. Since $ \mathcal{B}_n \supset \mathcal{B}_{n + 1} $ it follows that $ \operatorname{lh}( s_n ) \leq \operatorname{lh}( s_{n + 1} ) $ for all $ n $, hence $ \operatorname{lh}( s_n ) \to \infty $. As $ {\left \{{s_n} {\boldsymbol\mid}{n \in \omega } \right\}} \subseteq \mathcal{B}$ is an antichain, there is an $ \bar{x} \in B \setminus \bigcup_{n} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{s_n} $ and by there is an $ \bar{m} $ such that $ \bar{s} = \bar{x} \restriction \bar{m} \in \mathcal{B} = \mathcal{B}_{-1} $. We will show by induction on $ n $ that $ \bar{s} \in \mathcal{B}_n $ — as $ \operatorname{lh}( \bar{s} ) < \operatorname{lh}( s_n ) $ for large enough $ n $, and $ \bar{s} \in \mathcal{B}_{n + 1 }$, this would contradict the choice of $ s_{n + 1} $. Assume $ \bar{s} \in \mathcal{B}_n $: towards proving that $ \bar{s} \in \mathcal{B}_{n + 1} $ it is enough to show that $ \bar{s} \perp s_{n + 1} $. Assume otherwise, that is either $ s_{n + 1} \subseteq \bar{s} $ or $ \bar{s} \subset s_{n + 1} $. If $ s_{n + 1} \subseteq \bar{s} $, then $ \bar{x} \in {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{\bar{s}} \subseteq {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{s_{n + 1}} $, against $ \bar{x} \in B \setminus \bigcup_{i} {{\boldsymbol N}\!}_{s_i} $, and if $ \bar{s} \subset s_{n + 1} $ this would go against the minimality of $ \operatorname{lh}( s_{n + 1} ) $, hence either way a contradiction is reached.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Planck Collaboration: N. Aghanim'
- 'M. Arnaud'
- 'M. Ashdown'
- 'J. Aumont'
- 'C. Baccigalupi'
- 'A. J. Banday'
- 'R. B. Barreiro'
- 'J. G. Bartlett'
- 'N. Bartolo'
- 'E. Battaner'
- 'K. Benabed'
- 'A. Benoît'
- 'A. Benoit-Lévy'
- 'J.-P. Bernard'
- 'M. Bersanelli'
- 'P. Bielewicz'
- 'J. J. Bock'
- 'A. Bonaldi'
- 'L. Bonavera'
- 'J. R. Bond'
- 'J. Borrill'
- 'F. R. Bouchet[^1]'
- 'F. Boulanger'
- 'M. Bucher'
- 'C. Burigana'
- 'R. C. Butler'
- 'E. Calabrese'
- 'J.-F. Cardoso'
- 'A. Catalano'
- 'A. Challinor'
- 'H. C. Chiang'
- 'P. R. Christensen'
- 'D. L. Clements'
- 'L. P. L. Colombo'
- 'C. Combet'
- 'A. Coulais'
- 'B. P. Crill'
- 'A. Curto'
- 'F. Cuttaia'
- 'L. Danese'
- 'R. D. Davies'
- 'R. J. Davis'
- 'P. de Bernardis'
- 'A. de Rosa'
- 'G. de Zotti'
- 'J. Delabrouille'
- 'F.-X. Désert'
- 'E. Di Valentino'
- 'C. Dickinson'
- 'J. M. Diego'
- 'K. Dolag'
- 'H. Dole'
- 'S. Donzelli'
- 'O. Doré'
- 'M. Douspis'
- 'A. Ducout'
- 'J. Dunkley'
- 'X. Dupac'
- 'G. Efstathiou'
- 'F. Elsner'
- 'T. A. En[ß]{}lin'
- 'H. K. Eriksen'
- 'J. Fergusson'
- 'F. Finelli'
- 'O. Forni'
- 'M. Frailis'
- 'A. A. Fraisse'
- 'E. Franceschi'
- 'A. Frejsel'
- 'S. Galeotta'
- 'S. Galli'
- 'K. Ganga'
- 'C. Gauthier'
- 'M. Gerbino'
- 'M. Giard'
- 'E. Gjerl[ø]{}w'
- 'J. González-Nuevo'
- 'K. M. Górski'
- 'S. Gratton'
- 'A. Gregorio'
- 'A. Gruppuso'
- 'J. E. Gudmundsson'
- 'J. Hamann'
- 'F. K. Hansen'
- 'D. L. Harrison'
- 'G. Helou'
- 'S. Henrot-Versillé'
- 'C. Hernández-Monteagudo'
- 'D. Herranz'
- 'S. R. Hildebrandt'
- 'E. Hivon'
- 'W. A. Holmes'
- 'A. Hornstrup'
- 'K. M. Huffenberger'
- 'G. Hurier'
- 'A. H. Jaffe'
- 'W. C. Jones'
- 'M. Juvela'
- 'E. Keihänen'
- 'R. Keskitalo'
- 'K. Kiiveri'
- 'J. Knoche'
- 'L. Knox'
- 'M. Kunz'
- 'H. Kurki-Suonio'
- 'G. Lagache'
- 'A. Lähteenmäki'
- 'J.-M. Lamarre'
- 'A. Lasenby'
- 'M. Lattanzi'
- 'C. R. Lawrence'
- 'M. Le Jeune'
- 'R. Leonardi'
- 'J. Lesgourgues'
- 'F. Levrier'
- 'A. Lewis'
- 'M. Liguori'
- 'P. B. Lilje'
- 'M. Lilley'
- 'M. Linden-V[ø]{}rnle'
- 'V. Lindholm'
- 'M. López-Caniego'
- 'J. F. Macías-Pérez'
- 'B. Maffei'
- 'G. Maggio'
- 'D. Maino'
- 'N. Mandolesi'
- 'A. Mangilli'
- 'M. Maris'
- 'P. G. Martin'
- 'E. Martínez-González'
- 'S. Masi'
- 'S. Matarrese'
- 'P. R. Meinhold'
- 'A. Melchiorri'
- 'M. Migliaccio'
- 'M. Millea'
- 'S. Mitra'
- 'M.-A. Miville-Deschênes'
- 'A. Moneti'
- 'L. Montier'
- 'G. Morgante'
- 'D. Mortlock'
- 'S. Mottet'
- 'D. Munshi'
- 'J. A. Murphy'
- 'A. Narimani'
- 'P. Naselsky'
- 'F. Nati'
- 'P. Natoli'
- 'F. Noviello'
- 'D. Novikov'
- 'I. Novikov'
- 'C. A. Oxborrow'
- 'F. Paci'
- 'L. Pagano'
- 'F. Pajot'
- 'D. Paoletti'
- 'B. Partridge'
- 'F. Pasian'
- 'G. Patanchon'
- 'T. J. Pearson'
- 'O. Perdereau'
- 'L. Perotto'
- 'V. Pettorino'
- 'F. Piacentini'
- 'M. Piat'
- 'E. Pierpaoli'
- 'D. Pietrobon'
- 'S. Plaszczynski'
- 'E. Pointecouteau'
- 'G. Polenta'
- 'N. Ponthieu'
- 'G. W. Pratt'
- 'S. Prunet'
- 'J.-L. Puget'
- 'J. P. Rachen'
- 'M. Reinecke'
- 'M. Remazeilles'
- 'C. Renault'
- 'A. Renzi'
- 'I. Ristorcelli'
- 'G. Rocha'
- 'M. Rossetti'
- 'G. Roudier'
- 'B. Rouillé d’Orfeuil'
- 'J. A. Rubiño-Martín'
- 'B. Rusholme'
- 'L. Salvati'
- 'M. Sandri'
- 'D. Santos'
- 'M. Savelainen'
- 'G. Savini'
- 'D. Scott'
- 'P. Serra'
- 'L. D. Spencer'
- 'M. Spinelli'
- 'V. Stolyarov'
- 'R. Stompor'
- 'R. Sunyaev'
- 'D. Sutton'
- 'A.-S. Suur-Uski'
- 'J.-F. Sygnet'
- 'J. A. Tauber'
- 'L. Terenzi'
- 'L. Toffolatti'
- 'M. Tomasi'
- 'M. Tristram'
- 'T. Trombetti'
- 'M. Tucci'
- 'J. Tuovinen'
- 'G. Umana'
- 'L. Valenziano'
- 'J. Valiviita'
- 'F. Van Tent'
- 'P. Vielva'
- 'F. Villa'
- 'L. A. Wade'
- 'B. D. Wandelt'
- 'I. K. Wehus'
- 'D. Yvon'
- 'A. Zacchei'
- 'A. Zonca'
---
[^1]: Corresponding author: F. R. Bouchet, [[email protected]]([email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Programmable control of the inductive electric field enables advanced operations of reversed-field pinch (RFP) plasmas in the MST device and further develops the technical basis for ohmically heated fusion RFP plasmas. MST’s poloidal and toroidal magnetic fields ($B_\text{p}$ and $B_\text{t}$) can be sourced by IGBT-based programmable power supplies (PPSs). In order to provide real-time simultaneous control of both $B_\text{p}$ and $B_\text{t}$ circuits, a time-independent integrated model is developed. The actuators considered for the control are the $B_\text{p}$ and $B_\text{t}$ primary currents produced by the PPSs. The control system goal will be tracking two particular demand quantities: the plasma current $I_\text{p}$, directly related to $B_\text{p}$, and the RFP reversal parameter $F$, closely related to $B_\text{t}$. To understand the responses of $I_\text{p}$ and $F$ to the actuators and to enable systematic design of control algorithms, dedicated experiments are run in which the actuators are modulated, and a linearized dynamic data-driven model is generated using a system identification method. We perform a series of initial real-time experiments to test the designed feedback controllers and validate the derived model predictions. The feedback controllers show systematic improvements over simpler feedforward controllers.'
address:
- '$^1$ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551, USA'
- '$^2$ Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53719, USA'
- $^3$ Unaffiliated
author:
- 'I. R. Goumiri$^{1, 2}$, K. J. McCollam$^2$, A. A. Squitieri$^2$, D. J. Holly$^2$, J. S. Sarff$^2$ and S. P. Leblanc$^3$.'
bibliography:
- 'Control\_paper\_2020.bib'
title: Simultaneous feedback control of toroidal magnetic field and plasma current on MST using advanced programmable power supplies
---
Introduction
============
The reversed field pinch (RFP) is a toroidal, magnetic confinement configuration that has the potential to achieve an ohmically heated and inductively sustained steady-state fusion plasma. In contrast to the tokamak configuration, the RFP is magnetized primarily by plasma current. The magnetic equilibrium has low safety factor, $|q(r)|\lesssim a/2R_0$, allowing the current density and ohmic heating to be much larger than for a tokamak plasma of the same size and magnetic field strength [@Christiansen82]. Furthermore, the RFP plasma exhibits magnetic relaxation that is subject to conservation of magnetic helicity. This allows the possibility for using AC magnetic helicity injection, also called oscillating field current drive, to sustain a steady-state plasma current using purely AC inductive loop voltages [@Bevir85; @McCollam06]. An ohmically heated and inductively sustained plasma could greatly simplify a toroidal magnetic fusion reactor by eliminating the need for auxiliary heating and non-inductive current drive.
Key to achieving a steady-state, ohmically heated RFP will be advanced, programmable control of the poloidal and toroidal field magnets and their power supplies. Programmable power supplies are used in many fusion experiments, but the RFP has the special challenge of large power flow between the poloidal and toroidal magnetic field circuits via nonlinear relaxation processes regulated by the plasma. This is particularly acute with oscillating field current drive (OFCD), where megawatts of reactive power oscillate between the circuits and regulated by the plasma [@McCollam10]. Precise phase control of the AC toroidal and poloidal inductive loop voltages is essential for OFCD.
The relaxation process appearing in RFP plasmas happens through nonlinear interactions of tearing instabilities that cause magnetic turbulence, which tends to degrade energy confinement. This turbulence decreases with increasing plasma current and commensurate higher plasma temperature, but it is still uncertain if the scaling will be sufficiently strong to reach the confinement necessary for ohmic ignition. Inductive pulsed parallel current drive control shows that the RFP plasma can achieve similar confinement to a tokamak of the same size and magnetic field strength when tearing instabilities are reduced [@Sarff03; @Chapman09]. An inductive control method called self-similar ramp-down (SSRD) has been shown theoretically to completely stabilize tearing in the RFP [@Nebel02], but the required inductive programming is yet to be demonstrated in experiments. An advanced inductive control scenario capable of transitioning between OFCD and SSRD programming on demand and with minimal delay could yield a hybrid, nearly-steady-state scenario that combines the advantages of efficient current sustainment via OFCD and stability control via SSRD using robust inductive current drive [@Sarff08].
The development of real-time programmability is essential to achieve such advanced inductive control for an RFP plasma. Programmable power supplies are being developed for the MST facility, in which advanced control scenarios can be deployed and tested. Partial power supplies exist for low-current operation, which are used to begin the development of advanced control. Power supplies capable of high-current advanced inductive control experiments in MST are presently under construction. Immediate advantages accrue, since inductive control enables a wide range of new capabilities spanning the breadth of MST’s fusion and basic plasma science missions.
In a broader context, active control of MHD instabilities is important for magnetically confined plasmas. For example, in tokamak experiments, toroidal rotation is believed to have an important effect on MHD stability, where altering the plasma profile and speed can increase the stability of tearing, kink/ballooning, and resistive wall modes [@Gerhardt09; @Park13; @Sabbagh10; @Berkery10; @Garofalo02]. Feedback systems consisting of real-time computation, arrays of magnetic sensors (to measure the toroidal angular plasma momentum) and external actively actuated coils and beam injectors (to drive or drag the rotation) have the potential to maintain plasma stability which is an important factor in avoiding disruptions in tokamaks [@Goumiri15; @Goumiri17]. Modern control theory approaches have been taken in both RFPs and tokamaks, where advanced feedback control algorithms have been used in RWM control problems for different devices: [@Olofsson09; @Olofsson13] for the EXTRAP T2R and RFX-mod RFPs and [@Garofalo01; @In06; @Sabbagh04] for the DIII-D and NSTX tokamaks are good examples.
This paper reports the first systematic tests of real-time control of the programmable power supplies presently available on MST. The initial focus is simultaneous control of the toroidal plasma current, $I_p$, and the dimensionless reversal parameter, $F= B_T(a)(\pi a^2/\Phi)$, where $B_T(a)$ is the toroidal field at the plasma surface, and $\Phi$ is the toroidal flux within the plasma. The reversal parameter tends to track the edge safety factor, $q(a)\propto B_T(a)$, but $\Phi$ is determined primarily by poloidal [*plasma*]{} current, since the applied toroidal field is small for the RFP. Therefore, $F$ is influenced by the nonlinear relaxation process occurring in the plasma and is not simply proportional to circuit current in a power supply. Controlling $F$ represents a first step toward understanding the influence of nonlinear effects in advanced control of the RFP magnetic equilibrium.
The work begins by building linear models through a system identification method based on experimental data, and then tests these models on independent sets of experimental data. A systematic linear control theory procedure is then used to design a model-based controller which is eventually applied to the MST device control experiment through a fully integrated control software, here dubbed the MST Control System (MCS). We find that the model-based feedback controllers show some aspects of improved performance relative to simple feed-forward controllers, but the work reveals additional development is required to achieve the desired advanced controllers.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec2\] introduces the data-driven models to predict MST reversal parameter $F$ and plasma current $I_\text{p}$ separately then simultaneously. Section \[sec3\] describes the general design of the used controllers. Experimental results of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ control are shown in Section \[sec4\]. Section \[sec5\] concludes the paper.
The data-driven modeling {#sec2}
=========================
The MST facility [@Dexter91] produces RFP plasmas with current $I_p<0.6$ MA. Its major and minor radii are $R_0=1.5$ m and $a=0.5$ m respectively. The volume-average beta is $\langle \beta \rangle = 2-5\%$, with electron and ion temperatures, $T_{e,i}\leqslant3$ keV. For the work in this paper, low-current plasmas were studied using programmable switching power supplies [@Holly11; @Holly15] attached to the poloidal field transformer and toroidal magnet. Switching power supplies capable of larger current are under construction. The facility also produces low-current tokamak plasmas.
Waveforms for $F(t)$ and $I_p(t)$ in a typical MST discharge are shown in figure \[fig1\]. The waveforms are punctuated by abrupt quasi-periodic events, called sawteeth. These events result from the magnetic relaxation process related to tearing instabilies that maintain the current profile near marginal stability. Our designed controller is not aiming to control the fast sawtooth dynamics but rather control the slower trend of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$. Therefore sawtooth dynamics will appear and affect our controlled results.
![Experimental data (Shot \# 1161209010) exhibiting sawteeth effect on the dynamics of the reversal parameter $F$ (a) and the plasma current $I_\text{p}$ (b). This shot is a standard MST plasma produced using legacy non-programmable power supplies that attain an approximate “flattop” using pulse-forming-network techniques.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figures/fig1a "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![Experimental data (Shot \# 1161209010) exhibiting sawteeth effect on the dynamics of the reversal parameter $F$ (a) and the plasma current $I_\text{p}$ (b). This shot is a standard MST plasma produced using legacy non-programmable power supplies that attain an approximate “flattop” using pulse-forming-network techniques.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figures/fig1b "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
The basic idea of system identification is characterizing a dynamical system from sampled input and output data [@Ljung99]. We assume that our MST device can be approximated by a linear time invariant (LTI) discrete-time system. Convergence results show that it is possible, for a particular class of models, to asymptotically obtain an accurate LTI system description as the size of the sample dataset $N$ and the model order $n$ both goes to infinity, but with $n/N$ vanishing [@Zhu01].
Three models are constructed here: A first single input single output (SISO) model of the reversal parameter $F$, a second (SISO) model of the plasma current $I_\text{p}$ and finally a multiple inputs multiple outputs (MIMO) model for the coupled dynamics of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$. Each model is going to have a corresponding controller and be applied in real time experimentally to the MST device. The schemes are depicted in Figure \[Schematic\]. The procedures are detailed in the following subsections.
= \[draw, fill=yellow!10, rectangle, minimum height=2em, minimum width=4em\] = \[draw, fill=yellow!10, rectangle, minimum height=4em, minimum width=4em\] = \[draw, fill=green!10, rectangle, minimum height=2em, minimum width=4em\] = \[draw, fill=blue!20, circle, node distance=0.9cm\] = \[coordinate\] = \[coordinate\] = \[pin edge=[to-,thin,black]{}\]
\(r) \[fill,circle,inner sep = 0pt,minimum size=1pt\] ; (MIMO) [MIMO controller]{}; (MST) [MST]{}; (MIMO.8) – ++ (2,0) (MST) node\[pos=0.5, above\] [$I_{tg}$]{}; (MIMO.-8) – ++ (2,0) (MST) node\[pos=0.5, below\] [$I_{pg}$]{}; (output) ; (MST.15) – ++ (1,0) node\[pos=0.6, above, yshift = 2\] [$F$]{} -| ++ (0,-1.8) -| node\[pos=0.2, above, yshift = -1\] (r) to (MIMO); (MST.-15) – ++ (0.5,0) node\[pos=0.6, below, yshift = -2\] [$I_p$]{} -| ++ (0,-1.1) -| node\[pos=0.2, below, yshift = -1\] (MIMO.270);
\(r) \[fill,circle,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1pt\] ; (SISO1) [SISO controller]{}; (SISO2) [SISO controller]{}; (MST) [MST]{}; (SISO1.0.3) – ++ (2,0) (MST) node\[pos=0.5, above\] [$I_{tg}$]{}; (SISO2.-0.3) – ++ (2,0) (MST) node\[pos=0.5, below\] [$I_{pg}$]{}; (output) ; (MST.15) – ++ (1,0) node\[pos=0.5, above, yshift = 2\] [$F$]{} -| ++ (0,-1.8) -| (r) to (SISO1); (MST.-15) – ++ (0.5,0) node\[pos=0.6, below, yshift = -2\] [$I_p$]{} -| ++ (0,-1.1) -| (SISO2.290);
The $F$ model {#sec2a}
--------------
![ An experimental data (Shot \# 1170822156) showing the relationship between the input ($I_{tg}$) and the output ($F$) of our reversal parameter model.[]{data-label="figg1"}](Figures/fig60 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![ An experimental data (Shot \# 1170822156) showing the relationship between the input ($I_{tg}$) and the output ($F$) of our reversal parameter model.[]{data-label="figg1"}](Figures/fig61 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
The collected data come from a hundred shots (estimation data set) where the input data (actuator) is the primary current $I_{tg}$ of the $B_\text{t}$ programmable power supply and the output data (sensor measurement) is the reversal parameter $F$ ranging from $0$ to $-0.4$. Figure \[figg1\] represents one example of the data collected. we can see that up to the end of the plateau period ($t=0.04$ s), the dynamic shows a linear behavior. This will be the focus of our modeling.
A system identification process was used to develop a linear state-space response model to the system. This model will then be used to design an optimal control law. The discrete linear state-space response model can be written of the form $$\begin{split}
{x}_{k+1} &= A x_k + B u_k , \label{ss1}\\
y_k &= C x_k,
\end{split}$$ where the physical actuator value $u_k=I_{tg}$ is the primary current at a certain iteration and the measurement of the system output $y= F$ is the corresponding reversal parameter. $A \in \mathbb{R}^{\, (n_x) \times (n_x)}$, $B \in \mathbb{R}^{\,(n_x) \times 1}$, and $C \in \mathbb{R}^{\,1 \times (n_x)}$ which respectively are called the dynamics, control and sensor matrices, identified through system identification.
The subspace method [@Ljung99] for state-space model identification, part of the Matlab System Identification Toolbox, was used to find the optimal system matrices for a prescribed number of states $n_x$ (model-order) that best fitted the estimation data set. The optimal choice of model-order was then found by identifying a set of models for a small range of $n_x$, simulating the identified models using the inputs from the validation dataset (a different set of shots), and comparing how well each model predicted the output of the validation dataset. Models with too low number of states fail to capture the main dynamics of the system, while models with excessive number of states overfit the noise in the estimation data set, degrading prediction of the validation dataset.
![Comparison of output ($F$) predicted by the identified model to the actual reversal parameter $F$ of the validation data.[]{data-label="figg2"}](Figures/fig62){width="1\linewidth"}
A comparison of the outputs of the optimal model, which was found to be of the order of three, to the validation data is shown in figure \[figg2\], showing good agreement in $F$ (fit 85%). The benchmarking of the model against several real data shots is a necessary first step as this model will be used for our control design testing. An exact plasma model is not a major concern as feedback control can be performed to tolerate errors in the model. The key is to ensure that the $F$ model does not deviate drastically from the actual time evolution in order to prevent control system instabilities from dominating plasma physics dynamics.
The $I_p$ model {#sec2c}
----------------
The dedicated data come from about 50 shots where the input data (actuator) is the primary current $I_{pg}$ of the $B_\text{p}$ programmable power supply and the output data (sensor measurement) is the plasma current $I_\text{p}$. Figure \[figg3\] represents an example of the data collected. We can see that during this shot period, the dynamics shows a linear behavior but with a slight decay of plasma current around $t=0.035$ s that persists until the end of the shot. This phenomenon is due to plasma resistance. Our model does not intend to capture this current decrease as it is assumed linear.
![ An experimental data (Shot \# 1180207047) showing the relationship between the input ($I_{pg}$) and the output ($I_\text{p}$) of our plasma current model.[]{data-label="figg3"}](Figures/fig64 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![ An experimental data (Shot \# 1180207047) showing the relationship between the input ($I_{pg}$) and the output ($I_\text{p}$) of our plasma current model.[]{data-label="figg3"}](Figures/fig63 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
![ A comparisons of output ($I_\text{p}$) predicted by the identified model to the actual plasma current of the validation data[]{data-label="figg4"}](Figures/fig65){width="1\linewidth"}
A comparison of the outputs of the optimal model to the validation data is shown in figure \[figg4\], showing good agreement in $I_\text{p}$ up to the time where the plasma resistance effect starts to become noticeable ($t=0.035$ s). The model is linear, so for a constant input ($I_{pg}$), it predicts a steady plasma current whereas the experiments show a little decrease towards the end due to the plasma resistance.
The coupled $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ model {#sec2b}
---------------------------------------
During the modeling, we started by a SISO model for $F$ and $I_\text{p}$, as the purpose was to test and control each variable independently on MST. Naturally we split the system into two single-input-single-output loops, and we use the models of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ described above and its controllers to operate it. Once these types of controllers work on MST, we use the fact that these two entities are dynamically coupled to build a coupled MIMO model that has the two primary currents $I_{tg}$ and $I_{pg}$ as inputs and both $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ as outputs.
![ A comparisons of outputs ($F$ (a) and $I_\text{p}$ (b)) predicted by the identified model to the actual reversal parameter and plasma current of the validation data[]{data-label="figg5"}](Figures/fig67 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![ A comparisons of outputs ($F$ (a) and $I_\text{p}$ (b)) predicted by the identified model to the actual reversal parameter and plasma current of the validation data[]{data-label="figg5"}](Figures/fig68 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
A comparison of the outputs of the optimal model to the validation data is shown in figure \[figg5\], showing good agreement in $F$ and $I_\text{p}$. We can notice that the $F$ prediction of the coupled model loses some precision (lower fitting) compared to its prediction in the individual $F$ model. This is due to the coupling consideration. It will produce though a better controller design due to the additional dynamics information it encapsulates (if we compare it to the split system).
Control design {#sec3}
===============
Once the identified models are built, we use them to design Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controllers. This type of controllers minimizes a cost function of the form [@SandP; @Lewis; @AandM] $$\begin{aligned}
J = \int_0^T { x(t)^\mathsf{T}\! Q x(t) + u(t)^\mathsf{T}\! R u(t) + x_i(t)^\mathsf{T}\! Q_i x_i(t) \, dt},\end{aligned}$$ where $x(t)$ is the internal state of the system at time $t$, $u(t)$ is the control input, $x_i(t)$ is the integral of the tracking error (between the targeted and actual values). The controller optimizes the use of actuators according to the weights in $Q$ and $R$, which are free design parameters, and also ensures reference tracking with the integral action tailored by choice of the free design parameters in $Q_i$. A Kalman filter [@SandP; @Lewis; @AandM] is embedded in the resulting control law, which optimally estimates the unmeasured states $x(t)$ based on the measurements $y(t)$, taking into account the process and measurement noise levels. An anti-windup scheme is implemented to keep the actuator requests from winding up far beyond their saturation levels by feeding back a signal proportional to an integral of the unrealized actuation. Figure \[fig:model1\] represents the schematic of this controller design.
(1.6,-2.8) rectangle (15.5,3.1); at (8.4,3.1) [Controller]{};
\(r) [$y_{d}$]{}; ; (r in) ; (F) [$F$]{}; (L) [Observer]{}; (sum feedback) ; (K) [$K$]{}; (sum inputs) ; (before sat) ; (sat)
(-.4,0) – (.4,0) (0,-.25) – (0,.25); (-.4,-.2) – (-.2,-.2) – (.2,.2) – (.4,.2);
; (after sat) ; (P) [MST]{}; ; (P out) ; (y) [$y$]{}; ; (y in) ; (sub y in) ; (y input) ; (Ki) [$K_I$]{}; (sum lqi) at (Ki -| y in) ; (AW out) ; (integrator) [$\int$]{}; (sum AW) ; (AW) [AW]{};
\(r) to (r in) to (F); (F.east |- sum inputs) to node \[above\] [$u_{d}$]{} (sum inputs); (F)\[yshift=-12\] -| node \[right, near end\] [$x_{d}$]{} (sum feedback); (sum feedback) to (K); (K) -| (sum inputs); (sum inputs) to (before sat) to (sat); (sat) to (after sat) to ++(down:2.6) -| (sub y in) to (sub y in -| L.west); (after sat) to node \[above, pos=0.7\] (u) [$u$]{} (P); ; (P) to (P out) to (y); (P out) – ++(down:3.5) -| (y input) to (y in) to (y in -| L.west); (L) to node \[above\] [$\hat x$]{} node \[below, very near end\] [$-$]{} (sum feedback); (r in) |- (sum lqi); (y in) to node \[right, pos=0.95\] [$-$]{} (sum lqi); (sum lqi) to (Ki); (Ki) to (AW out); (AW out) to (integrator); (integrator) -| (sum inputs); (before sat) |- node \[below, very near end\] [$-$]{} (sum AW); (after sat) |- (sum AW); (sum AW) to (AW); (AW) to ++(up:0.6) -| (AW out);
The same control design will be used for both One-Input One-output models that control $F$ using $I_{tg}$ and $I_\text{p}$ using $I_{pg}$, and the Two-input Two-output model (MIMO) that controls simultaneously $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ using primary currents $I_{tg}$ and $I_{pg}$. The only difference will be the dimension of the model inputs and outputs which change from a single variable to a vector variable; the controller dimensions will adapt accordingly. More details about the control theory and design can be found in [@Astrom10; @Skogestad05] but will be summarized succinctly in this section. As shown in Figure \[fig:model1\], the controller design has five main components:
Feedforward design $F$
----------------------
The purpose here is to force the plasma current $I_p$ and the revesal parameter $F$ to reach a target state $x_d$ such that the sensor output $y$ matches a reference signal $y_d$. In the final implementation, all one should have to prescribe is $y_d$ (e.g., the desired plasma current value $I_p$ and the desired reversal parameter $F$). The target state $x_d$ and the corresponding input $u_d$ are found by solving equations (\[ss1\]) at steady state: $$\label{ss2}
\begin{split}
0 &= A x_d + B u_d, \\
y_d &= C x_d.
\end{split}$$ We then solve for $x_d$ and $u_d$ by writing (\[ss2\]) in matrix form $$\left(\! \begin{array}{c} x_{d} \\ u_{d}\end{array}\!\right)
={ \left(\! \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\ C & 0 \end{array} \! \right)}^{-1} \left(\! \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ I \end{array} \!\right) y_{d} = \left(\! \begin{array}{c} F_x \\ F_u \end{array} \!\right) y_{d}.
\label{steadystate}$$ Once the desired target states $\left( x_{d} , u_{d} \right)$ are established, the controller is designed based on the model then tested on the MST device to determine if the controller can track and reach the desired $F$ and $I_p$ values in the vicinity of the equilibrium.
If the model of the dynamics has no errors or uncertainties (which is never the case) and is stable, a feedforward controller is enough to reach the target. $ F_u$ and $ F_x $ are the feedforward gains corresponding to the input and state respectively. The total feedforward gain $F$ depends on the matrices $A$, $B$, $C$ and $K$ (explained in the following subsection).
Linear quadratic regulator (LQR) design $K$
-------------------------------------------
The feedback control law links the input $u$ to the state $x$ by $$u = u_{d} - K(x - x_{d}) = - Kx + Fy_{d},
\label{eqn:ctrllaw_ff}$$ where $K$ is the feedback control gain to be determined from control design and $F = F_u + K F_x$ is the total feedforward gain. Therefore, the resulting closed-loop system of equations (\[ss1\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} &= (A-BK) x + BF y_{d}, \\
y &= C x.
\end{aligned}\label{eq:4}$$
A standard linear control technique (linear-quadratic regulators) [@SandP; @AandM] is used in order to determine the gains $K$ while minimizing a quadratic cost function.
Observer design
---------------
The feedback law requires the knowledge of the full state $x$. However, in our actual system-identified model, we don’t know the state; we don’t even know what the state represents, we only measure the inputs-outputs. However, we may reconstruct an estimate of the state from the available sensor measurements using an [*observer*]{}. The observer will then reconstruct the state estimate $\hat x$, with dynamics given by $$\dot{\hat{x}} = A \hat{x} + B u + L (y - C \hat{x})
= (A- L C) \hat{x} + B u + L y,
\label{obs}$$ where the matrices $A,B$ and $C$ are the same as those in the model (\[ss1\]), and $L$ is a matrix of gains chosen such that the state estimate converges quickly relative to the system’s dynamics. Using our linear model, we design an optimal observer (Kalman filter)[@SandP; @AandM] to find $L$.
The observer generates an estimate of the state from the physics model as represented by the state matrix, the inputs and outputs, and once combined to the feedback controller, it forms a [@SandP; @AandM].
Integrator design $K_I$
-----------------------
The goal is to track both the desired plasma current and reversal parameter values (reference tracking). In order to do that, the steady state error between the output (measured) and the target profile has to be minimized by using an integrator and introducing a new state variable $z$ that is the integral of the error: $$\dot{z} = y_{d} - y = y_{d} - C x.
\label{integral}$$ The new feedback law can be then written as $$u = u_d + K (x_d - x) + K_I \!\!\int (y_d - y)$$ where $K_I$ be the gain of the integrator.
Anti-windup design $AW$
-----------------------
A drawback of integral control is that if the actuator values are limited to some range as in our case, then the integrator can accumulate error when the actuator is “saturated,” resulting in poor transient performance, a phenomenon known as “integrator windup.”
We use a standard anti-windup scheme [@AandM; @Lewis] in which one feeds back the difference between the desired value of $u$ and its actual (possibly saturated) value to eliminate this effect.
Experimental results {#sec4}
=====================
Hardware and software setup
---------------------------
In PPS operation on MST, a real-time Linux host for the MST Control System (MCS) provides demand waveforms clocked to a 10 kHz sampling rate via a 16-bit digital-to-analog converter (D-tAcq ACQ196). The analog output voltages are fed to one or both of the two programmable power supplies $B_\text{t}$-PPS and $B_\text{p}$-PPS. These supplies are IGBT-based switching supplies with bipolar outputs and a switching frequency of $10 \text{kHZ}$ [@Holly11; @Holly15]. Each supply is powered by its own capacitor bank. The supplies have small-signal bandwidths of a few $\text{kHZ}$ or less. Each supply uses local feedback to provide an output current proportional to the demand voltage from the controller. The supplies have current limiting to clamp their outputs at a safe level independent of the demand voltage. The $B_\text{t}$-PPS drives the primary of a 40:1 transformer whose secondary is the aluminum vacuum vessel, generating the toroidal field Bt. The $B_\text{t}$-PPS is capable of an output current up to +/- 25 kA at a voltage up to +/- 1800 V. The $B_\text{p}$-PPS drives the primary of a 20:1 transformer whose secondary is the plasma, generating the plasma current $I_p$. The experiments described here use a prototype version of the BP PPS which has a limited output capability of +/- 4.8 kA at a voltage up to +/- 2700 V. Although they are referred to as programmable power supplies, the supplies themselves are not pre-programmed, but act as voltage-controlled, current-output amplifiers to produce the current demanded by their input voltages. The simplest control method uses the MCS to generate a preprogrammed PPS input voltage waveform which yields the desired PPS output current.
Although this is closed-loop control with respect to the supply itself, since it is open-loop with respect to the transformer and plasma impedances, we refer to it as ’open-loop’ (feedforward) control, labeled ’MST FF data’ in the results presented below. By contrast, the more comprehensive ’closed-loop’ (feedback) control is implemented (’MST CL data’) to respond in real time to changes resulting from transformer and plasma impedances. During each clock cycle in such closed-loop experiments, MST data is input to the MCS software, processed, and the real-time demand value output to the PPS digitizers before the next clock cycle.
For example, while in open-loop control, one only approximately controls $B_\text{t}(a)$, in closed-loop control, one is able to control the field reversal parameter $F = B_\text{t} (a)/<B_\text{t}>$ after startup. The output current is automatically adjusted in real time to do so. A demonstration of open-loop control will be superposed to the closed loop feedback control when the results are shown as a way of comparing the two controllers.
The controller shown in Figure \[fig:model1\] is implemented as routine running single-threaded on one dedicated core. Changes to the control algorithm itself appear as matrix operations whose coefficients are calculated prior to the experiment (system identification model and control design) and fixed during the experiment.
$F$ control results {#sec4a}
--------------------
The $F$ feedback controller is implemented in the MCS and tested on MST. The control time occurs between $t_1 = 0.02$ s and $t_2 = 0.05$ s where we choose to track square oscillations. Before time $t_1$ we are in an open loop mode. At time $t_1$ we activate the control mode through the MCS and at time $t_2$ we release the system to open loop again.
![Comparison of outputs of $F$ control with and without feedback control during a tracking task.[]{data-label="Fcontrol"}](Figures/control_fig_13){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[Fcontrol\] represents the output response of MST through $F$ measurements with and without feedback control. As expected, the time-dependent results of the closed loop experiments successfully track the target during the control period. This tracking is better if compared to the open loop case (dashed line) where steady state errors appear. It is important to notice that despite the control effect, in both cases, sawtooth crashes are still occurring throughout the run.
Note that for many operational purposes in the RFP, open-loop, feed-forward control is adequate, since waveforms can be optimized empirically, shot-to-shot. Often, however, particularly in situations where the plasma response is both important and difficult or inconvenient to predict in advance, closed-loop feedback control is needed. In the context of $F$ control, although it is possible to tune a pre-programmed $B_T$ waveform shot-to-shot to approximately achieve the desired waveform, as in the black signal in Figure \[Fcontrol\], shot-to-shot changes in the time evolution of $B_T$ still affect the ratio $F$, and better control can be achieved with feedback on the real-time signals, as discussed above. The superiority of closed-loop over open-loop control is expected to be especially important in the cases of OFCD [@McCollam10], PPCD [@Chapman01], and SSRD [@Nebel02].
$I_\text{p}$ control results
-----------------------------
The $I_\text{p}$ controller is implemented in the MCS and tested on MST. The control time occurs between $t_1 = 0.02$ s and $t_2 = 0.06$ s. We chose to take a longer control time frame so we can observe the plasma resistivity effects that act as a drag in the plasma current value towards the end of the shots. Figure \[IPcontrol1\] represents the output response of MST through $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without control. The time-dependent results of the closed loop experiment successfully track the flat target during the control period. This tracking is better if compared to the open loop (FF) case (black line) where an important steady state errors appear. The plasma resistance add more steady state error to both cases towards the end, but the controller does a better tracking despite the drag.
![Comparison of outputs of $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without feedback control during a flat tracking.[]{data-label="IPcontrol1"}](Figures/control_fig_9){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[IPcontrol2\] is similar to Figure \[IPcontrol1\] but for a different target: a square wave. We notice the same observations as before where there is a little overshoot at the beginning of the control period the dissipate slowly through the shot until the plasma resistance becomes important enough to start dragging the current down. One can argue that the controller is not aggressive enough to overcome this drag or not fast enough to get to the target. The tuning of the LQE control gains is indeed critical in this case but we have found that increasing the integrator or the feedback gain too much results in disruption of the plasma or introduces oscillations that we do want to avoid. We found some trade off values that would allow us to get to the target in less than $20$ ms and minimize the steady state error. Figure \[IPcontrol3\] is an example where we emphasized the importance of zero steady state error at the expense of the system stability. In this example we pushed the controller (integrator) to its limits so we can beat the plasma resistivity. The resulted plasma current was extremely oscillatory which cannot be considered a possible solution of the controller.
![Comparison of outputs of $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without feedback control (a) during a square wave tracking and its corresponding input ($I_{pg}$) (b).[]{data-label="IPcontrol2"}](Figures/control_fig_11){width="1\linewidth"}
![Resulting $I_\text{p}$ measurements with feedback control during a flat tracking[]{data-label="IPcontrol3"}](Figures/fig69){width="1\linewidth"}
Coupling control results
-------------------------
For the two inputs two outputs control results, we studied two independently designed controllers for $F$ and $I_\text{p}$. The first case is called parallel control in the MCS where we connected the two independent controllers designed from the two independent models of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ in parallel without sharing any knowledge between each other. The second case is the coupled control case where the controller is designed directly from the coupled system of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$.
![Comparison of outputs of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without parallel feedback control during a square wave tracking.[]{data-label="Parallel"}](Figures/control_fig_7 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![Comparison of outputs of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without parallel feedback control during a square wave tracking.[]{data-label="Parallel"}](Figures/control_fig_8 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[Parallel\] shows an example of parallel control results where we compare measurements of reversal parameter $F$ and plasma current $I_\text{p}$ when we track a square wave using the double closed loops controller and the feedforward controller between the times $t_1 = 0.02$ s and $t_2 = 0.06$ s. We notice that despite the overshoot, we are able to successfully track the wave in both $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ outputs.
Designing the coupled model had a goal of improving the controller by giving it access to the coupling dynamics. Figure \[Coupled1\] shows a different example of coupled control results where we compare measurements of reversal parameter $F$ and plasma current $I_\text{p}$ when we track the same square wave using the closed loop controller and the feedforward controller between the same times $t_1 = 0.02$ s and $t_2 = 0.06$ s. We can notice a slight improvement in the $F$ control but also an overshoot elimination in the plasma current $I_\text{p}$ control. This feature is important in our experiments, in that we are presently restricted by an IGBT current limit to 80 kA of maximum plasma current.
![Comparison of outputs of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without Coupled feedback control during a square wave tracking.[]{data-label="Coupled1"}](Figures/control_fig_1 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
![Comparison of outputs of $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ measurements with and without Coupled feedback control during a square wave tracking.[]{data-label="Coupled1"}](Figures/control_fig_2 "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Discussion
-----------
From the experimental results shown in this paper, good performance was obtained using either the MIMO optimal controller or two SISO loop control design. From the perspective of an operator, this is desirable, as we showed that the two loop structure, with a small number of free parameters that can be adjusted intuitively between shots, works well in experiments. However, the optimal design provides a more systematic algorithm for designing a stabilizing controller. It is well suited for handling systems with strong cross-coupling, and can be easily extended to include additional controlled variables and actuators. As scenarios that exhibit stronger coupling are explored, or as additional actuators and controlled outputs are considered, the tuning of separate PID loops will become more difficult, while the MIMO control design approach will still be appropriate.
Conclusion {#sec5}
===========
A novel system has been implemented at MST to systematically control $F$ and $I_\text{p}$ individually or simultaneously in RFP plasmas via the two primary current actuators $I_{pg}$ and $I_{tg}$. Initial experiments with the closed feedback control loop show promising results and motivate future work of continued testing and design improvements. In addition, manipulation of $I_{pg}$ and $I_{tg}$ can be integrated into a more complex control scheme, for example by including cycle-averaged plasma current or loop voltage as controlled quantities for cases with OFCD.
As part of this work, a flexible framework for performing feedback control design and experimentation on the MST has been developed. This framework will aid in the creation of advanced control algorithms by providing means for conducting system identification simulations and high-fidelity tests of proposed algorithms prior to and during experimental implementation and testing. In the longer term, the same framework could be extended to include additional actuators and measurements on MST, including density control through gas puffing or loop voltage control based on magnetic fluctuation amplitudes.
These methodologies are a key element of research toward advanced inductive control of an ohmically heated RFP fusion plasma.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr. Brett Chapman. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences program under Award Numbers DE-FC02-05ER54814 and DE-SC0018266.\
Part of this work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Reynolds’ theory of [*relational parametricity*]{} formalizes parametric polymorphism for System F, thus capturing the idea that polymorphically typed System F programs always map related inputs to related results. This paper shows that Reynolds’ theory can be seen as the instantiation at dimension $1$ of a theory of relational parametricity for System F that holds at all higher dimensions, including infinite dimension. This theory is formulated in terms of the new notion of a [*$p$-dimensional cubical category*]{}, which we use to define a [*$p$-dimensional parametric model*]{} of System F for any $p \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\infty\}$. We show that every $p$-dimensional parametric model of System F yields a split $\lambda 2$-fibration in which types are interpreted as face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors and terms are interpreted as face-map and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformations. We demonstrate that our theory is “good” by showing that the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} is derivable as another $1$-dimensional instance, and that all instances at all dimensions derive higher-dimensional analogues of expected results for parametric models, such as a Graph Lemma and the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras. Finally, our technical development resolves a number of significant technical issues arising in Ghani [*et al.*]{}’s recent bifibrational treatment of relational parametricity, which allows us to clarify their approach and strengthen their main result. Once clarified, their bifibrational framework, too, can be seen as a $1$-dimensional instance of our theory.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Cubical Categories for Higher-Dimensional Parametricity'
---
\[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Notation]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{}
Introduction
============
Strachey [@str00] distinguished between [*ad hoc*]{} and parametric polymorphic functions in programming languages, defining a polymorphic program to be [*parametric*]{} if it applies the same type-uniform algorithm at each of its type instantiations. Reynolds [@param_reynolds] introduced the notion of [ *relational parametricity*]{} to model the extensional behavior of parametric programs in System F [@systemf], the formal calculus at the core of polymorphic functional languages. Relationally parametric models capture a key feature of parametric programs, namely that they preserve all relations between instantiated types. In other words, in relationally parametric models, parametric polymorphic functions always map related arguments to related results.
Implicit in Reynolds’ original formulation of relational parametricity [@param_reynolds] is that a model of System F is [*relationally parametric*]{} if equality in the model is induced by a logical relation. A [*logical relation*]{} assigns to each type of a language not only a basic interpretation as, say, a set or a domain, but simultaneously an interpretation as a relation on that set or domain as well. Logical relations are defined by induction on the language’s type structure, and are constructed in such a way that the relational actions interpreting its type formers propagate relatedness up its type hierarchy. For each logical relation for a language, a [*parametricity theorem*]{} can then be proved. Such a theorem states that (the basic interpretation of) each of the languages’ programs is related to itself by the relational interpretation, via the associated logical relation, of that program’s type. When instantiated judiciously, this seemingly simple result can be used to prove, [*inter alia*]{}, invariance of polymorphic functions under changes of data representation [@adr09; @dnb12], equivalences of programs [@hd11], and so-called “free theorems” via which properties of programs can be inferred solely from their types [@wad87].
The recent bifibrational treatment of relational parametricity in [@param_johann] has put forth a more abstract notion of a parametric model of polymorphism. In this treatment every type is still given a interpretation in a sufficiently structured base category, together with a relational interpretation in a category of (now abstractly formulated) relations over that base category, but the two interpretations are defined simultaneously and are required to be connected via a sufficiently structured bifibration. The express aim of [@param_johann] is to provide a very general framework for relational parametricity that is directly instantiable not only to recover well-known relationally parametric models — such as Reynolds’ original model[^1] and the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} — but also to deliver entirely new models of relational parametricity for System F. Unfortunately, however, models of relational parametricity often require more careful notions of functor and natural transformation than just the standard categorical ones used in the bifibrational framework of [@param_johann]. For example, functors and natural transformations must be internal to the category of types and terms in the Calculus of Inductive Constructions with impredicative ${\mathsf{Set}}$ to recover Reynolds’ original model, and they must be internal to the category of $\omega$-sets to recover Bainbridge [*et al.*]{}’s PER model. As a result, neither of these models is a true instance of the bifibrational framework of [@param_johann]. Said differently, the bifibrational framework of [@param_johann] is not actually an extension of Reynolds’ theory of relational parametricity as claimed. In fact, showing that Reynolds’ original model is parametric in the sense specified by the bifibrational framework requires a complete redevelopment of the framework internally to the Calculus of Inductive Constructions with impredicative ${\mathsf{Set}}$, and showing that the PER model is parametric requires a redevelopment internal to the category of $\omega$-sets. The need to redevelop the entire framework of [@param_johann] internal to a different category for each relationally parametric model of interest makes the bifibrational framework more of a “blueprint” for constructing parametric models than a general theory that actually includes known models properly among its instances. The fact that such redevelopments must also be carried out on an [*ad hoc*]{} basis, without any generally-applicable guidance, only emphasizes the need for a truly instantiable theory of relational parametricity.
But even if uniform guidance for instantiating the framework of [@param_johann] [*were*]{} to be given, the framework itself would still be problematic. Unless fibred functors are required to preserve equality on the nose, neither composition nor substitution in (what is intended to be) the base category of the $\lambda
2$-fibration constructed in the main theorem of [@param_johann] can be defined in any standard way. But equality in [@param_johann] is only defined — and therefore can only be preserved — up to isomorphism. And even if the original bifibration from which the $\lambda 2$-fibration in [@param_johann] is constructed ($U$ in the terminology there) were assumed to be split, so that the equality functor were defined uniquely rather than only up to isomorphism, Reynolds’ original model still would not be an instance of the bifibrational framework given there: in that case, neither products nor exponentials would preserve equality on the nose, as would be needed to properly interpret arrow types. In the absence of any alternative definitions or discussion of the exact sense in which fibred functors are required to preserve equality, we can only conclude that the standard definitions are the intended ones. As a result, we regard the entire $\lambda 2$-fibration as being ill-defined, and the beautiful ideas explored in [@param_johann] as being in need of careful technical reconsideration.
This paper provides precisely such a reconsideration, as well as a significant extension. We remedy both of the aforementioned difficulties by developing a unifying approach to relational parametricity that turns the bifibrational “blueprint" for constructing parametric models for System F given by the framework of [@param_johann] into a single theory whose instantiation actually delivers such models. Our theory combines two key technical ingredients to produce $\lambda 2$-fibrations that not only are actually well-defined, but do really model relational parametricity. First, we ensure that the categories necessary to our constructions are well-defined by parameterizing our theory over a class of “good” natural isomorphisms, and requiring that fibred functors preserve equality only up to these isomorphisms and (essentially) that fibred functors transformations preserve them. Secondly, we ensure that well-known models of relational parametricity for System F are properly instances of our theory by parameterizing it over a suitably structured ambient category and working internally to that category. But working internally to an appropriate ambient category is more than just a technical device ensuring that all of our constructions are well-defined and that well-known parametric models for System F are instances of our theory. It is also [*precisely*]{} the mechanism by which we restrict the possible interpretations of types and terms in our $\lambda 2$-fibrations sufficiently to exclude [*ad hoc*]{} polymorphism. This is illustrated concretely in Example \[ex:per\] below.
In addition to remedying all known problems with the bifibrational framework of [@param_johann], the theory we develop in this paper also naturally opens the way to a theory of relational parametricity at higher dimensions. Indeed, our theory deploys the two key ingredients identified above not solely in a bifibrational setting similar to that in [@param_johann], but also in combination with ideas inspired by the theory of cubical sets [@cubical_coquand; @cubical_kan; @cubical_harper]. In this way, it delivers $\lambda 2$-fibrations that model more than just the single “level”, or “dimension”, of relational parametricity originally identified by Reynolds and considered in [@param_johann]. To enforce relational parametricity at higher dimensions we introduce the new notion of a [*$p$-dimensional cubical category*]{}, in terms of which we define the equally new notion of a [*$p$-dimensional parametric model*]{} for System F. Here, the dimension $p$ can be any natural number or $\infty$. Intuitively, cubical categories generalize cubical sets in the obvious way, by considering the codomain ${\mathsf{Cat}}$ instead of ${\mathsf{Set}}$. Technically, the codomain will be ${\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$, the category of categories internal to some sufficiently structured ambient category ${\mathcal{C}}$. Cubical categories have (essentially) the same algebraic structure as cubical sets, except that the morphisms in their domain category are restricted to just those generated by face maps and degeneracies, [*i.e.*]{}, to just those have natural interpretations as operations on relations. This ensures that morphisms are restricted to those that, intuitively, have interpretations as operations on relations. Our main technical result (Theorem \[thm:split-lambda2-fib\]) shows that every $p$-dimensional parametric model of System F gives rise to a split $\lambda 2$-fibration. When combined with a suitable variant of Seely’s result that every split $\lambda 2$-fibration gives rise to a sound model of System F (Theorem \[prop:model\]), this allows us to prove that every $p$-dimensional parametric model of System F gives a sound model of that calculus in which types are interpreted as $p$-dimensional face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors and terms are interpreted as $p$-dimensional face map-preserving and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformations. This, our main result, appears as Theorem \[thm:cubical-model\] below. It strengthens the analogous result in [@param_johann], which states that natural transformations interpreting terms must be face map-preserving when $p = 1$, but does not observe that they can also be proved to be degeneracy-preserving even in the $1$-dimensional setting. Because they interpret System F terms as face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformations, thereby ensuring that these terms cannot exhibit [*ad hoc*]{} polymorphic behavior, we contend that $p$-dimensional parametric models of System F are deserving of their name. That both Reynolds’ model and that of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} are both $p$-dimensional parametric models for System F when $p = 1$ further shows our definition is both sensible and good. Additional evidence is provided in Section \[sec:consequences\], where it is shown that all $p$-dimensional parametric models of System F validate higher-dimensional analogues of the “litmus test” properties for “good” parametric models. That is, they validate a higher-dimensional Identity Extension Lemma, a higher-dimensional Graph Lemma, and the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras for face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors.
Instantiations of our theory for specific choices for $p$ may already be of particular interest. When $p = 2$, our notion of a $p$-dimensional parametric model of System F formalizes a notion of proof-relevant relational parametricity that properly generalizes Reynolds’ original theory. When $p = \infty$, we get a notion of infinite-dimensional relational parametricity for System F that may provide a useful perspective on the homotopy-canonicity conjecture for homotopy type theory, since proof of this conjecture involves constructing an infinitely parametric model of Martin-Löf type theory. Investigation of this matter is, however, beyond the scope of the present paper.
Fibrational Preliminaries {#sec:toolbox}
=========================
We give a brief introduction to fibrations, mainly to settle notation. More details can be found in, e.g., [@jac99].
Let $U:\mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ be a functor. A morphism $g:Q\rightarrow P$ in $\mathcal{E}$ is *cartesian* over $f:X\rightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{B}$ if $Ug=f$ and, for every $g':Q'\rightarrow P$ in $\mathcal{E}$ with $Ug' = f \circ v$ for some $v:UQ'\rightarrow X$, there exists a unique $h:Q'\rightarrow Q$ with $Uh=v$ and $g' = g \circ h$. A morphism $g:P\rightarrow Q$ in $\mathcal{E}$ is *opcartesian* over $f:X\rightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{B}$ if $Ug=f$ and, for every $g':P\rightarrow Q'$ in $\mathcal{E}$ with $Ug'=v \circ f$ for some $v:Y\rightarrow UQ'$, there exists a unique $h:Q\rightarrow Q'$ with $Uh=v$ and $g' = h
\circ g$.
We write ${\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P}$ for the cartesian morphism over $f$ with codomain $P$, and ${\ensuremath{f_{\S}}}^{P}$ for the opcartesian morphism over $f$ with domain $P$. Such morphisms are unique up to isomorphism. If $P$ is an object of $\mathcal{E}$ then we write $f^{\ast}P$ for the domain of ${\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P}$ and $\Sigma_{f}P$ for the codomain of ${\ensuremath{f_{\S}}}^{P}$. We omit $P$ from these notations when it is either unimportant or clear from context.
A functor $U:\mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a *fibration* if for every object $P$ of $\mathcal{E}$ and every morphism $f:X\rightarrow UP$ of $\mathcal{B}$, there is a cartesian morphism ${\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P}:Q\rightarrow P$ in $\mathcal{E}$ over f. Similarly, $U$ is an *opfibration* if for every object $P$ of $\mathcal{E}$ and every morphism $f:UP\rightarrow Y$ of $\mathcal{B}$, there is an opcartesian morphism ${\ensuremath{f_{\S}}}^{P}:P\rightarrow Q$ in $\mathcal{E}$ over $f$. A functor $U$ is a *bifibration* if it is both a fibration and an opfibration.
If $U:\mathcal{E}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is a fibration, opfibration, or bifibration, then $\mathcal{E}$ is its *total category* and $\mathcal{B}$ is its *base category*. An object $P$ in $\mathcal{E}$ is *over* its image $UP$ and similarly for morphisms. A morphism is [*vertical*]{} if it is over $id$. We write $\mathcal{E}_{X}$ for the *fiber over* an object $X$ in $\mathcal{B}$, i.e., the subcategory of $\mathcal{E}$ of objects over $X$ and morphisms over $\mathit{id}_X$. For $f:X\rightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{B}$, the function mapping each object $P$ of $\mathcal{E}$ to $f^*P$ extends to a functor $f^*: \mathcal{E}_{Y} \rightarrow
\mathcal{E}_{X}$ mapping each morphism $k:P\rightarrow P'$ in $\mathcal{E}_{Y}$ to the morphism $f^*k$ with $k {\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P} =
{\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P'} f^*k$. The universal property of ${\ensuremath{f^{\S}}}_{P'}$ ensures the existence and uniqueness of $f^*k$. We call $f^*$ the *reindexing functor along $f$*. A similar situation holds for opfibrations; the functor $\Sigma_{f}:\mathcal{E}_{X}\rightarrow
\mathcal{E}_{Y}$ extending the function mapping each object $P$ of $\mathcal{E}$ to $\Sigma_{f}P$ is the *opreindexing functor along $f$*.
In this paper we will construct a certain kind of fibration, called a [*$\lambda 2$-fibration*]{} [@see87], that models higher-dimensional parametricity for System F. Fibrations will also be essential to defining a higher-dimensional graph functor, and bifibrations will be crucial to formulating an alternative characterization of the graph functor that allows us to prove both a higher-dimensional Graph Lemma, and the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras of face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors.
Cubical Categories {#sec:cubical-categories}
==================
Cubical categories, functors, and natural transformations are the key structures from which we will construct our models of higher-dimensional parametricity. To define them we start with the following preliminary category.
The category $\square$ is given as follows:
- the objects are (finite) sets of natural numbers of the form $\{
0, \ldots, l - 1\}$ for $l \in {\mathbb{N}}$
- the morphisms from $l_1$ to $l_2$ are functions from $l_1$ to $l_2 +
{\mathbf{2}}$, where ${\mathbf{2}}$ is the two-element set $\{\top,\bot\}$
- the identity morphism on $l$ is (induced by) the identity function on $l$, [*i.e.*]{}, is the inclusion map $l \hookrightarrow
l + {\mathbf{2}}$
- the composition of two morphisms $f : l_1 \to l_2$ and $g : l_2
\to l_3$ is the function $g \circ f : l_1 \to l_3 + {\mathbf{2}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
(g \circ f)(i) =
\begin{cases}
\star & \mbox{if } f(i) = \star, \star \in {\mathbf{2}}\\
g(j) & \mbox{if } f(i) = j, j \in {\mathbb{N}}\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
We will henceforth denote a set $\{ 0, \ldots, l - 1\}$ of natural numbers by $l$. (Set-theoretically, these are identical.) We call any such set, *i.e.*, any object of $\square$, a *level*. The category $\square$ can also be described as the Kleisli category for the error monad with two distinct error values. The last bullet point then defines composition of morphisms in $\square$ to be normal composition of functions, except that errors are propagated.
The category $\square$ contains [*all*]{} functions from $l_1$ to $l_2
+ {\mathbf{2}}$ for all $l_1$ and $l_2$. But to model parametricity, we will want to restrict the set of morphisms to those that, intuitively, have interpretations as operations on relations. For this reason, only the face maps and degeneracies defined below, and their compositions, are used to construct our cubical categories. The interpretations of the face maps and degeneracies in the specific setting of [@param_johann] are given in Example \[ex:bifib-param\].
For any $\star \in {\mathbf{2}}$ and $l, k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $k \leq l$, we define the function ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,k) : l+1 \to l$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,k)(i) =
\begin{cases}
i & \mbox{if } i < k \\
\star & \mbox{if } i = k \\ i-1 & \mbox{if } i > k
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Such a function is called a *face map*. The terminology comes from regarding each natural number $l$ as defining an $l$-dimensional cube. A face map ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,k)$ then can be thought of as projecting an $(l+1)$-cube onto either the “top” or the “bottom” $l$-dimensional cube in dimension $k$, according as $\star$ is $\top$ or $\bot$. Similarly, for any $l, k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $k \leq l$, we define the function ${\mathbf{d}}(l,k) : l \to l+1$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)(i) =
\begin{cases}
i & \mbox{if } i < k \\
i+1 & \mbox{if } i \geq k
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Such a function is called a *degeneracy*. A degeneracy ${\mathbf{d}}(l,k)$ can be thought of as constructing an $(l+1)$-dimensional cube from an $l$-dimensional one by replicating it along dimension $k$.
We also have the following set of categories $\square_p$:
Let $p \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup \{\infty\}$. The category $\square_p$ is the subcategory of $\square$ generated by the following data:
- levels $l \leq p$
- face maps ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,k)$ for $l < p$
- degeneracies ${\mathbf{d}}(l,k)$ for $l < p$
Alternatively, we can define $\square_p$ as the free category generated by the the data above and the following relations:
- ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,k) \circ {\mathbf{d}}(l,k) = \mathsf{1}_l$ for $l < p$
- ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,j) \circ {\mathbf{d}}(l,k) = {\mathbf{d}}(l-1,k) \circ
{\mathbf{f}}_\star(l-1,j-1)$ for $k < j$ and $l < p$
- ${\mathbf{f}}_\star(l,j) \circ {\mathbf{d}}(l,k) = {\mathbf{d}}(l-1,k-1) \circ
{\mathbf{f}}_\star(l-1,j)$ for $j < k$ and $l < p$
- ${\mathbf{d}}(l+1,j) \circ {\mathbf{d}}(l,k) = {\mathbf{d}}(l+1,k) \circ {\mathbf{d}}(l,j-1)$ for $k
< j$ and $l+1 < p$
- ${\mathbf{f}}_{\star_2}(l,j) \circ {\mathbf{f}}_{\star_1}(l+1,k) =
{\mathbf{f}}_{\star_1}(l,k) \circ {\mathbf{f}}_{\star_2}(l+1,j+1)$ for $k \leq j$ and $l+1 < p$
The alternative characterization coincides exactly with Crans’ combinatory treatment of cubes. As proved in [@pasting_crans], any morphism in $\square_p$ can be factored as a composition of face maps followed by a composition of degeneracies. Moreover, the second arguments to the degeneracies in these compositions are non-increasing, and the second arguments to the face maps are strictly decreasing, when read in composition order, [*i.e.*]{}, from right to left. Such a factorization gives a representation of each morphism as a surjection followed by an inclusion, as well as a canonical form for each morphism in $\square_p$.
The categories $\square_p$ will serve as the domains of our cubical categories. As such, they are our analogues of the category of names and substitutions, which forms the common domain of all cubical sets in [@cubical_coquand]. The differences between our categories $\square_p$ and the category of names and substitutions are that $\square_p$ does not include the “exchange morphisms” of [@cubical_coquand] (and [@cubical_harper]), and that membership in $\square_p$ does not explicitly require morphisms to be injective. That all morphisms in each $\square_p$ are, in fact, injective follows from the injectivity of $\square_p$’s generators. In the remainder of this paper we will always work internally with respect to a finitely complete locally small ambient category ${\mathcal{C}}$, [*i.e.*]{}, a category ${\mathcal{C}}$ with pullbacks and a terminal object ${\mathbf{1}}_{\mathcal{C}}$.[^2] Instantiating ${\mathcal{C}}$ appropriately will impose conditions on functors and natural transformations that allow us to produce a theory of higher-dimensional parametricity that subsumes well-known models as ($1$-dimensional) relational parametricity as instances of our framework. For example, Reynolds’ original model is an instance when ${\mathcal{C}}$ is taken to be the category of types and terms in the Calculus of Inductive Constructions with impredicative ${\mathsf{Set}}\,$[^3], and the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} is an instance when ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the category of $\omega$-sets; see Examples \[ex:reynolds\] and \[ex:per\] below for details.
Let ${\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$ be the category of categories internal to an ambient category ${\mathcal{C}}$.
\[def:cubical-category\] A *($p$-dimensional) cubical category* is a functor ${\mathcal{X}}:
\square_p \to {\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$.
To ease the notational and conceptual burden, we will henceforth regard a ($p$-dimensional) cubical category as a functor ${\mathcal{X}}:
\square_p \to {\mathsf{Cat}}$, and similarly identify internal and external constructions when convenient. Under this identification, a $p$-dimensional cubical category ${\mathcal{X}}$ becomes the category-level equivalent of a covariant presheaf on $\square_p$, and gives us a (small) category ${\mathcal{X}}(l)$ for each level $l \in \square_p$. The category ${\mathcal{X}}(0)$ can be thought of as an abstract category of “0-relations", or “types"; ${\mathcal{X}}(1)$ can be thought of as the category of “$1$-relations", or ordinary relations, on types; ${\mathcal{X}}(2)$ can be thought of as the category of “$2$-relations"; and so on. Each face map $f : l+1 \to l$, ${\mathcal{X}}(f)$ is thus a functor projecting an $l$-relation out of a given $(l+1)$-relation, and each degeneracy $d : l \to l+1$, ${\mathcal{X}}(d)$ is a functor that replicates a given $l$-relation to obtain an $(l+1)$-relation.
\[ex:bifib-param\] In the setting of [@param_johann], a relations fibration ${\mathsf{Rel}}(U)
: {\mathsf{Rel}}(\mathcal{E}) \to \mathcal{B} \times \mathcal{B}$ induces a $1$-dimensional cubical category, with the action on objects given by $0
\mapsto \mathcal{B}$ and $1 \mapsto {\mathsf{Rel}}(\mathcal{E})$. The action on morphisms is induced by mapping the two face maps ${\mathbf{f}}_\top(0,0)$ and ${\mathbf{f}}_\bot(0,0)$ to the functors ${\mathsf{fst}}\mathop{\circ} {\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ and ${\mathsf{snd}}\mathop{\circ} {\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ respectively, and mapping the degeneracy ${\mathbf{d}}(0,0)$ to the equality functor $\mathsf{Eq}$ on $\mathcal{B}$.
If ${\mathcal{X}}$ is a cubical category we define the discrete cubical category $|{\mathcal{X}}|$, and the product cubical category ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, via the usual constructions for functors. Each construction on cubical categories actually requires an analogous construction on ${\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$, but these are precisely as expected. For example, for cubical categories ${\mathcal{X}}, {\mathcal{Y}}: \square_p \to
{\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$, the cubical category ${\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}}: \square_p \to
{\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$ is defined by $({\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{Y}})(l) = {\mathcal{X}}(l) \times
{\mathcal{Y}}(l)$ for all $l \leq p$. Here, the product on the left-hand side is a product of functors, and the product on the right-hand side is a product of internal categories. The latter exists because ${\mathcal{C}}$ is finitely complete by assumption.
\[def:cubical-functor\] Let ${\mathcal{X}}$ and ${\mathcal{Y}}$ be ($p$-dimensional) cubical categories. A *($p$-dimensional) cubical functor* ${\mathcal{F}}$ from ${\mathcal{X}}$ to ${\mathcal{Y}}$ is a set of functors $\{{\mathcal{F}}(l) : {\mathcal{X}}(l) \to Y(l) \; | \; l \leq p \}$. A cubical functor ${\mathcal{F}}$ is *face map-preserving* if the following diagram commutes for every face map $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$:
A cubical functor ${\mathcal{F}}$ is *degeneracy-preserving* if the diagram above commutes up to a chosen natural isomorphism $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(h)$ for each degeneracy $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$.
In the setting of [@param_johann], a fibred functor from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}(U)|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ is precisely a face map-preserving cubical functor from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}(U)|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ (presented as cubical categories). Similarly, an equality-preserving fibred functor from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}(U)|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ is a face map-preserving cubical functor that also preserves degeneracies up to “good” natural isomorphisms (for a suitable notion of “good”; see Section \[sec:model\] below).
\[def:cubical-nat-trans\] Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ be ($p$-dimensional) cubical functors from ${\mathcal{X}}$ to ${\mathcal{Y}}$. A *($p$-dimensional) cubical natural transformation* $\eta$ from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a set of natural transformations $\{\eta(l) :
{\mathcal{F}}(l) \to G(l) \; | \; l \leq p \}$. A cubical natural transformation $\eta$ is *face map-preserving* if ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are face map-preserving and, for each face map $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the following equality holds for every object $X$ of ${\mathcal{X}}(l_1)$: $${\mathcal{Y}}(h) \; \big(\eta(l_1) \; X\big) = \eta(l_2) \; \big({\mathcal{X}}(h) \; X\big)$$ A cubical natural transformation $\eta$ is *degeneracy-preserving* if ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are degeneracy-preserving and, for each degeneracy $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the following diagram commutes for every object $X$ of ${\mathcal{X}}(l_1)$:
Here, $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(h) : {\mathcal{Y}}(h) \circ {\mathcal{F}}(l_1) \to {\mathcal{F}}(l_2) \circ
{\mathcal{X}}(h)$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{G}}(h) : {\mathcal{Y}}(h) \circ {\mathcal{G}}(l_1) \to {\mathcal{G}}(l_2) \circ
{\mathcal{X}}(h)$ are the natural isomorphisms witnessing that ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are themselves degeneracy-preserving.
By contrast with the diagram in Definition \[def:cubical-functor\], the one in Definition \[def:cubical-nat-trans\] is required to commute on the nose.
In the setting of [@param_johann], a fibred natural transformation between two fibred functors ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}: |{\mathsf{Rel}}(U)|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ induces a face map-preserving cubical natural transformation from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${\mathcal{G}}$ presented as cubical functors. We note, however, that there is no notion in [@param_johann] that induces cubical natural transformations that are [*both*]{} face map- [*and*]{} degeneracy-preserving; indeed, the framework of [@param_johann] does not require natural transformations between equality-preserving fibred functors from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}(U)|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(U)$ to themselves be equality-preserving. Significantly, the results of [@param_johann] can still be obtained even if fibred natural transformations [*are*]{} required to be equality-preserving. The analogous requirement for cubical natural transformations — namely, the requirement that cubical natural transformations be both face map- [*and*]{} degeneracy-preserving — thus generalizes structure already present in the $1$-dimensional setting of [@param_johann]. We exploit this requirement on cubical natural transformations to construct $\lambda
2$-fibrations in which terms of System F are interpreted as face map- [*and*]{} degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformations. Even when $p = 1$ this gives a stronger result than is obtained in [@param_johann], where natural transformations interpreting terms are not shown to be equality-preserving.
Fibrational models of higher-dimensional parametricity {#sec:model}
======================================================
In this section we assume a fixed ($p$-dimensional) cubical category ${\mathsf{Rel}}$. To ensure that composition (and thus substitution) in the base category of the $\lambda 2$-fibrations we construct is well-defined, as well as that the cubical functors interpreting System F types will be not just face map-preserving but also degeneracy-preserving, we need to consider equality of morphisms up to (certain kinds of) natural isomorphisms. We therefore assume that our fixed cubical category ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ comes equipped with a class $M =
{\mathlarger{\mathlarger{\Sigma}}}_{l \leq p} M(l)$ of “good” isomorphisms of the form $J \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(l)_1$, where $J$ is some object of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)_1$ is the object of morphisms in the internal category ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$. We require that each $M(l)$ contains all identity morphisms in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$, is closed under composition and inverses in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$, and is closed under reindexing by morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}$. The isomorphisms in $M$ will be used below to parameterize various constructions on cubical categories over different notions of equivalence of morphisms. For example, taking $M$ to be the class of identity morphisms will ensure that diagrams commute on the nose — as for Bainbridge [*et al.*]{}’s PER model; see Example \[ex:per\] below — while taking $M$ to be the class of all isomorphisms will entail that the same diagrams commute up to an arbitrary natural isomorphism. Less extremal choices for $M$ are possible as well: for example, we can define $M$ by induction on $l$, letting $M(0)$ consist of only the identity morphisms, and defining an isomorphism $f$ to belong to $M(l+1)$ iff ${\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \circ f$ belongs to $M(l)$ for any face map $h : l+1 \to l$, where this composition is in ${\mathcal{C}}$. This definition of $M$ is used for Reynolds’ model; see Example \[ex:reynolds\].
We will use the following cubical categories — one for each $n$ — to interpret System F types:
\[def:reln-to-rel\] The ($p$-dimensional) cubical category $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is given as follows:
- the objects are triples $({\mathcal{F}},\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}},\upsilon_{\mathcal{F}})$, where
- ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a face map-preserving ($p$-dimensional) cubical functor from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}$
- $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}$ is a family of natural isomorphisms witnessing that ${\mathcal{F}}$ is also degeneracy-preserving. Moreover, $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(h)$ is in $M(l_2)$ for each degeneracy $h: l_1 \to
l_2$ in $\square_p$
- $\upsilon_{\mathcal{F}}$ is a function associating to each isomorphism $f :
{\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^m_0 \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^n_1$ with the property that $\pi_k \circ f$ is in $M(l)$ for each $k \leq n$ an isomorphism $\upsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(f) :
{\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^m_0 \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(l)_1$ in $M(l)$. Moreover, $\upsilon$ respects the source and target operations, as well as identities, composition, and reindexing of isomorphisms
- the morphisms are face map- and degeneracy-preserving ($p$-dimensional) cubical natural transformations
Generalizing from the $1$-dimensional setting of [@param_johann], in which types with $n$ free variables are interpreted as equality-preserving functors from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}(1)|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$, we aim to interpret System F types as face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ for various $n$; the restriction to functors with discrete domains here makes it possible to handle all type expressions in System F, not just the positive ones. This will require that the total categories of the $\lambda 2$-fibrations we construct have such functors as their objects. But for such functors to form a category, they must support a well-defined notion of composition. To ensure that this is the case even though cubical functors are only required to preserve degeneracies up to isomorphism, and even though those isomorphisms are, importantly, in ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ rather than in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|$, we need to arrange that cubical functors from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ for various $n$ preserve enough isomorphisms. The functions $\upsilon_{\mathcal{F}}$ accomplish just this: they endow each cubical functor ${\mathcal{F}}: |{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ with enough structure to preserve all “good” isomorphisms, and this is what we need to push all of the constructions we require through. Of course, if ${\mathcal{F}}$ were a cubical functor with domain ${\mathsf{Rel}}^n$ rather than $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n$ we would get the preservation of (all) isomorphisms in ${\mathsf{Rel}}^n$ for for free. However, this would make it impossible to handle contravariant type expressions.
When giving a categorical interpretation of System F, a category for interpreting type contexts is required. We therefore associate a category of contexts to each cubical category.
\[def:contexts\] The ($p$-dimensional) [*category of contexts*]{} ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ is given as follows:
- the objects are natural numbers
- the morphisms from $n$ to $m$ are $m$-tuples of objects in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$
Defining the product $m \times 1$ in ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ to be the natural number sum $m + 1$, we see that ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ enjoys sufficient structure to model the construction of System F type contexts:
The category ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ has a terminal object 0 and a choice of products $(-) \times 1$.
To appropriately interpret arrow types will we need to know that each cubical category of the form $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is cartesian closed. The next three lemmas show that, under reasonable conditions on ${\mathsf{Rel}}$, this is indeed the case. The constructions are variants of familiar ones, except that care must be taken to ensure that the isomorphisms in $M$ are respected.
\[def:terminal\] ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ *has terminal objects* if it comes equipped with a choice of terminal objects $1_l$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ for $l \leq p$. This choice of terminal objects is *stable under face maps* if the equality below holds for each face map $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$: $${\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \, 1_{l_1} = 1_{l_2}$$ It is *stable under degeneracies* if the equality holds up to an isomorphism in $M(l_2)$ for each degeneracy $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$.
We write $1$ rather than $1_l$ below when $l$ is clear from context.
\[lem:terminal-choice\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ has terminal objects that are stable under face maps and degeneracies then we have a choice of terminal objects $1_n$ in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$.
\[def:products\] ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ *has products* if it comes equipped with a choice of products $(\times_l,{\mathsf{fst}}_l,{\mathsf{snd}}_l)$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ for $l \leq p$, such that $M(l)$ for $l \leq p$ is closed under products. This choice of products is *stable under face maps* if, for each face map $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the equalities below hold for any objects $A,B$ of ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l_1)$: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; (A \times_{l_1} B) = \big({\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; A\big) \times_{l_2}
\big({\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; B\big) \\
& {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; ({\mathsf{fst}}_{l_1}[A,B]) = {\mathsf{fst}}_{l_2}\big[{\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; A, {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; B\big] \\
& {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; ({\mathsf{snd}}_{l_1}[A,B]) = {\mathsf{snd}}_{l_2}\big[{\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; A, {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; B\big]\end{aligned}$$ It is *stable under degeneracies* if, for each degeneracy $h :
l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the first equality above holds up to an isomorphism $\varepsilon(h,A,B)$ in $M(l_2)$ that makes the following two diagrams commute:
We write $(\times,{\mathsf{fst}},{\mathsf{snd}})$ rather than $(\times_l,{\mathsf{fst}}_l,{\mathsf{snd}}_l)$ when $l$ is clear from context.
\[lem:products-choice\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ has products stable under face maps and degeneracies then we have a choice of products $(\times_n,{\mathsf{fst}}_n,{\mathsf{snd}}_n)$ in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to
{\mathsf{Rel}}$.
If, following the development in [@param_johann], we did not require cubical natural transformations to preserve degeneracies, then we would not need to require commutativity of the two diagrams above for degeneracies. We would still need Definition \[def:products\]’s requirement on face maps, however.
\[def:exponentials\] ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ *has exponentials* if it has products and it comes equipped with a choice of exponentials $(\Rightarrow_l,{\mathsf{eval}}_l)$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ for $l \leq p$ with respect to the chosen products, such that $M(l)$ for $l \leq p$ is closed under exponentials. This choice of exponentials is *stable under face maps* if the choice of products is stable under face maps and, for each face map $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the equalities below hold for any objects $A,B$ of ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l_1)$: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; (A \Rightarrow_{l_1} B) = \big({\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; A\big)
\Rightarrow_{l_2} \big({\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; B\big) \\
& {\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; ({\mathsf{eval}}_{l_1}[A,B]) = {\mathsf{eval}}_{l_2}\big[{\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; A,
{\mathsf{Rel}}(h) \; B\big] \end{aligned}$$ It is *stable under degeneracies* if the choice of products is stable under degeneracies and, for each degeneracy $h : l_1 \to l_2$ in $\square_p$, the first equality above holds up to an isomorphism $\upsilon(h,A,B)$ in $M(l_2)$ that makes the following diagram commute:
Here, $\varepsilon(h,A \Rightarrow_{l_1} B,A)$ is the isomorphism in $M(l_2)$ witnessing the stability of the product in question under $h$.
We write $(\Rightarrow, {\mathsf{eval}})$ rather than $(\Rightarrow_l, {\mathsf{eval}}_l)$ when $l$ is clear from context.
\[lem:exponentials-choice\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ has exponentials stable under face maps and degeneracies then we have a choice of exponentials $(\Rightarrow_n,$ ${\mathsf{eval}}_n)$ in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$.
As for products, if we follow the development in [@param_johann] and did not require cubical natural transformations to preserve degeneracies, then we would not need to require commutativity of the above diagram for degeneracies. We would still need Definition \[def:exponentials\]’s requirement on face maps, however.
Putting Lemmas \[lem:terminal-choice\], \[lem:products-choice\], and \[lem:exponentials-choice\] together gives:
If a cubical category ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ has terminal objects, products, and exponentials, all of which are stable under face maps and degeneracies, then $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is cartesian closed.
In the development above we consider cubical categories to be functors with codomain ${\mathsf{Cat}}$, as explained in Section \[sec:cubical-categories\] above. If, however, we more properly view $p$-dimensional cubical categories as functors from $\square_p$ to ${\mathsf{Cat}}({\mathcal{C}})$, then the construction of terminal objects, products, and exponentials must actually be carried out internally to our ambient category ${\mathcal{C}}$. This means that in Definition \[def:products\], for example, $A$ and $B$ are morphisms into ${\mathcal{C}}$’s object of objects, and their product is an internal product. The necessary definition of internal products is standard and can be found, for example, in Section 7.2 of [@jac99]. A similar remark applies to Definitions \[def:terminal\] and \[def:exponentials\], and at several places below, but we will suppress remarks analogous to this one in the remainder of this paper.
The cubical category $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ will ultimately emerge as the fiber over object $n$ of ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ in the $\lambda 2$-fibration we construct to interpret System F. To interpret $\forall$-types we will require a right adjoint to context weakening that moves between such fibers and is appropriate to the cubical setting. To formalize this requirement, we first define the category that will be the total category of our $\lambda 2$-fibration.
The ($p$-dimensional) cubical category $\int_n \, |{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is given as follows:
- the objects are pairs $(n,{\mathcal{F}})$, where ${\mathcal{F}}$ is an object in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$
- the morphisms from $(n,{\mathcal{F}})$ to $(m,{\mathcal{G}})$ are pairs $(\mathbf{F},\eta)$, where $\mathbf{F} : n \to m$ is a morphism in ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ and $\eta : {\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{G}}\circ \mathbf{F}$ is a morphism in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$
Since the set of objects of $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is, by definition, (isomorphic to) the set of morphisms ${\mathbf{Mor}}(n,1)$ in ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$, we have not only that $\int_n \, |{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is the total category of a fibration over ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$, but that this fibration is actually a split fibration.
The forgetful functor from $\int_n \, |{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ to ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ is a split fibration with split generic object $1$.
Moreover, cartesian structure from ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ lifts to this fibration:
\[lem:split\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ has terminal objects, products, and exponentials, all stable under face maps and degeneracies, then the forgetful functor from $\int_n \,|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ to ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ is a split cartesian closed fibration with split generic object $1$.
The split cartesian closed structure identified in Lemma \[lem:split\] will allow us to interpret of function types. To ensure that we can also interpret $\forall$-types we require some additional structure.
\[def:split-simple-products\] Let $U : \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{B}$ be a split fibration with a distinguished object $\Omega$ of $\mathcal{B}$ and a choice of products $(-) \times \Omega$ in $\mathcal{B}$. We say that $U$ *has split simple $\Omega$-products* if it comes equipped with a choice of right adjoints $\forall_A : \mathcal{E}_{A \times \Omega}
\to \mathcal{E}_A$ to the weakening functors ${\mathsf{fst}}[A, \Omega]^* :
\mathcal{E}_A \to \mathcal{E}_{A \times \Omega}$ for objects $A$ of $\mathcal{B}$, with the respective unit and counit pairs $(\eta_A,\varepsilon_A)$, satisfying the following conditions for every morphism $f : A \to B$ in $\mathcal{B}$:
- the following diagram commutes:
- $f^*(\eta_B(X)) = \eta_A(f^*(X))$ for every object $X$ of $\mathcal{E}(B)$
- $(f \times 1)^*(\varepsilon_B(X)) = \varepsilon_A((f \times
1)^*(X))$ for every object $X$ of $\mathcal{E}_{B \times \Omega}$
Fibrations with enough structure to give sound interpretations of System F were dubbed “$\lambda 2$-fibrations” by Seely [@see87]:
A *split $\lambda 2$-fibration* is a split cartesian closed fibration $U : \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{B}$, that has a terminal object in $\mathcal{B}$, a split generic object $\Omega$, chosen products $(-)\times \Omega$ in $\mathcal{B}$, and split simple $\Omega$-products.
\[def:parametric-model\] ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a [*($p$-dimensional) parametric model*]{} of System F if it has terminal objects, products, and exponentials, all stable under face maps and degeneracies, and is such that the forgetful functor from $\int_n \,|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ to ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ has split simple $1$-products.
Our main technical theorem shows that every parametric model of System F naturally gives rise to a split $\lambda 2$-fibration. The construction is also a careful variant of familiar ones.
\[thm:split-lambda2-fib\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a ($p$-dimensional) parametric model of System F, then the forgetful functor from $\int_n \,|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^n \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ to ${\mathsf{Ctx}}({\mathsf{Rel}})$ is a split $\lambda 2$-fibration.
We also have the following variant of Seely’s [@see87] result that every split $\lambda2$-fibration gives rise to a sound model of System F:
\[prop:model\] Every split $\lambda 2$-fibration $U : \mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{B}$ gives a model of System F in which:
- every type context $\Gamma$ is interpreted as an object ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma ]\!]}}$ in $\mathcal{B}$
- every type $\Gamma \vdash T$ is interpreted as an object ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash T ]\!]}}$ in the fiber $\mathcal{E}_{{\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma ]\!]}}}$
- every term context $\Gamma;\Delta$ is interpreted as an object ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash \Delta ]\!]}}$ in the fiber $\mathcal{E}_{{\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma ]\!]}}}$
- every term $\Gamma;\Delta \vdash t : T$ is interpreted as a morphism ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma;\Delta \vdash t : T ]\!]}}$ from ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma;\Delta ]\!]}}$ to ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash T ]\!]}}$ in the fiber $\mathcal{E}_{{\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma ]\!]}}}$
Moreover, if $\Gamma;\Delta \vdash s =_{\beta\eta} t : T$, then ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma;\Delta \vdash s : T ]\!]}} = {\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma;\Delta \vdash t : T ]\!]}}$.
Theorems \[thm:split-lambda2-fib\] and \[prop:model\] together imply our main result, namely:
\[thm:cubical-model\] A ($p$-dimensional) parametric model ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ of System F gives a sound model of System F in which
- every type $\Gamma \vdash T$ is interpreted as a face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash T ]\!]}} :
|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^{|\Gamma|} \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$
- every term $\Gamma; \Delta \vdash t : T$ is interpreted as a face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformation ${\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma; \Delta \vdash t:T ]\!]}} : {\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash \Delta ]\!]}} \to
{\ensuremath{[\![ \Gamma \vdash T ]\!]}}$
Taking $p = 1$ and omitting the requirement that cubical natural transformations be degeneracy-preserving as indicated at several places above shows that Theorem \[thm:cubical-model\] naturally generalizes Theorem 4.6 of [@param_johann] to arbitrary (including infinite, when $p = \infty$) higher dimensions. In particular, the fact that our cubical functors interpreting types are degeneracy-preserving gives a higher-dimensional analogue of the fibrational formulation of Reynolds’ Identity Extension Lemma from [@param_johann].
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
In this section we show how both Reynolds’ original model and the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} arise as instances of our theory.
\[ex:reynolds\] We consider Reynolds’ original model, which is internal to the Calculus of Inductive Constructions with Impredicative ${\mathsf{Set}}$. In the interest of clarity, we write ${\mathbb{U}}$ (rather than ${\mathsf{Set}}$, as in implementations of Coq) for the impredicative universe ${\mathbb{U}}$. We then define $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{isProp}(A) \coloneqq \Pi_{a,b:A} \, {\mathsf{Id}}(a,b) \\
& {\mathsf{Prop}}\coloneqq \Sigma_{A : {\mathbb{U}}} \, \mathsf{isProp}(A) \\
& \mathsf{isSet}(A) \coloneqq \Pi_{a,b:A} \, \mathsf{isProp}({\mathsf{Id}}(a,b)) \\
& {\mathsf{Set}}\coloneqq \Sigma_{A : {\mathbb{U}}} \, \mathsf{isSet}(A)\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Sigma$ forms dependent sums, $\Pi$ forms dependent products, and ${\mathsf{Id}}$ is the identity type. Intuitively, ${\mathsf{Set}}$ is the type of types in ${\mathbb{U}}$ that are “discrete”. We therefore treat the terms of ${\mathsf{Set}}$ as if they were types in ${\mathbb{U}}$. Since ${\mathbb{U}}$ is impredicative, we have ${\mathsf{Set}}: {\mathbb{U}}$.
To capture Reynolds’ construction we take our ambient category ${\mathcal{C}}$ to be the category whose objects are the types in ${\mathbb{U}}$, and whose morphisms are equivalence classes of functions. Here, functions $f,g :
A \to B$ are considered equal precisely when the type ${\mathsf{eq}}(f,g)$ is inhabited. To keep from incorporating any particular computational structure into the categorical structure, it is crucial that we use proof-irrelevant propositional equality types $\mathsf{eq}(-,-)$, rather than proof-relevant identity types ${\mathsf{Id}}(-,-)$, here; this ensures, for example, that the uniqueness condition for pullbacks is satisfied. With this definition it is easy to check that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is finitely complete.
To see the type ${\mathsf{Set}}$ as a category internal to ${\mathcal{C}}$ we first define the type ${\mathsf{Set}}(A,B)$ of morphisms from $A$ to $B$ to be ${\mathsf{Set}}(A,B) \coloneqq A \to B$, and then take the object of objects in the internal category to be ${\mathsf{Set}}$ itself and its object of morphisms to be $\Sigma_{A, B: {\mathbb{U}}} A \to B$. We define a category of relations by $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{R} \coloneqq \Sigma_{A,B: {\mathsf{Set}}} A \times B \to {\mathsf{Prop}}\\
& \mathsf{R} \; (A_1,A_2,R_A) \; (B_1,B_2,R_B) \coloneqq \Sigma_{f :
A_1 \to B_1} \Sigma_{g : A_2 \to B_2} \\
& \;\;\; \Pi_{a_1:A_1} \Pi_{a_2 : A_2} R_A(a_1,a_2) \to R_B(f a_1 ,g a_2)\end{aligned}$$ which we can see as a category internal to ${\mathcal{C}}$ whose object of objects is $\mathsf{R}$ itself and whose object of morphisms is $$\begin{aligned}
& \Sigma_{(A_1,A_2,R_A),(B_1,B_2,R_B) :\mathsf{R}}\, \Sigma_{f :
A_1 \to B_1} \Sigma_{g : A_2 \to B_2}\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Pi_{a_1:A_1} \Pi_{a_2 : A_2} R_A(a_1,a_2) \to R_B(f
a_1 ,g a_2) \end{aligned}$$ We obviously have two internal functors from $\mathsf{R}$ to ${\mathsf{Set}}$ corresponding to the first and second projections, respectively. We also have an equality functor ${\mathsf{Eq}}$ from ${\mathsf{Set}}$ to $\mathsf{R}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathsf{Eq}}\,A \coloneqq (A,A,{\mathsf{Id}}_A) \\
& {\mathsf{Eq}}\, f \coloneqq (f,f,\mathsf{ap}\,f)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathsf{ap}\,f : {\mathsf{Id}}_A (a_1,a_2) \to {\mathsf{Id}}_B(f a_1, f a_2)$ is defined as usual by ${\mathsf{Id}}$-induction.
We obtain a $1$-dimensional cubical category ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ by defining ${\mathsf{Rel}}(0) = {\mathsf{Set}}$ and ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1) = \mathsf{R}$, and mapping the two face maps to the two projections, and the single degeneracy to ${\mathsf{Eq}}$. We can define terminal objects, products, and exponentials for ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ in the obvious ways, relating two pairs iff their first and second components are related, and two functions iff they map related arguments to related values. It is not hard to check that all these constructs are preserved on the nose by the two face maps (projections), and preserved up to a natural isomorphism whose first and second projections are identities by the single degeneracy (equality functor). All three constructs are therefore stable under both face maps and degeneracies. As noted in the introduction, the difference between fibred functors preserving equality on the nose or only up to natural isomorphism is precisely where the construction in [@param_johann] fails. Composition and substitution in (what is intended to be) the base category of the $\lambda 2$-fibration constructed in the main theorem there cannot be defined in any standard way unless equality is preserved on the nose, but equality in [@param_johann] is only defined — and therefore can only be preserved — up to isomorphism. Finally, we define the adjoint $\forall_n$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall_n \,{\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{A} \coloneqq \Sigma_{f : \Pi_{A:{\mathsf{Set}}}
{\mathcal{F}}(0)(\overline{A},A)} \Pi_{R : \mathsf{R}} \\
& \;\;\;\;\; \pi_3\,\big({\mathcal{F}}(1)(\overline{{\mathsf{Eq}}\,A},R) \; (f \;
(\pi_1R))' \; (f \; (\pi_2R))'\big) \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall_n \,{\mathcal{F}}(1) \; \overline{R} \coloneqq \Big(\forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0)
\; \overline{\pi_1(R)}, \forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{\pi_2(R)}, \\
& \;\;\; \lambda_{f : \forall_n {\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{\pi_1 \,R}} \; \lambda_{g : \forall_n {\mathcal{F}}(0) \;
\overline{\pi_2 R}} \\
& \;\;\;\;\; \pi_3({\mathcal{F}}(1)(R,R)) \; (f \; (\pi_1 R))'
\; (g \; (\pi_2 R))'\Big) \end{aligned}$$ In the above, the term $(f \, (\pi_1R))' :
\pi_1\big({\mathcal{F}}(1)(\overline{{\mathsf{Eq}}\,A},R\big))$ stands for the term $f
\, (\pi_1R) : {\mathcal{F}}(0)(\overline{A},\pi_1R))$ transported along the equality between the respective types, and similarly for $\pi_2$ and $g$. We emphasize again that these terms all exist because ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ preserves face maps on the nose.
\[ex:per\] We consider the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} internal to the category of $\omega$-sets. We follow the development of [@longo_moggi] for concepts related to this category, In particular, this category is defined in Definition 6.3 of [@longo_moggi], and proved in Corollary 8.3 there to be finitely complete.
We construct a $1$-dimensional cubical functor ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ as follows. As our internal category ${\mathsf{Rel}}(0)$ of $0$-relations we take the category $\mathbf{M}'$ as in Definition 8.4 of [@longo_moggi]. Informally, the objects $\mathbf{M}'$ are partial equivalence relations, and its morphisms are realizable functions that respect those relations.
To define the internal category ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$ of $1$-relations, we first construct its object of objects. As the carrier of this $\omega$-set we take the set of triples $(A, B, R)$, where $A$ and $B$ are partial equivalence relations and $R$ is a saturated predicate on $A \times
B$. Here the product $A \times B$ of two PERs is constructed in the standard way, using a bijective pairing function $\langle
\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and relating two pairs iff their respective projections — which we will call ${\mathsf{fst}}$ and ${\mathsf{snd}}$ below — are related. A saturated predicate on a PER $A$ is a predicate $R$ on natural numbers that is closed under $A$, in the sense that $m \sim_A
n$ and $R(m)$ imply $R(n)$. To finish the construction of our object of objects for ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$ we take any triple $(A, B, R)$ as above to be realized by any natural number.
As the carrier of the object of morphisms for ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$ we take the set of quadruples of the form $$\big((A_1,B_1,R_1), (A_2,B_2,R_2),
\{n\}_{A_1 \to A_2}, \{m\}_{B_1 \to B_2}\big)$$ satisfying the condition that, for any $k$ such that $R_1(k)$ holds, we have that $R_2\big(\langle n \cdot {\mathsf{fst}}(k), m \cdot {\mathsf{snd}}(k) \rangle\big)$ holds as well. The first two components of such a quadruple serve to encode the domain and codomain of the morphism. The third component is a (nonempty) equivalence class under the exponential PER $A_1 \to
A_2$. Here the exponential $A \to B$ of two PERs is constructed in the standard way, using an encoding of partial recursive functions as natural numbers and relating two functions iff they map related arguments to related values. In accordance with [@longo_moggi], we denote the application of the $n^{th}$ partial recursive function to a natural number $a$ in its domain by $n \cdot a$. To finish the construction of our object of morphisms for ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$, we take a quadruple as above to be realized by a natural number $k$ iff ${\mathsf{fst}}(k)
\sim_{A_1 \to A_2} n$ and ${\mathsf{snd}}(k) \sim_{B_1 \to B_2} m$.
We obviously have two internal functors from ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(0)$, corresponding to the first and second projections, respectively. We also have an equality functor $\mathsf{Eq}$ from ${\mathsf{Rel}}(0)$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}(1)$ whose action on objects is given by $\mathsf{Eq}\,A
\coloneqq (A,A,R_A)$, where $R_A(k)$ iff ${\mathsf{fst}}(k) \sim_A {\mathsf{snd}}(k)$, and whose action on morphisms is given by $\mathsf{Eq}\,(A,B,\{n\}_{A \to
B}) \coloneqq ({\mathsf{Eq}}\,A,{\mathsf{Eq}}\,B, \{n\}_{A \to B},\{n\}_{A \to B})$. We therefore have that ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is indeed a $1$-dimensional cubical category. We can define terminal objects, products, and exponentials for ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ in the obvious ways, inheriting from the corresponding standard constructs on PERs. It is not hard to check that all these constructs are preserved both by the two face maps (projections), and by the single degeneracy (equality functor), on the nose.
Finally, we define the adjoint $\forall_n$ on objects by $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{A} \coloneqq \big\{ (n,k) \; | \;
\text{ for all} \; A : \mathbf{M}', n \sim_A k, \\ & \;\;\;
\text{and for all} \; R : {\mathsf{Rel}}(1),
\pi_3\,\big({\mathcal{F}}(1)(\overline{{\mathsf{Eq}}\,A},R)\big) \; (n,k) \big\}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(1) \; \overline{R} \coloneqq \big(\forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0)
\; \overline{\pi_1(R)}, \forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{\pi_2(R)}, \\
& \;\;\; \big\{ n \; | \; \text{ for all} \; R : {\mathsf{Rel}}(1),
\pi_3\,({\mathcal{F}}(1) (\overline{R},R)) \; n \big\} \big)\end{aligned}$$ To define $\forall_n$ on a morphism $\eta : {\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{G}}$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
& \forall_n\,\eta(0) \; \overline{A} \coloneqq \big( \forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0)
\; \overline{A}, \forall_n\,{\mathcal{G}}(0) \; \overline{A}, \\ &
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \{ m \cdot 0
\}_{\forall_n\,{\mathcal{F}}(0) \; \overline{A} \to \forall_n\,{\mathcal{G}}(0) \;
\overline{A}}\big)\end{aligned}$$ Here, $m$ is any natural number realizing $\eta(0) \bar{A}$. It is crucial that all natural transformations are “uniformly realized", in the sense that there is a natural number realizing each such transformation and, because all PERs are defined to be realized by all natural numbers, each is suitably uniform. In particular, if $\eta$ were not uniformly realized in the above sense, then $\forall$ would not be well-defined. Using this observation it is possible to show that, in the category-theoretic setting (rather than in the setting of $\omega$-sets), the adjoint $\forall_n$ cannot exist precisely because [*ad hoc*]{} natural transformations — [*i.e.*]{}, natural transformations that are not uniformly realizable, even though each of their components may indeed be realizable — are not excluded.
Consequences of Parametricity {#sec:consequences}
=============================
In this section we show that the models constructed in Theorem \[thm:cubical-model\] satisfy the properties that “good” models of parametricity for System F should satisfy. In particular, Lemma \[lem:graph-lemma\] below shows that, under reasonable conditions, our models support the definition of a graph for each face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor. Moreover, Theorem \[thm:initial-algebras-exist\] and its analogue for final coalgebras show that our higher-dimensional models of relational parametricity for System F also validate the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras for such functors. These results serve as a sanity check for our theory, and show that it is powerful enough to show that “good” models of relational parametricity for System F can be constructed even at higher dimensions.
A Higher-Dimensional Graph Lemma
--------------------------------
Every function $f : A \to B$ between sets $A$ and $B$ defines a graph relation ${\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}} = \{(a,b) \,|\, f\, a = b\}$. This observation can be phrased fibrationally by letting $U : {\mathsf{Rel}}\to {\mathsf{Set}}\times {\mathsf{Set}}$ be the standard relations fibration on ${\mathsf{Set}}$, and noting that ${\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}$ can be obtained by reindexing the equality relation ${\mathsf{Eq}}\,B$ on $B$. In [@param_johann], the notion of a graph was extended to more general relations fibrations and a Graph Lemma was proved for their associated models of $1$-dimensional parametricity. In this subsection we give a natural generalization of the definition of a graph from [@param_johann] to the higher-dimensional setting, and prove a Graph Lemma appropriate to this setting. We begin by introducing the (new) notion of a cubical (bi)fibration.
A ($p$-dimensional) cubical category ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ that has products is a ($p$-dimensional) [*cubical (bi)fibration*]{} if, for each $l < p$, each functor $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\mathbf{f}}(l,k) & = & \langle {\mathsf{Rel}}\, ({\mathbf{f}}_\bot (l,k)), {\mathsf{Rel}}\, ({\mathbf{f}}_\top (l,k))
\rangle\\
& : & {\mathsf{Rel}}(l+1) \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(l) \times {\mathsf{Rel}}(l)
\end{array}$$ for $k \leq l$ is a (bi)fibration.
As already noted in Example \[ex:bifib-param\], the (bi)fibrations ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)$ play the role of the relations fibrations in [@param_johann], while the ${\mathbf{d}}(l,k)$ play the role of equality functors. When ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a cubical (bi)fibration, we have that ${\mathsf{Rel}}\, ({\mathbf{d}}(l,k)) \, A$ is indeed over $(A,A)$ with respect to ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)$ for every object $A$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$, and similarly for every morphism in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$.
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a category, write ${\mathcal{C}}^\to$ for the [*arrow category*]{} of ${\mathcal{C}}$, [*i.e.*]{}, for the category whose objects are morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and whose morphisms from $f : A \to B$ to $f' : A' \to B'$ in ${\mathcal{C}}^\to$ are pairs of morphisms $g : A \to A'$ and $h : B \to B'$ such that $f'
\circ g = h \circ f$. We define the [*graph functor*]{} for ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ to be the set of functors $\{{\ensuremath{\langle - \rangle}}_{l,k} \, |\, l < p, \, k \leq l\}$, where each ${\ensuremath{\langle - \rangle}}_{l,k}$ is defined as follows:
Let ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ be a ($p$-dimensional) cubical fibration that has terminal objects. For every $l < p$ and $k \leq l$, the functor ${\ensuremath{\langle - \rangle}}_{l,k}
: {\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^\to \to {\mathsf{Rel}}(l+1)$ is defined by:
- if $h : A \to B$ is an object in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^\to$, then ${\ensuremath{\langle h \rangle}}_{l,k} = (h,id_B)^* ({\mathsf{Rel}}\, {\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\, B)$
- if $f : A \to B$, $f' : A' \to B'$, and $(g,h) : f \to f'$ is a morphism in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)^\to$, then ${\ensuremath{\langle g,h \rangle}}_{l,k}$ is the unique morphism from ${\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}_{l,k}$ to ${\ensuremath{\langle f' \rangle}}_{l,k}$ obtained from $({\mathsf{Rel}}\, {\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\,h) \circ {\ensuremath{(f,id_B)^{\S}}}$ via ${\ensuremath{(f',id_{B'})^{\S}}}$
$$\xymatrix{
{\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}_{l,k} \ar[r]^-{(f,id_B)^{\S}} \ar@{-->}[d]_-{\exists\, !
{\ensuremath{\langle g,h \rangle}}_{l,k}} & {\mathsf{Rel}}\,{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\,B \ar[d]^-{{\mathsf{Rel}}\,{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\, h}
\\
{\ensuremath{\langle f' \rangle}}_{l,k} \ar[r]_-{(f', id_{B'})^{\S}} & {\mathsf{Rel}}\,{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\, B' \\
}$$
Intuitively, one of ${\mathbf{f}}_\bot (l,k)$ and ${\mathbf{f}}_\top (l,k)$ acts as the $x$-axis, and the other acts as a $y$-axis, for $l$-dimensional graphs projected onto dimension $k$. Since reindexing preserves identities, we have that ${\ensuremath{\langle id_A \rangle}}_{l,k} = (id_A,id_A)^*({\mathsf{Rel}}\,{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\,B) =
{\mathsf{Rel}}\,{\mathbf{d}}(l,k)\,B$. This generalizes the observation that ${\ensuremath{\langle id_A \rangle}}
= {\mathsf{Eq}}\,A$ in the $1$-dimensional setting of [@param_johann].
We also have the following alternative characterization of the graph functor when ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a bifibration:
\[lem:opfib-char\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a ($p$-dimensional) cubical bifibration that has terminal objects, and if $f : A \to B$, then ${\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}_{l,k} =
\Sigma_{(id_A,f)} \, {\mathbf{d}}(l,k) \, A$.
By contrast with the analogous characterization in Lemma 5.2 of [@param_johann], no Beck-Chevalley condition is required since the bifibrations ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)$ are postulated here, rather than derived from more primitive bifibrations as is done there.
We have the following analogue of Lemma 5.3 of [@param_johann]:
${\ensuremath{\langle - \rangle}}_{l,k}$ is full and faithful if ${\mathsf{Rel}}\, {\mathbf{d}}(l,k)$ is.
Together, the (fibrational) definition of the graph functor and its opfibrational characterization from Lemma \[lem:opfib-char\] give the following Graph Lemma for our higher-dimensional setting:
\[lem:graph-lemma\] (Graph Lemma) Let ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ be a ($p$-dimensional) cubical bifibration that has terminal objects and ${\cal F} : {\mathsf{Rel}}\to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ be a ($p$-dimensional) face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor. For any $l < p$, $f : A \to B$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$, and $k \leq
l$, there exist morphisms $$\phi_f : {\ensuremath{\langle {\mathcal{F}}(l) f \rangle}}_{l,k} \to {\mathcal{F}}(l+1){\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}_{l,k}$$ and $$\psi_f : {\mathcal{F}}(l+1){\ensuremath{\langle f \rangle}}_{l,k} \to {\ensuremath{\langle {\mathcal{F}}(l) f \rangle}}_{l,k}$$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l+1)$ that are vertical with respect to ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)$.
Existence of Initial Algebras and Final Coalgebras
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we use our Graph Lemma to show that the models constructed in Theorem \[thm:cubical-model\] validate the existence of initial algebras and final coalgebras for face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functors, and thus for all interpretations of positive type expressions in System F. Our constructions naturally extend those in [@param_johann] to the higher-dimensional setting.
If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a ($p$-dimensional) cubical category and ${\mathcal{F}}: {\mathsf{Rel}}\to
{\mathsf{Rel}}$ is ($p$-dimensional) cubical functor, then an *${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra* $(A,k_A)$ is a set of pairs $\{(A_l,k_{A_l}) \, |
\, l < p\}$ in which each $A_l$ is an object of ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ and each $k_{A_l} : {\mathcal{F}}(l)A_l \to A_l$ is a morphism in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$. We call the set $A = \{A_l \, | \, l < p\}$ the *carrier* of the ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra and the set $k_A = \{k_{A_l} \, | \, l < p\}$ its *structure map*. A set of morphisms $f = \{f_l:A_l\rightarrow B_l \, | \, l <
p\}$ with each $f_l$ in ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ is an *${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra morphism* $f : (A,k_A) \to (B,k_B)$ if, for each $f_l$ in $f$, $k_{B_l} \circ
({\mathcal{F}}(l)f_l) = f_l \circ k_{A_l}$. An ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra $(Z,\mathit{in})$ is *weakly initial* if, for any ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra $(A,k_{A})$, there exists a mediating ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra morphism $\mathsf{fold}\,[A, k_A] :
(Z, \mathit{in}) \rightarrow (A, k_A)$. It is an *initial $F$-algebra* if $\mathsf{fold}\,[A, k_A]$ is unique up to isomorphism.
Now, every $\lambda 2$-fibration has an associated internal language. For the $\lambda 2$-fibration we construct in Theorem \[thm:split-lambda2-fib\], this is a polymorphic lambda calculus for which each type $\Gamma \vdash {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}$ is given by a face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor from $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^{|\Gamma|}$ to ${\mathsf{Rel}}$, and each term $\Gamma;\Delta \vdash
{\ensuremath{\underline{t}}} : A$ is a face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical natural transformation between such functors. We can use this internal language to reason about our models using System F.
Let ${\mathcal{F}}: {\mathsf{Rel}}\to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ be a ($p$-dimensional) face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor. A [*strength*]{} for ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a set $\sigma = \{\sigma_l\, | \, l < p\}$ of families of morphisms $(\sigma_l)_{A, B} : {\ensuremath{A \Rightarrow B}} \to {\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}(l)A \Rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}(l)B}}$ such that the mapping of cubical functors to their strengths preserves identities and composition, and, for each $l < p$ and $k \leq l$, ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)\,(\sigma_{l+1})_{C,D} = ((\sigma_l)_{A,B},
(\sigma_l)_{A',B'})$ if ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)C = (A,B)$ and ${\mathbf{f}}(l,k)D =
(A',B')$. A cubical functor with a strength is said to be [ *strong*]{}. Because of the discrete domains, $\sigma$ is a cubical natural transformation from ${\ensuremath{\_ \Rightarrow \_}}$ to ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal{F}}\_ \Rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}\_}}$ in $|{\mathsf{Rel}}|^2 \to {\mathsf{Rel}}$. The term $A, B; \cdot \vdash {\ensuremath{\underline{\sigma}}} :
(A \to B) \to ({\ensuremath{\underline{{\mathcal{F}}}}}[A] \to {\ensuremath{\underline{{\mathcal{F}}}}}[B])$ represents the action of ${\mathcal{F}}$ on morphisms in the internal language. To see that every face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor ${\mathcal{F}}$ has an initial ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra we define $Z = {\ensuremath{[\![ \forall
X.({\ensuremath{\underline{{\mathcal{F}}}}}X\rightarrow X)\rightarrow X ]\!]}}$, $\mathit{fold} =
\Lambda A.\, \lambda k : {\ensuremath{\underline{{\mathcal{F}}}}}A \to A.\, \lambda z:Z.\,
z\,A\,k$, $\mathsf{fold}\,[A,k] =
{\ensuremath{[\![ \mathit{fold}\,{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}\,{\ensuremath{\underline{k}}} ]\!]}}$, where ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\underline{k}}}$ are the internal expressions corresponding to the components of another ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra $(A,k)$, and $\mathit{in} =
{\ensuremath{[\![ \lambda x.\,\Lambda X.\,\lambda k:{\ensuremath{\underline{{\mathcal{F}}}}}A \to A.\,k\,
({\ensuremath{\underline{\sigma}}}\,(\mathit{fold} \,X \,k) \,x) ]\!]}}$. Our Graph Lemma can then be used to extend the $1$-dimensional construction from [@param_johann] to the higher-dimensional setting:
\[thm:initial-algebras-exist\] If ${\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a ($p$-dimensional) bifibration that has terminal objects, if ${\mathcal{F}}: {\mathsf{Rel}}\to {\mathsf{Rel}}$ is a ($p$-dimensional) face map- and degeneracy-preserving cubical functor, if ${\mathbf{d}}(l,k)$ is full for every $l < p$ and $k \leq l$, and if, for every $l < p$, ${\mathsf{Rel}}(l)$ is well-pointed, then $(Z,\mathit{in})$ is an initial ${\mathcal{F}}$-algebra.
We obtain the analogous result for final ${\mathcal{F}}$-coalgebras as well.
Related Work
============
The study of parametricity runs both wide and deep. Here, we draw connections with some of the work most closely related to ours.
Ma and Reynolds [@mr92] gave the first categorical formulation of relational parametricity. Generalizing from the evident reflexive graph structure in well-behaved relational models of the simply typed lambda calculus, they reformulated Reynolds’ original notion of relational parametricity for System F in terms of reflexive graphs of Seely’s PL categories [@see87]; these have sufficient structure to model the type-dependent aspects of System F as well. Jacobs [@jac99] later generalized this reformulation, recasting it in terms of $\lambda 2$-fibrations and parameterizing it over a “logic of types” for the polymorphic type theory. His Definition 8.6.2 gives an notion of $1$-dimensional relational parametricity that is “external”, in the sense that it describes when an arbitrary $\lambda 2$-fibration carries enough structure to formalize that some of the specific models he constructs are “intuitively parametric”. This contrasts with our “internal” approach, which starts with some suitably-structured-but-otherwise-arbitrary components and uses a particular construction to weave them into $\lambda 2$-fibrations that are “intuitively parametric” in the same sense as Jacobs’ models, except that our models satisfy this property at higher dimensions, too. Overall, our work can be seen as a first extension to higher dimensions of a formalism capturing the observation that “intuitively parametric” $\lambda 2$-fibrations are all generated in essentially the same way.
Ma and Reynolds [@mr92] neither provide models that are relationally parametric in the sense they define, nor give any indication how hard such models might be to construct. This led Robinson and Rosolini [@rr94] to reconsidered Ma and Reynolds’ reformulation of Reynolds’ relational parametricity from the point of view of internal categories. This supports a narrowing of Ma and Reynolds’ framework that is more promising for model construction. Robinson and Rosolini also use internal categories to clarify the constructions of [@mr92]; our use of internal categories to clarify the constructions of [@param_johann] when $p
= 1$ is in the same spirit.
Dunphy and Reddy [@dr04] do not work with internal categories, but they do use reflexive graphs to model relations and functors between reflexive graph categories to model types. The framework they develop is mathematically elegant and powerful enough to derive some expected consequences of relational parametricity, including the existence of initial algebras for strictly positive System F type expressions. The framework of [@param_johann] offers an alternative categorical approach to relational parametricity formulated in terms of bifibrations rather than reflexive graphs. It gives a functorial semantics for System F that derives all of the expected consequences of parametricity that Birkedal and M[ø]{}gelberg prove using Abadi-Plotkin logic [@bm05], including the existence of initial algebras for all positive type expressions, rather than just strictly positive ones. However, the bifibrational framework suffers from the shortcomings already discussed in this paper.
Cubical sets were originally introduced in the context of algebraic topology, but have more recently been shown to model homotopy type theory [@cubical_coquand; @cubical_harper], an extension of Martin-Löf type theory. A key feature of homotopy type theory is that functions are infinitely parametric with respect to propositional equality in a non-trivial way. It is still not fully established whether this theory supports a well-defined notion of computation, even for base types such as natural numbers. That it does is Voevodsky’s *homotopy-canonicity conjecture*.
We are not the first consider parametricity at higher dimensions. In [@param_ghani], the bifibrational approach to relational parametricity developed in [@param_johann] was extended to proof-relevant relations. This was achieved by extending the uniformity condition characterizing parametric functions to proofs by adding a second “dimension” of parametricity on top of Reynolds’ standard one that forces the standard uniformity condition to itself be uniform, in effect requiring that polymorphic programs can be proved to map related arguments to related results via related proofs. The resulting construction delivers a 2-dimensional parametricity theorem appropriate to the proof-relevant setting. We conjecture that this construction can be made an instance of our theory. Note, however, that Definition 22 of [@param_ghani] actually needs our more general theory in which equality can be required to be preserved only up to natural isomorphism.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this paper we developed a theory of higher-dimensional relational parametricity for System F that not only clarifies and strengthens the results of [@param_johann] when $p = 1$, but also naturally generalizes Reynolds’ original notion of relational parametricity for System F to higher dimensions. We have also shown that our theory properly subsumes Reynolds’ original model and the PER model of Bainbridge [*et al.*]{} as proper instances of our theory when $p=1$, and that it formalizes notions of [*proof-relevant parametricity*]{} (when $p = 2$) and [*infinite-dimensional parametricity*]{} when ($p =
\infty$) as well. Finally, we have proved that our theory is “good” in the sense that it derives higher-dimensional analogues of expected results for parametric models. In future work we hope to settle our conjecture that our $\lambda 2$-fibrations are relationally parametric in the sense of Jacobs’ “external” notion when $p = 1$, as well as to generalize this “external” notion to relational parametricity to infinitely many dimensions. We also plan to investigate how our theory can be instantiated to give new parametric models for System F at dimension $1$. Finally, we plan to investigate connections between our theory and proof-relevant parametricity at dimension $2$, and between our theory and the homotopy-canonicity conjecture when $p=\infty$.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} This research is supported, in part, by NSF awards 1420175 (PJ) and 1545197 (KS).
[^1]: Since there are no set-theoretic models of System F, by the phrase “Reynolds’ original model” we will mean the version of his model that is internal to the Calculus of Inductive Constructions with Impredicative Set (as indicated in [@param_johann]).
[^2]: The requirement that ${\mathcal{C}}$ has [*all*]{} pullbacks is actually stronger than necessary. In fact, we need only require ${\mathcal{C}}$ to have all “composable” pullbacks.
[^3]: The quite surprising fact that this theory has not yet actually been proved consistent is, however, worth noting.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Distributed dynamic compensators, also known as distributed observer, play a key role in the output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems. However, most existing distributed dynamic compensators require either the compensators’ information to be exchanged through communication networks, or that the controller for each subsystem satisfies a class of small gain conditions. In this note, we develop a novel distributed dynamic compensator to address the adaptive output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters. The distributed dynamic compensator only requires the output information to be exchanged through communication networks. Thus, it reduces the communication burden and facilitates the implementation of the dynamic compensator. In addition, the distributed dynamic compensator converts the original adaptive output consensus problem into the global asymptotic tracking problem for a class of nonlinear systems with unknown parameters. Then, by using the adaptive backstepping approach, we develop an adaptive tracking controller for each subsystem, which does not requre the small gain conditions as in previous studies. It is further proved that all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded, and the proposed scheme enables the outputs of all the subsystems to track the output of leader asymptotically. A simulation is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the design methodology.'
author:
- 'Guangqi Li, Long Wang [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: ' Adaptive Output Consensus of Heterogeneous Nonlinear Multi-agent Systems: A Distributed Dynamic Compensator Approach'
---
Distributed control, distributed dynamic compensator, heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems, adaptive output consensus.
Introduction
============
The consensus problem of multi-agent systems has attracted many researchers, due to its widespread potential applications in various fields. Its objective is to design a distributed control law such that the states or the outputs of all agents achieve an agreement. The control law is distributed in the sense that each agent’s controller only uses information from the agent and its neighboring agents. During the past decades, the consensus problem for multi-agent systems has been extensively studied from various perspectives [@Jadbabaie-AC-2003]-[@ShiGuodong-SIAM-2013]. For more details, please refer to the surveys [@Olfati-IEEE-2007]-[@Qin-IE-2017] and the references cited therein.
Recently, more attention has been paid to the heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems [@Yang-IJACSP-2018]-[@Zhu-AC-2016]. Distributed dynamic compensators, also called distributed observer, are useful in dealing with the output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems. This problem can be addressed in two step. First, a local dynamic compensator is designed for each agent, and the outputs or states of all compensators achieve consensus through a proper collaborative control strategy. Then, the output regulation theory is applied to constructing controller, forcing the output of each agent to track the output of local compensator. Based on this method, the output consensus problem has been addressed for different classes of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems [@Isidori-AC-2014]-[@LiuTao-AC-2019]. For example, the output synchronization problem was investigated in [@Isidori-AC-2014] for heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems. The cooperative output regulation problem was addressed for heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown and non-identical control directions [@Guo-AC-2017]. Unfortunately, all the distributed dynamic compensators in [@Isidori-AC-2014]-[@LiuTao-AC-2019] require the compensator information to be exchanged through communication networks. The compensator information is not physical but artificial, hence exchanging such information must incur additional communication complexity and burden. In many physical circumstances, each agent can only observe or measure the output information of its neighboring agents. As a result, it is more desirable to design distributed controller under output communication. However, the output communication also brings new challenges in designing controller, and new design technique is required. In a recent paper [@Zhu-AC-2016], a general framework was proposed to address the output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems under output communication. Actually, the distributed dynamic compensator constructed under output communication and each subsystem can be viewed as a interconnection system. Then, the controller satisfying a class of small gain conditions is designed for each subsystem to address the tracking problem of the interconnection system. However, the small gain conditions result in sufficiently large control gains, and for some nonlinear systems with completely unknown parameters, it is unable or difficult to design controller satisfying small gain conditions.
In this note, a novel distributed dynamic compensator is developed to address the adaptive output consensus problem for heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters. The distributed dynamic compensator only requires the output information to be exchanged through communication networks. This considerably reduces the communication burden and facilitates the implementation of the dynamic compensator. In addition, the distributed dynamic compensator converts the adaptive output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters into the problem of global asymptotic tracking for a class of nonlinear systems with unknown parameters. Then, by using adaptive backstepping approach, we develop an adaptive tracking controller for each subsystem, without requiring the small gain conditions [@Zhu-AC-2016]. It is further proved that all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded, and the proposed scheme enables the outputs of all the subsystems to track the output of leader asymptotically. A simulation is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the design methodology.
The adaptive output consensus problem has also been addressed via adaptive backstepping approach [@Kristic-NACD-1995] for nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017]. Compared with these results [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017], our designed methodology has the following advantages:
- In [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017], some restrictive conditions were imposed, e.g., each agent needs to know the state information and nonlinear functions of its neighbors [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@Wangwei-A-2017], or the filter information of its neighbors [@HuangJingshuai-A-2017], and the system orders of all agents need to be the same. However, in our work, the system orders are not the same for all agents, and only the output information is exchanged through communication netowrk.
- Our design methodology is more flexible than the methods in [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017]. Actually, by means of the distributed dynamic compensator, we can use different control approaches to design tracking controller for each subsystem. Thus, our proposed methodology can be used to address the output consensus problems of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with non-identical structure, and hence the output consensus problem of multi-agent systems with unknown and non-identical control directions. However, it is difficult to apply the methods in [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017] to these problems, even for the case that the system orders of all agents are the same.
- In [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@Wangwei-A-2017], each agent required constructing additional local estimates to account for the unknown parameters of its neighbors’ dynamics. This inevitably results in a much complex controller. However, in our work, each agent does not need to construct the additional local estimates.
The rest of this note is organized as follows. In Section 2, we formulate our problem statement, and give some useful lemmas. In Section 3, we first develop a novel distributed dynamic compensator to address the challenges caused by heterogeneous dynamics. Then, adaptive controller design and stability analysis of closed-loop system are presented. Finally, an illustrative example is provided in Section 4.
[***Notation.***]{} Throughout this note, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^m$ denote the set of real numbers and $m$-dimensional real vector space, respectively. $0_{r}$ denotes the column vector with all $r$ elements being $0$, and $I_{r\times r}$ denotes the $r\times r$ identity matrix. For a given vector function $z(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, $\|z(t)\|$ and $\|z(t)\|_{\infty}$ denote the standard Euclidean norm and the essential supremum norm, respectively. Moreover, a function $\gamma:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ is said to be a $\mathcal{K}$-class function if it is continuous, strictly increasing, and $\gamma(0)=0$; a function $\beta:\mathbb{R}^+\times \mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is said to be a $\mathcal{KL}$-class function if $\beta(\cdot,t)$ is of class $\mathcal{K}$ for each fixed $t>0$ and $\beta(s,t)\rightarrow 0$ decreasingly as $t\rightarrow \infty$ for each fixed $s>0$.
Problem formulation and Preliminaries
=====================================
In this note, we consider the leader-following output consensus problem for the following class of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{x}_{i,l}=x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,l})^T\theta_{i},l=1,\cdots,r_i-1,\nonumber\\
&&\dot{x}_{i,r_i}=u_i+\psi_{i,r_i}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,r_i})^T\theta_{i},\nonumber\\
&&y_i=x_{i,1},i=1,\cdots,N,\label{systemF}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i=[x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,r_i}]^T\in\mathbb{R}^{r_i},y_i\in\mathbb{R},u_i\in\mathbb{R}$ are the state, output and input of the $i$th subsystem, respectively, $\theta_i\in\mathbb{R}^{m_i}$ a vector of unknown constants, and $\psi_{i,l}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^{l}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m_i}$ known smooth nonlinear functions. The system is heterogeneous in the sense that the order $r_i$, and the nonlinear functions $\psi_{i,l}(\cdot)$ need not to be identical for all agents.
The leader’s signal $y_0\in \mathbb{R}$ is assumed to be generated by a linear autonomous system of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{x}_0=Ax_0,\nonumber\\
&&y_0=Cx_0,\label{systemL}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^\nu$, $A\in\mathbb{R}^{\nu\times \nu}$ and $C\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times \nu}$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $(A,C)$ is detectable.
The communication network of this multi-agent system can be described by a digraph $\bar{\mathcal{G}}=\{\bar{\mathcal{V}},\bar{\mathcal{E}}\}$ with $\bar{\mathcal{V}}=\{v_0,v_1,\cdots,v_N\}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{E}}\subseteq \bar{\mathcal{V}}\times \bar{\mathcal{V}}$, where node $v_0$ is associated with the leader system $(\ref{systemL})$, and node $v_i,i=1,\cdots,N$ is associated with the $i$th subsystem of $(\ref{systemF})$. For $i=1,\cdots, N,j=0,\cdots, N$ and $i\neq j$, $(v_j,v_i)\in \bar{\mathcal{E}}$ if and only if the control law $u_i$ can use the output information of $j$th subsystem or leader for control. Let $\bar{\mathcal{A}}=[a_{ij}]\in\mathbb{R}^{(N+1)\times (N+1)}$ be the weighted adjacency matrix of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$, where $a_{ii}=0,i=0,1,\cdots,N$, and $a_{ij}>0,i=1,\cdots,N,j=0,1,\cdots,N$ if and only if $(v_j,v_i)\in \bar{\mathcal{E}}$. The neighbor set of agent $i$ is defined as $\bar{\mathcal{N}}_i=\{v_j,(v_j,v_i)\in\bar{\mathcal{E}}\}$. Let $\mathcal{G}=\{\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$ be the subgraph of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$, where $\mathcal{V}=\{v_1,\cdots,v_N\}$, and $\mathcal{E}\subseteq \mathcal{V}\times \mathcal{V}$ is obtained from $\bar{\mathcal{E}}$ by removing all edges between the node $v_0$ and nodes in $\mathcal{V}$.
Let us describe our control law as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
u_i&=&h_i(x_i,\xi_i),\nonumber\\
\dot{\xi}_i&=&l_i(\xi_i,x_i,e_{vi}),i=1,\cdots,N,\label{control}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_i(\cdot)$ and $l_i(\cdot)$ are some nonlinear functions, and $e_{vi}=\sum_{j=0}^Na_{ij}(y_i-y_j)$.
A control law of the form $(\ref{control})$ is distributed since $u_i$ only depends on the output information of its neighbor and the state information of itself. Our problem is described as follows.\
**Problem 1.** Given the multi-agent systems $(\ref{systemF})$-$(\ref{systemL})$, and a digraph $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$, design a control law of the form $(\ref{control})$, such that the solution of the closed-loop system is globally uniformly bounded, and satisfies $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(e_i:=y_i-y_0)=0,i=1,\cdots,N$.
For this purpose, we introduce some standard assumptions and Lemmas.\
**Assumption 1.** The linear autonomous system is neutrally stable, that is, all the eigenvalues of $A$ are semi-simple with zero real parts.\
**Assumption 2.** The digraph $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ contains a directed spanning tree with node $v_0$ as its root.
[@Su-AC-2012]\[lemma1\] Consider a weighted digraph $\bar{\mathcal{G}}=\{\bar{\mathcal{V}},\bar{\mathcal{E}},\bar{\mathcal{A}}\}$ with $\bar{\mathcal{V}}=\{v_0,v_1,\cdots,v_N\}$, $\bar{\mathcal{E}}\subseteq \bar{\mathcal{V}}\times \bar{\mathcal{V}}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{A}}=[a_{ij}]\in\mathbb{R}^{(N+1)\times (N+1)}$. Let $\mathcal{L}=[l_{ij}]_{i,j=1}^N$ with $l_{ij}=-a_{ij},i\neq j$ and $l_{ii}=\sum_{j=1}^Na_{ij}, \Delta=\text{diag}\{a_{10},\cdots,a_{N0}\}$, and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{L}+\Delta$. Then, under Assumption 2, all the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{H}$ have positive real parts.
[@Tuna-arXiv-2008]\[lemma3\] Let $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $C\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ satisfy $$AP+PA^T+I_n-PC^TCP=0$$ for some symmetric positive definite $P$. Then, for all $\sigma>1$ and $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$, matrix $A^T-(\sigma+j\omega)C^TCP$ is Hurwitz.
\[lemma2\][@Hassan-NS-1996] If $ \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\int_0^tf(\tau)d\tau$ exists and is finite, and $f(t)$ is a uniformly continuous function, then $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}f(t)=0$.
**Remark 1.** The system $(\ref{systemF})$ is often called as the parametric strict feedback system in the literature. It is commonly encountered in many nonlinear control problems. Actually, under some mild conditions, a class of general nonlinear systems $\dot{\chi}=f_0(\chi)+\sum_{l=1}^p\theta_lf_l(\chi)+g(\chi)u,y=h(\chi)$ can be transformed into such form [@Kristic-NACD-1995]. Based on the adaptive backsteping approach, the adaptive output consensus problem of multi-agent systems in this form has been investigated in [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@HuangJingshuai-A-2017]. Unfortunately, some restrictive conditions were imposed, e.g., each agent needs to know the state information and nonlinear functions of its neighbors [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@Wangwei-A-2017], or the filter information of its neighbors [@HuangJingshuai-A-2017], and the system orders of all agents need to be the same. In our work, the system order needs not to be the same for all agents, and each agent only needs to know the output information of its neighbors. This considerably reduces communication burden and facilitates the implementation of the controller.
Main Results
============
A novel distributed dynamic compensator
---------------------------------------
In this section, a novel distributed dynamic compensator is developed to address the challenges caused by heterogeneous dynamics. First, we consider the following dynamic compensator: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\eta}_{i,l}&=&A\eta_{i,l}-KC(\eta_{i,l}-\eta_{i,l+1}),l=1,\cdots,r_i,\nonumber\\
\dot{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}&=&A\eta_{i,r_i+1}-KC\sum\limits_{j=0}^Na_{ij}(\eta_{i,r_i+1}-\eta_{i,1})-Ke_{vi},\nonumber\\
\hat{y}_i&=&C\eta_{i,1}, i=1,\cdots,N,\label{compensator}\end{aligned}$$ where $K\in\mathbb{R}^{v\times 1}$ is a constant matrix to be designed later. Let $\hat{e}_{i,1}=y_i-\hat{y}_i,i=1,\cdots,N$, and $\hat{e}=[\hat{e}_{1,1},\cdots,\hat{e}_{N,1}]^T$. Moreover, let $\bar{\eta}_{i,l}=\eta_{i,l}-x_0,i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1$. Then, for this dynamic compensator, we have the following results.
\[theorem1\] Consider the dynamic compensator $(\ref{compensator})$ with $K$ being designed by $(\ref{gainK})$. Under Assumption 2, there exist a $\mathcal{KL}$-function $\beta$ and a $\mathcal{K}$-function $\gamma$ such that for $i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1,$ $$\|\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(t)\|\leq \beta(\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(0),t)+\gamma(\|\hat{e}\|_{\infty}), t\geq 0.$$ In particular, if $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\hat{e}_{i,1}=0,i=1,\cdots,N$, then $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(t)=0,i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1.$
**Proof.** From $(\ref{systemL})$ and $(\ref{compensator})$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\bar{\eta}}_{i,l}&=&A\bar{\eta}_{i,l}-KC(\bar{\eta}_{i,l}-\bar{\eta}_{i,l+1}),l=1,\cdots,r_i,\nonumber\\
\dot{\bar{\eta}}_{i,r_i+1}\!&=&\!A\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}\!-\!K\sum\limits_{j=0}^Na_{ij}(C\eta_{i,r_i+1}\!-\!C\eta_{i,1}+y_i-y_j).\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$
Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum\limits_{j=0}^Na_{ij}(C\eta_{i,r_i+1}-C\eta_{i,1}+y_i-y_j)\nonumber\\
&&~=\sum\limits_{j=0}^Na_{ij}(y_i-\hat{y}_i)+a_{i0}C\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}\nonumber\\
&&~~~+\sum\limits_{j=1}^Na_{ij}(C\eta_{i,r_i+1}-C\eta_{j,1}+\hat{y}_j-y_j).\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, submitting $(\ref{eq2})$ into $(\ref{eq1})$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{\bar{\eta}}_{i,l}=A\bar{\eta}_{i,l}-KC(\bar{\eta}_{i,l}-\bar{\eta}_{i,l+1}),l=1,\cdots,r_i,\nonumber\\
&&\dot{\bar{\eta}}_{i,r_i+1}=A\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}\!-\!a_{i0}KC\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}
\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^Na_{ij}KC(\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}\!-\!\bar{\eta}_{j,1})\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~-K\sum\limits_{j=0}^Na_{ij}\hat{e}_{i,1}+K\sum\limits_{j=1}^Na_{ij}\hat{e}_{j,1}.\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ Let $\bar{\eta}_i=[\bar{\eta}_{i,1},\cdots,\bar{\eta}_{i,r_i+1}]^T$ and $\bar{\eta}=[\bar{\eta}_1^T,\cdots,\bar{\eta}_N^T]^T$. Moreover, we define the block matrix $\hat{\mathcal{L}}=[\hat{L}_{ij}]_{i,j=1}^N$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{L}_{ii}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&-1&0&\cdots&0&0\\
0&1&-1&\cdots&0&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&0&\cdots&1&-1\\
0&0&0&\cdots&0&\sum\limits_{j=1}^Na_{ij}\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{(r_i+1)\times (r_i+1)},\nonumber\\
&&\hat{L}_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
-a_{ij}&\cdots&0
\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{(r_i+1)\times(r_j+1)},i\neq j.\end{aligned}$$
Then, the system $(\ref{eq3})$ can be expressed as $$\dot{\bar{\eta}}=[I_{(r_1+1)+\cdots+(r_N+1)}\otimes A-(\hat{\mathcal{L}}+\hat{\Delta})\otimes KC]\bar{\eta}+M\hat{e},\label{systemeta}$$ where $M\in\mathbb{R}^{\nu(r_1+1+\cdots+r_N+1)\times N}$ is a constant matrix, and $\hat{\Delta}=\text{diag}\{\hat{\Delta}_1,\cdots,\hat{\Delta}_N\}$ with $\hat{\Delta}_i=\text{diag}\{0,\cdots,0,a_{i0}\}\in\mathbb{R}^{(r_i+1)\times (r_i+1)}$.
In what follows, we prove that there exists matrix $K$ such that $\hat{A}:=I_{(r_1+1)+\cdots+(r_N+1)}\otimes A-(\hat{\mathcal{L}}+\hat{\Delta})\otimes KC$ is Hurwitz. First, we define a weighted digraph $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{G}}}=(\hat{\bar{\mathcal{V}}},\hat{\bar{\mathcal{E}}},\hat{\bar{\mathcal{A}}})$ from $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ according to the following rules:\
$(1):$ The node set $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{V}}}$ is defined by replacing the vertexes $v_i,i=1,\cdots,N$ of $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ with vertices $\hat{v}_{i}^{1},\cdots,\hat{v}_{i}^{r_i},\hat{v}_{i}^{r_i+1}$, and the vertex $v_0$ with vertex $\hat{v}_0$;\
$(2):$ The edges $(\hat{v}_{i}^{r_i+1},\hat{v}_{i}^{r_i}),\cdots, (\hat{v}_{i}^{2},\hat{v}_{i}^{1}),i=1,\cdots,N$ contain in $ \hat{\bar{\mathcal{E}}}$;\
$(3):$ The edges $(\hat{v}_{i}^{1},\hat{v}_{j}^{r_j+1})\in \hat{\bar{\mathcal{E}}},i,j=1,\cdots,N$ if and only if $(v_i,v_j)\in \mathcal{E}$, and the edges $(\hat{v}_{0},\hat{v}_{i}^{r_i+1})\in\hat{\bar{\mathcal{E}}},i=1,\cdots,N$ if and only $(v_0,v_i)\in \bar{\mathcal{E}}$;\
$(4):$ The weighted adjacency matrix $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{A}}}=[\hat{\mathcal{A}}_{ij}]_{i,j=0}^N$ takes the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{\mathcal{A}}_{ii}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0& I_{r_i}\\
0&0
\end{array}\right],i\neq 0, \hat{\mathcal{A}}_{00}=0\nonumber\\
&&\hat{\mathcal{A}}_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
a_{ij}&\cdots&0
\end{array}\right],i,j\neq 0,i\neq j,\nonumber\\
&& \hat{\mathcal{A}}_{0j}=\textbf{0}_{r_j+1}^T,\hat{\mathcal{A}}_{j0}=[0,\cdots,0,a_{0j}]^T,j=1,\cdots,N.\label{blockmatrix}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the nodes $v_i,i=1,\cdots, N$ in $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ is associated to the nodes $\hat{v}_i^1,\cdots,\hat{v}_i^{r_i+1},$ and the node $v_0$ is associated to the node $\hat{v}_0$ in $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{G}}}$. Since the digraph $\bar{\mathcal{G}}$ contains a directed spanning tree with node $v_0$ as root, for each node $v_j,j=1,\cdots,N$, there exists a path from node $v_0$ to node $v_j$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $(v_0,v_{i_1}),(v_{i_1},v_{i_2}),\cdots,(v_{i_k},v_j)$ is the directed path from node $v_0$ to node $v_j$. Then, from items $(2)$ and $(3)$ above, we conclude that there exists a directed path $(\hat{v}_0,\hat{v}_{i_1}^{r_{i_1}+1})$, $(\hat{v}_{i_1}^{r_{i_1}+1},\hat{v}_{i_1}^{r_{i_1}})$, $\cdots,(\hat{v}_{i_1}^2,\hat{v}_{i_1}^1)$, $(\hat{v}_{i_1}^1,\hat{v}_{i_2}^{r_{i_2}+1})$, $\cdots,(\hat{v}_{i_k}^1,\hat{v}_{j}^{r_j+1})$, $\cdots,(\hat{v}_{j}^2,\hat{v}_{j}^1)$ from node $\hat{v}_0$ to node $\hat{v}_j^{1}$ in $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{G}}}$. As a result, the digraph $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{G}}}$ contains a directed spanning tree with node $\hat{v}_0$ as its root. Note that the matrix $\mathcal{\hat{L}}$ is the Laplacian matrix of the digraph $\hat{\mathcal{G}}=(\hat{\mathcal{V}},\hat{\mathcal{E}})$, where $\hat{\mathcal{V}}=\{\hat{v}_i^{l},i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1\}$, and $\hat{\mathcal{E}}\subseteq \hat{\mathcal{V}}\times \hat{\mathcal{V}}$ is obtained from $\hat{\bar{\mathcal{E}}}$ by removing all the edges between the node $\hat{v}_0$ and the nodes in $\hat{\mathcal{V}}$. Thus, from lemma \[lemma1\], all the eigenvalues of $\hat{\mathcal{H}}:=\hat{\mathcal{L}}+\hat{\Delta}$ have positive real parts.
Since $(A,C)$ is detectable, there exists a unique solution $P_0=P_0^T>0$ to the following Riccati equation: $$AP_0+P_0A^T+I_v-P_0C^TCP_0=0.$$ Let $$K=\mu P_0C^T,\label{gainK}$$ where $\mu\geq \frac{1}{\text{Re}\{\lambda_1(\hat{\mathcal{H}})\}}$, and $\lambda_1(\hat{\mathcal{H}})$ denotes the eigenvalue of $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ with the smallest real part. Then, by Lemma \[lemma3\], $A^T-\lambda_i(\hat{\mathcal{H}})\mu C^TCP_0,i=1,\cdots,r_1+\cdots+r_N+N$, are Hurwitz. Thus, $\hat{A}$ is Hurwitz.
Since $\hat{A}$ is Hurwitz, there exists a positive matrix $P_1=P_1^T$ such that $\hat{A}^TP_1+P_1\hat{A}=-I$. Let $V_{\bar{\eta}}=\bar{\eta}^TP_1\bar{\eta}$. Then, by Young’s inequality $2ab\leq \frac{1}{2}a^2+2b^2$, the time derivative of $V_{\bar{\eta}}$ along the $\hat{\eta}$ system $(\ref{systemeta})$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V}_{\bar{\eta}}&=&-\bar{\eta}^T{\bar{\eta}}+2{\bar{\eta}}^TP_1M\hat{e}\nonumber\\
&\leq&-\frac{1}{2}\|{\bar{\eta}}\|^2+2\|P_1\|^2\|M\|^2\|\hat{e}\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the $\bar{\eta}$ system is ISS with $\bar{\eta}$ as the state and $\hat{e}$ as input, $i.e,$ there exist a $\mathcal{KL}$-function $\beta$ and a $\mathcal{K}$-function $\gamma$ such that for $i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1,$ $$\|\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(t)\|\leq \beta(\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(0),t)+\gamma(\|\hat{e}\|_{\infty}), t\geq 0.\label{eq4}$$ In particular, if $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\hat{e}=0$, from $(\ref{eq4})$, one have $$\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}\bar{\eta}_{i,l}(t)=0,i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i+1.$$ The proof is completed. $\hfill \blacksquare$\
**Remark 2:** By means of the distributed dynamic compensator $({\ref{compensator}})$, the Problem 1 is converted into the global asymptotic tracking problem of nonlinear system $(\ref{systemF})$. Actually, we only need to design adaptive controllers $u_i,i=1,\cdots, N$ such that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-\hat{y}_i)=0,i=1,\cdots,N$. Then, from Theorem \[theorem1\], one have $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-y_0)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-\hat{y}_i)+\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}C(\eta_{i,1}-x_0)=0$.
Adaptive controller design
--------------------------
In this section, we design adaptive controllers for $(\ref{systemF})$ by means of adaptive backstepping approach. In what follows, to make the expression more concise, let the error for each design step be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{e}_{i,1}&=&y_i-\hat{y}_i,\nonumber\\
\hat{e}_{i,l}&=&x_{i,l}-\alpha_{i,l-1},l=2,\cdots,r_i,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{i,l-1}$ is the virtual control signal to be designed at the step $l-1$. Let $\hat{\theta}_i$ be the estimate of $\theta_i$, and $$\tilde{\theta}_i=\hat{\theta}_i-\theta_i.$$ Besides, we shall employ positive scalars $c_{i,l},l=1,\cdots,r_i$ as design parameters in the subsequent design steps without restating.
[ ***Step $1$.***]{} From $(\ref{systemF})$ and $(\ref{compensator})$, the derivative of $\hat{e}_{i,1}$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\hat{e}}_{i,1}=x_{i,2}+\psi_{i,1}(x_{i,1})^T\theta_i-CA\eta_{i,1}+CKC(\eta_{i,1}-\eta_{i,2}).\label{eq10}
\end{aligned}$$ Consider the Lyapunov function $$V_{i,1}=\frac{1}{2}\hat{e}_{i,1}^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\theta}_i^T\tilde{\theta}_i.$$ A direct calculation results in $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V}_{i,1}&=&\hat{e}_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,2}+\hat{e}_{i,1}[\alpha_{i,1}+\psi_{i,1}^T\theta_i-CA\eta_{i,1}\nonumber\\
&&+CKC(\eta_{i,1}-\eta_{i,2})]+\tilde{\theta}_i^T\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i.\end{aligned}$$ Choose the first tuning function $\tau_{i,1}$ and the virtual control signal $\alpha_{i,1}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\tau_{i,1}=\psi_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,1},\nonumber\\
&&\alpha_{i,1}\!=\!-\!c_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,1}\!-\!\psi_{i,1}^T\hat{\theta}_{i}\!+\!CA\eta_{i,1}
\!-\!CKC(\eta_{i,1}\!-\!\eta_{i,2}).\label{controller-step1}\end{aligned}$$
Then, it can be checked that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V}_{i,1}=-c_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,1}^2+\hat{e}_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,2}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,1}).\end{aligned}$$
[ ***Step $k(2\leq k\leq r_i-1)$.*** ]{}Similarly, the derivative of $\hat{e}_{i,k}$, by considering $(\ref{systemF})$ and $(\ref{compensator})$, can be computed as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{\hat{e}}_{i,k}=\hat{e}_{i,k+1}+\alpha_{i,k}+\psi_{i,k}^T\theta_i-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\theta_i)\nonumber\\
&&~~\!-\!\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k}\!\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \eta_{i,l}^T}[A\eta_{i,l}\!-\!KC(\eta_{i,l}\!-\!\eta_{i,l+1})]
\!-\!\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i.\end{aligned}$$
Define the quadratic function $V_{i,k}$ as $$V_{i,k}=V_{i,k-1}+\frac{1}{2}\hat{e}_{i,k}^2,$$ where the derivative of $V_{i,k-1}$, by induction, satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,k-1}= -\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}+\hat{e}_{i,k-1}\hat{e}_{i,k}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k-1})\nonumber\\
&&~~-\sum\limits_{l=2}^{k-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k-1}).\end{aligned}$$ A direct calculation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,k}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}+\hat{e}_{i,k-1}\hat{e}_{i,k}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k-1})\nonumber\\
&&~~-\sum\limits_{l=2}^{k-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k-1})+\hat{e}_{i,k}\hat{e}_{i,k+1}\nonumber\\
&&~~+\hat{e}_{i,k}\left[\alpha_{i,k}+\psi_{i,k}^T\theta_i-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\theta_i)\right.\nonumber\\
&&~~\left.\!-\!\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \eta_{i,l}^T}\![A\eta_{i,l}\!-\!KC(\eta_{i,l}\!-\!\eta_{i,l+1})]
-\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i\right].\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then, choosing the tuning function $\tau_{i,k}$ and the virtual control signal $\alpha_{i,k}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\tau_{i,k}=\tau_{i,k-1}+\left(\psi_{i,k}-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}\psi_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}\right)\hat{e}_{i,k},\nonumber\\
&&\alpha_{i,k}\!=\!-c_{i,k}\hat{e}_{i,k}\!-\!\hat{e}_{i,k-1}\!-\!\psi_{i,k}^T\hat{\theta}_i+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\hat{\theta}_i)\nonumber\\
&&~~+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \eta_{i,l}^T}[A\eta_{i,l}-KC(\eta_{i,l}-\eta_{i,l+1})]
+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\tau_{i,k}\nonumber\\
&&~~+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{k-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\left(\psi_{i,k}-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k-1}\psi_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,k-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
one can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,k}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{k}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}^2+\hat{e}_{i,k}\hat{e}_{i,k+1}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k})\nonumber\\
&&~~~-\sum\limits_{l=2}^{k}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,k}).\label{eq5}
\end{aligned}$$
[ ***Step $r_i$.***]{} The derivative of $\hat{e}_{i,r_i}$ is computed as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{\hat{e}}_{i,r_i}=u_i+\psi_{i,r_i}^T\theta_i-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\theta_i)\nonumber\\
&&~\!-\!\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i}\!\frac{\partial \!\alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \!\eta_{i,l}^T}\!(A\eta_{i,l}\!-\!KC(\eta_{i,l}\!-\!\eta_{i,l+1}))\!-\!\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i.\label{eq6}
\end{aligned}$$
The Lyapunov function is constructed as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{i,r_i}=V_{i,r_i-1}+\frac{1}{2}\hat{e}_{i,r_i}^2,\label{LyapunovF}
\end{aligned}$$ and the adaptive control law $u_i$ is chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i=\tau_{i,r_n}:=\tau_{i,r_i-1}+\left(\psi_{i,r_i}-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}\psi_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}\right)\hat{e}_{i,r_i},\nonumber\\
&&u_i=\alpha_{i,r_i}:=-c_{i,r_i}\hat{e}_{i,r_i}-\hat{e}_{i,r_i-1}-\psi_{i,r_i}^T\hat{\theta}_i\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\hat{\theta}_i)+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\tau_{i,r_i}\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \eta_{i,l}^T}[A\eta_{i,l}-KC(\eta_{i,l}-\eta_{i,l+1})]
\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\sum\limits_{l=2}^{r_i-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\left(\psi_{i,r_i}-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}\psi_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}\right).\label{controller}\end{aligned}$$ **Remark 3:** In [@Wangwei-A-2014]-[@Wangwei-A-2017], each agent required constructing additional local estimates to account for the unknown parameters of its neighbors’ dynamics. This inevitably results in a much complex controller. From $(\ref{controller})$, it is easy to know that our designed controller for each agent does not need the additional local estimates.
Stability analysis
------------------
\[theorem2\] Consider the closed-loop system consisting of the $N$ nonlinear subsystems $(\ref{systemF})$, the leader $(\ref{systemL})$, the dynamic compensator $(\ref{compensator})$ and the adaptive controllers $(\ref{controller})$. Under Assumptions 1 and 2, all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded, and asymptotic consensus tracking of all the subsystems’ output to $y_0$ is achieved, $i.e.,\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}[y_i(t)-y_0(t)]=0$ for $i=1,\cdots,N.$
**Proof.** By using $(\ref{eq5})$ with $k=r_i-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,r_i-1}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}^2+\hat{e}_{i,r_i-1}\hat{e}_{i,r_i}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,r_i-1})\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~-\sum\limits_{l=2}^{r_i-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,r_i-1}).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, from $(\ref{eq6})$, the derivative of $V_{i,r_i}$ can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,r_i}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}^2+\hat{e}_{i,r_i-1}\hat{e}_{i,r_i}+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,r_i-1})\nonumber\\
&&~~-\!\sum\limits_{l=2}^{r_i-1}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i\!-\!\tau_{i,r_i-1})\!+\!\hat{e}_{i,r_i}\bigg[u_i\!-\!\alpha_{i,r_i}\!+\!\alpha_{i,r_i}\nonumber\\
&&~~+\psi_{i,r_i}^T\theta_i-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i-1}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial x_{i,l}}(x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}^T\theta_i)\!-\!\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i\nonumber\\
&&~~-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i}\!\frac{\partial \!\alpha_{i,r_i-1}}{\partial \!\eta_{i,l}^T}\!(A\eta_{i,l}\!-\!KC(\eta_{i,l}\!-\!\eta_{i,l+1}))\bigg].\label{eq7}
\end{aligned}$$ Submitting $(\ref{controller})$ into $(\ref{eq7})$ results in $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{V}_{i,r_i}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}^2-\!\sum\limits_{l=2}^{r_i}\hat{e}_{i,l}\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,l-1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i^T}(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\!\tau_{i,r_i})\!\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\tilde{\theta}_i^T(\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i-\tau_{i,r_i})+\!\hat{e}_{i,r_i}(u_i\!-\!\alpha_{i,r_i}).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, according to the adaptive controller $(\ref{controller})$, one have $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V}_{i,r_i}=-\sum\limits_{l=1}^{r_i}c_{i,l}\hat{e}_{i,l}^2.\label{eq9}
\end{aligned}$$ Form $(\ref{LyapunovF})$, it is clear that $\hat{\theta}_i\in\mathcal{L}_{\infty}$ and $\hat{e}_{i,l}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty}\cap\mathcal{L}_{2},l=1,\cdots,r_i.$ Then, from Theorem 1 and Assumption 1, one have $\bar{\eta}_{i,l}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty}$ and $\eta_{i,l}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty}$ for $i=1,\cdots,N,l=1,\cdots,r_i$. This implies $x_{i,l}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty},i=1,\cdots,l=1,\cdots,r_i$. Therefore, all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded. Then, from $(\ref{eq10})$, we have $\dot{\hat{e}}_{i,1}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty}$. In addition, according to Lemma \[lemma2\] and the fact $\hat{e}_{i,1}\in \mathcal{L}_{\infty}\cap\mathcal{L}_{2},i=1,\cdots,N,$ one can verify that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \hat{e}_{i,1}=0,i=1,\cdots,N$. This together with Theorem 1, implies that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-y_0)=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-\hat{y}_i)+\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}C(\eta_{i,1}-x_0)=0$. The proof is completed. $\hfill \blacksquare$\
**Remark 4.** It should be noted that in [@Zhu-AC-2016], the uncertain parameters must belong to a known compact set, and the controller for each subsystem needs to satisfy a class of small gain conditions. The small gain conditions may result in sufficiently large control gains, and for some nonlinear systems with completely unknown parameters, it is unable or difficult to design controller satisfying small gain conditions. However, in our work, by means of the novel distributed dynamic compensator $(\ref{compensator})$, the controller $(\ref{controller})$ does not require the small gain conditions, and it hence can be adopted to the case that the uncertain parameters are completely unknown.\
**Remark 5.** By means of the distributed dynamic compensator $(\ref{compensator})$, we can use different control approaches to design tracking controller for each subsystem. For example, for some agents with the following dynamic: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{x}_{i,l}=x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,l}),l=1,\cdots,r_i-1,\nonumber\\
&&\dot{x}_{i,r_i}=u_i+\psi_{i,r_i}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,r_i}),\nonumber\\
&&y_i=x_{i,1},\label{eqsystem}
\end{aligned}$$ where only the output $y_i$ can be measured by agent $i$, a linear-like output feedback controller can be designed for $(\ref{eqsystem})$ via the dynamic gain scaling technique [@ZhangandLin-A-2012], which avoids the repeated derivatives of the nonlinearities depending on the observer states and the dynamic gain in backstepping approach. Thus, our proposed methodology can be applied to the leader-following output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with non-identical structure. In particular, it can be used to deal with the output consensus problem of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters and unknown non-identical control directions. Actually, by combination of adaptive backstepping technique and Nussbaum-type function, one can design an adaptive controller for each subsystem such that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-\hat{y}_i)=0$. Specifically, for the following heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown and non-identical control directions: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot{x}_{i,l}=x_{i,l+1}+\psi_{i,l}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,l})^T\theta_{i},l=1,\cdots,r_i-1,\nonumber\\
&&\dot{x}_{i,r_i}=b_iu_i+\psi_{i,r_i}(x_{i,1},\cdots,x_{i,r_i})^T\theta_{i},\nonumber\\
&&y_i=x_{i,1},i=1,\cdots,N,\end{aligned}$$ where $b_i$ is a nonzero constant with unknown sign, the adaptive controller for each subsystem is designed as $$\begin{aligned}
&&u_i=-N_i(k_i)\alpha_{i,r_i},\nonumber\\
&&\dot{k}_i=-\hat{e}_{i,r_i}\alpha_{i,r_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_i(k_i)$ is a Nussbaum function and $\alpha_{i,r_i}$ is defined in $(\ref{controller})$. Following the the similar proof in Theorem \[theorem2\] with a minor modification, one can prove that all signals in the closed-loop system are globally bounded, and $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-y_0)=0.$
An illustrative example
=======================
In this section, we consider a heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent system connected by a communication graph shown in Figure 1, where the weighted adjacency matrix $\bar{\mathcal{A}}$ satisfies $a_{ij}=1$ if and only if $(v_j,v_i)\in\bar{\mathcal{E}}$.
![The communication graph.[]{data-label="fig1"}](f.eps){width="16.00000%"}
The system is composed of agents with unknown parameters. In particular, agents $i,i=1,2,3$ are described by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{i,1}&=&x_{i,2}+x_{i,1}^2\theta_i,\nonumber\\
\dot{x}_{i,2}&=&u_i+\sin(x_{i,2})\theta_i,\nonumber\\
y_i&=&x_{i,1},\end{aligned}$$ while agents $i,i=3,5$ are described by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{i,1}&=&u_i+\cos(x_{i,1})\theta_i,\nonumber\\
y_i&=&x_{i,1}.\end{aligned}$$ The leader’s signal $y_0$ is generated by the linear system $(\ref{systemL})$ with $$\begin{aligned}
A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&1\\
-1&0\end{array}\right],C=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1&0
\end{array}\right].\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, it can be seen that $(A,C)$ is detectable, and Assumptions 1-2 are satisfied. Therefore, by Theorem \[theorem2\], we can design a distributed adaptive controller of form $(\ref{control})$ for all agents such that all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded and $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}(y_i-y_0)=0,i=1,\cdots,N$. Following the design procedure in Section III, one can design the distributed adaptive controller as follows.
- *Step 1.* The distributed dynamic compensator is given in $(\ref{compensator})$ with $N=5,r_1=r_2=r_3=2,r_4=r_5=1,$ and $$K=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
17.3081 &5.3019
\end{array}\right]^T.$$
- *Step 2.* For agents $i=1,2,3$, the first error $\hat{e}_{i,1}=x_{i,1}-\hat{y}_i$, the virtual control signal $\alpha_{i,1}$ and the first tuning function $\tau_{i,1}$ are given by $(\ref{controller-step1})$. The second error $\hat{e}_{i,2}$, the update law $\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i$ and the controller law $u_i$ are given, respectively, by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{e}_{i,2}=x_{i,2}-\alpha_{i,1},\nonumber\\
&&\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i=\tau_{i,1}+\left(\sin(x_{i,2})-x_{i,1}^2\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,1}}{\partial x_{i,1}}\right)\hat{e}_{i,2},\nonumber\\
&&u_i=-c_{i,2}\hat{e}_{i,2}-\hat{e}_{i,1}-\sin(x_{i,2})\hat{\theta}_i+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,1}}{\partial x_{i,1}}(x_{i,2}+x_{i,1}^2\hat{\theta}_i)\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,1}}{\partial \eta_{i,1}^T}[A\eta_{i,1}-KC(\eta_{i,1}-\eta_{i,2})]+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,1}}{\partial \hat{\theta}_i}\tau_{i,2}\nonumber\\
&&~~~~+\frac{\partial \alpha_{i,1}}{\partial \eta_{i,2}^T}[A\eta_{i,2}-KC(\eta_{i,2}-\eta_{i,3})].
\end{aligned}$$
- *Step 3.* For agents $i=4,5$, the error $\hat{e}_{i,1}$, the update law $\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i$, and the controller law $u_i$ are given, respectively, by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{e}_{i,1}=x_{i,1}-\hat{y}_{i},\nonumber\\
&&\dot{\hat{\theta}}_i=\cos(x_{i,1})\hat{e}_{i,1},\nonumber\\
&&u_i
\!=\!-\!c_{i,1}\hat{e}_{i,1}\!-\!\cos(x_{i,1})\hat{\theta}_i\!+\!CA\eta_{i,1}\!-\!CKC(\eta_{i,1}\!-\!\eta_{i,2}).
\end{aligned}$$
Simulation is performed with $c_{i,1}=c_{i,2}=c_{j,1}=1,i=1,2,3,j=4,5$, $\theta_1=2.5,\theta_2=1.2,\theta_3=-2,\theta_4=-1,\theta_5=0.5,$ and the following initial conditions:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&x_1(0)=[0.1,-0.2]^T,x_2(0)=[0.5,1.2]^T,x_3(0)=[-2,1]^T,\nonumber\\
&&x_4(0)=-0.5,x_5(0)=0.25,x_0(0)=[1,-1],\hat{\theta}_1(0)=1.2,\nonumber\\
&&\hat{\theta}_2(0)=-1,\hat{\theta}_3(0)=0.5,\hat{\theta}_4(0)=0.2,\hat{\theta}_5(0)=-0.75,\nonumber\\
&&\eta_{1,1}(0)\!=\![0.1,0.2]^T,\eta_{1,2}(0)\!=\![1,-1.5]^T,\eta_{1,3}(0)\!=\![-1,-0.2]^T,\nonumber\\
&&\eta_{2,1}(0)\!=\![1\!,\!-0.5]^T,\eta_{2,2}(0)\!=\![-0.25,0.3]^T,\eta_{2,3}(0)\!=\![0.5,0.2]^T,\nonumber\\
&&\eta_{3,1}(0)\!=\![0.5,-0.4]^T,\eta_{3,2}(0)\!=\![0.6,-1]^T,\eta_{3,3}(0)\!=\![3,-0.2]^T,\\
&&\eta_{4,1}(0)=[2,-1.4]^T,\eta_{4,2}(0)=[2,1]^T,\\
&&\eta_{5,1}(0)=[1,2]^T,\eta_{5,2}(0)=[0.5,-0.75]^T.\end{aligned}$$
The simulation results are shown in Figure 2, which shows the effectiveness of the design methodology.
\[fig2\] {width="42.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
The adaptive output consensus problem has been investigated in this note for a class of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters. A novel distributed dynamic compensator has been developed to address the challenges caused by heterogeneous dynamics. The distributed dynamic compensator only requires the output information to be exchanged through communication networks. In addition, it can convert the original adaptive consensus problem into the problem of global asymptotic tracking for a class of nonlinear systems with unknown parameters. By means of adaptive backstepping approach, we have developed an adaptive tracking controller for each subsystem, which does not require the small gain conditions as in [@Zhu-AC-2016]. It has been proved that all signals in the closed-loop system are globally uniformly bounded, and the proposed scheme enables the outputs of all subsystems to track the output of leader asymptotically.
[99]{} A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, A. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomouos agents using nearest neighbor rules,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 988-1001, 2003.
R. Olfati-Saber, R. Murray R, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520-1533, 2004.
A. Fax, R. Murray, “Information flow and cooperative control of vehicle formations,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1465-1476, 2004.
L. Wang, F. Xiao, “Finite-time consensus problems for networks of dynamic agents,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 850-855, 2010.
S. Tuna, “LQR-based coupling gain for synchronization of linear systems”, *arXiv preprint*, arXiv:0801.3390, 2008.
L. Wang, F. Xiao, “A new approach to consensus problems in discrete-time multiagent systems with time-delays,” *Science in China Series F: Information Sciences*, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 625-635, 2007.
W. Ren, R. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multi-agents systems under dynamically changing interaction topologies,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 655-661, 2005.
W. Ren, “On consensus algorithms for double-integrator dynamics,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1503-1509, 2008.
G. Jing, Y. Zheng, L. Wang, “Consensus of multiagent systems with distance-dependent communication networks,” *IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems*, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 2712-2726, 2017
Y. Su, J. Huang, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-agent systems,”*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1062-1066, 2012.
Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, F. Hao, L. Wang, “Leader-Following consensus for linear and Lipshitz nonlinear multiagent systems with quantized communication,” *IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics*, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1970-1982, 2017.
Y. Su, J. Huang, “Stability of a class of linear switching systems with applications to two consensus problems,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1420-1430, 2012.
G. Duan, F. Xiao, L. Wang, “Asynchronous periodic edge$-$event triggered control for double$-$integrator networks with communication time delays”, *IEEE transactions on cybernetics*, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 675-688, 2017.
G. Shi, K. Johansson, “Robust consensus for continuous-time multiagent dynamics,” *SIAM Journal on Control $\&$ Optimization*, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 3673-3691, 2013.
R. Olfati-Saber, J. Fax, R. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” *Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215-233, 2007.
Y. Cao, W. Yu, W. Ren, G. Chen, “An overview of recent progress in the study of distributed multi-agent coordination,” *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics*, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 427-438, 2013.
J. Qin, Q. Ma, Y. Shi, L. Wang, “Recent advances in consensus of multi-agent systems: A brief survey,” *IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics*, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 4972-4983, 2017.
Y. Yang, J. Tan,“Distributed adaptive output consensus control of a class of uncertain nonlinear multi-agent systems,”*International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing*, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1145-1161, 2018.
C. Hua, K. Li, X. Guang, “Leader-following output consensus for high order nonlinear multiagent systems,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1156-1161, 2019.
A. Isidori, L. Marconi, G. Casadei, “Robust output synchronization of a network of heterogeneous nonlinear agents via nonlinear regulation theory”, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2680-2691, 2014.
Z. Chen, “Pattern synchronization of nonlinear heterogeneous multi-agent networks with jointly connected topologies”, *IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems*, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 349-359.
M. Guo, D. Xu, L. Liu, “Cooperative output regulation of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown control directions”, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3039-3045, 2017.
T. Liu, J. Huang, “A distributed observer for a class of nonlinear systems and its application to a leader-following consensus problem”, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1221-1227, 2019.
L. Zhu, Z. Chen, R. Middleton, “A general framework for robust output synchronization of heterogeneous nonlinear networked systems,” *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 2092-2107, 2016.
H. Khalil, *Nonlinear systems*. New Jersey, USA: Pearson, 1996.
M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, P. Kokotovic, *Nonlinear and adaptive control design*. New York: Wiley, 1995.
W. Wang, J. Huang, C. Wen, H. Fan, “Distributed adaptive control for consensus tracking with applicationto formation control of nonholonomic mobile robots”, *Automatica*, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1254-1263, 2014.
W. Wang, C. Wen, J. Huang, “Distributed adaptive asymptotically consensus tracking control of nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown parameters and uncertain disturbances”, *Automatica*, vol. 77, pp. 133-142, 2017.
J. Huang, Y. Song, W. Wang, C. Wen, G. Li, “Smooth control design for adaptive leader-following consensus control of a class of high-order nonlinear systems with time-varying reference”, *Automatica*, vol. 83, pp. 361-367, 2017.
L. Zhang, Y. Lin, “A new approach to global asymptotic tracking for a class of low-triangular nonlinear systems via output feedback”, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 3192-3196, 2012.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61751301 and 61533001, in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province under Grant 2019JQ-190, and in part by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under grant JB180406.
[^2]: Guangqi Li is with the School of Mechano-Electronic Engineering, Xidian University, Xian, China, 710071. Long Wang is with the Center for Systems and Control, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China, 100871.
[^3]: Corresponding author: Long Wang. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |