abstract: The inference of gene-regulatory processes from gene-expression data belongs to the major challenges of computational systems biology. Here we address the problem from a statistical-physics perspective and develop a message-passing algorithm which is able to infer sparse, directed and combinatorial regulatory mechanisms. Using the replica technique, the algorithmic performance can be characterized analytically for artificially generated data. The algorithm is applied to genome-wide expression data of baker's yeast under various environmental conditions. We find clear cases of combinatorial control, and enrichment in common functional annotations of regulated genes and their regulators.
address: $^1$ Institute for Scientific Interchange, Viale S. Severo 65, I-10133 Torino, Italy; $^2$ Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, I-10129 Torino, Italy
author: A Braunstein$^{1,2}$, A Pagnani$^1$, M Weigt$^1$ and R Zecchina$^{1,2}$
title: Gene-network inference by message passing

# Introduction

Transcriptional gene regulation is at the basis of cell development and differentiation . It constitutes the important feed-back mechanism from the level of proteins to the transcription of genes to mRNA, and it allows to reach differentiated gene expression patterns starting from identical genetic information. The simplest mechanisms in this context are transcriptional repression and activation of a gene by a single transcription factor (TF) which are schematically depicted in figure :

-   In the case of a *repressor*, the RNA polymerase (i.e. the molecular machine transcribing genes to mRNA, abbreviated as POL in the figure) and a transcription factor (i.e. a regulatory protein) have overlapping binding sites on the DNA. Due to steric exclusion effects the presence of the TF hinders the polymerase to bind to DNA and thus to transcribe the gene. Elevated levels of TF concentration thus lead to a repression of the transcription rate of the considered gene.

-   In the case of an *activator*, polymerase and TF bind cooperatively to the DNA. Their binding sites are close, and both proteins show some attractive short-range interaction of a few $kT$. A high TF concentration thus increases the binding probability of polymerase, and transcription is enhanced.

Also the expression of transcription factors is regulated by other transcription factors. The set of all genetic interactions is called the *gene-regulatory network* (GRN). It is considered to be a prototypical example of a complex system. GRN are characterized in particular by the following properties:

-   They are *sparse*: Each gene is controlled only by a limited number of other genes, which is very small compared to the total number of genes present in an organism.

-   Gene networks are *directed*: Regulatory control is obviously directed from the regulators to the regulated genes.

-   Genes are regulated via *combinatorial control* mechanisms: The expression level of a gene frequently depends on the joint activity of various regulatory proteins. The best-known example is the Lac operon which is activated only if glucose is absent AND lactose is present.

Understanding GRN is a major task in modern biology, but its experimental determination is extremely complicated. Genome-scale networks are only known for *E. coli* and baker's yeast , whereas for higher organisms only few functional modules are reconstructed, see *e.g.* . It is therefore tempting to ask in how far gene-regulatory networks can be reconstructed starting from easily accessible data – in particular from genome wide expression data measuring simultaneously the expression level of order $10^4$ RNAs (micro-arrays). However, also this task is highly non-trivial and limited by the following restrictions on the quality and quantity of available data:

-   The number $M$ of available expression patterns is in general considerably smaller than the number $N$ of measured genes.

-   The available information is incomplete. The expression of some relevant genes may not be recorded, and external conditions corresponding, **e.g.**, to nutrient or mineral conditions are not given. Most importantly, micro-arrays measure the abundance of mRNA, whereas gene regulation works via the binding of the corresponding proteins (TFs) to the regulatory regions on the DNA. Active protein and RNA concentrations are, however, not in a simple one-to-one correspondence.

-   Data are noisy. This concerns biological noise due to the stochastic nature of underlying molecular processes, as well as the considerable experimental noise existing in current high-throughput techniques.

-   Micro-arrays do not measure the expression profiles of single cells, but of bunches of similar cells. This averaging procedure may hide the precise character of the regulatory processes taking place in the single cells.

-   Non-transcriptional control mechanisms (chromatin remodeling, small RNAs etc.) cannot be taken into account in expression based algorithms.

The listed points obviously lead to a limited predictability of even the most sophisticated algorithms. State-of-the-art algorithms include relevance networks measuring pairwise correlations , ARACNe which removes false positives in relevance networks, Bayesian networks , probabilistic Boolean networks , and module networks . It is therefore very important to test various algorithms on the basis of well described data sets containing some or all of the before-mentioned problems: Only a critical discussion on artificial data sets allows for a sensible interpretation of the algorithmic outcomes when run on biological data.

In the following, we first introduce a minimal functional model which shall be used to fit the data. This model is incorporated in a scoring function for networks, but the construction of high-scoring solutions is a computationally hard task. In section we propose therefore a message-passing approach to heuristically solve the problem. In section , the algorithm is analyzed on artificial data, and finally it is applied to biological data of yeast under various environmental conditions in section . Conclusions are drawn in the last section.

# The model

Before setting up a functional model we have to spend a few lines discussing how data look like. Raw micro-array data require normalization procedures, a standard way is filtering out genes having very low variability, followed by log-ratio-normalizing the remaining data. This means that data are divided by gene specific numbers defining a reference level of expression for this gene, and then the logarithm is taken. This guarantees that data of expression level lower than the reference become negative, over-expression is shown by positive values. Note also that the logarithmic transformation regularizes the data distribution: The resulting single-gene distributions look regular since the same fold-change in over- and under-expression lead to symmetric log-normalized numbers. Let us therefore assume that we have such log-ratio-values $$x_i^\mu, \ \ \ \ \ \ i=0,...,N,\ \ \mu=1,...,M\ ,$$ for $N+1$ genes measured in $M$ distinct micro-arrays.

The task is now to go from these data back to the interactions behind it. To use a statistical-physics analogy, starting from snap shots of the microscopic state of an Ising model we try to infer its Hamiltonian. Note that due to the directed structure of gene networks this task can be formally factorized over regulated genes: We can ask first, which genes have a regulatory influence on gene 0, and how they interact combinatorially. Then we ask the same question for the regulators of gene 1, gene 2 etc., until we reach gene N. In the following discussion we therefore concentrate without loss of generality on one single regulated gene ($i=0$), and $N$ potential input genes ($1\leq i \leq N$).

We further simplify the possible influence genes can have on the target gene 0, we aim at a ternary classification of the influence of a gene $i$ on 0: $$J_{i\to 0} = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
-1 & {\mbox{ if gene $i$ represses the expression of gene 0,}}\\
0 & {\mbox{ if gene $i$ does not regulate gene 0,}}\\
1 & {\mbox{ if gene $i$ activates the expression of gene 0.}}
\end{array}
\right.$$ As a minimal functional model, we assume that a gene is over-expressed if the overall influence of its neighbors is beyond some threshold $\tau$, and it is repressed if the overall influence is smaller then $\tau$. We therefore expect $$\label{eq:constraints}
x_0^\mu > 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \leftrightarrow \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\sum_{i=1}^N J_{i\to 0} x_i^\mu > \tau$$ to hold for as many expression patterns $\mu=1,...,M$ as possible. In this sense, each pattern gives a *constraint* on the coupling vector $\vec J\ =(J_{1\to 0},...,J_{N\to 0})$, and the problem of finding a good candidate vector $\vec J$ can be understood as an instance of a *constraint satisfaction problem*. Also the threshold can be inferred similarly to $\vec J$, but to avoid heavy notation we set it to zero in the following.

A cost function for this problem counts the number of errors made in (), $${\cal H}(\vec J\ ) = \sum_{\mu=1}^M \Theta\left(
-x_0^\mu\ \sum_{i=1}^N J_{i\to 0} x_i^\mu
\right) \ ,$$ with $\Theta$ being the step function. Obviously, this ternary classification is over-simplified in the sense that no weak or strong repressors and activators are considered, and more complex functions like the XOR of the inputs (or an continuously-valued generalization of it) cannot be represented in this way. However, due to the before-mentioned problems with data quality and quantity we have to restrict ourselves to a not too complex class of models in order to avoid over-fitting.

As already mentioned, GRN are sparse, i.e., only a few of the $i\in
\{1,...,N\}$ will have a non-vanishing coupling to gene 0. We therefore have to control also the effective coupling number $$N_{eff}(\vec J\ ) = \sum_{i=1}^N |J_{i\to 0}|\ ,$$ which counts only the number of non-zero entries in $\vec J$. An *a priori* bias towards diluted graphs is also reasonable from the machine-learning standpoint. The restriction of the entropy of the search space lowers the probability of over-fitting.

# Inference by belief propagation

The inference task is now to characterize the properties of vectors $\vec J$ which are both low-cost and diluted. To achieve this we introduce a weight $$\label{eq:j-distribution}
W(\vec J\ ) = \exp\left\{ - \beta {\cal H}( \vec J\ ) -h N_{eff}(\vec
J\ ) \right\}\ ,$$ which still depends on two external parameters $\beta$ and $h$ which act as a formal inverse temperature and a diluting field. The size of these parameters determines the relative importance of low-cost vectors compared to sparse ones.

In order to get information about the statistical properties of the single-gene couplings $J_{i\to 0}$ we have to calculate marginals $$\label{eq:marginal}
P_i(J_{i\to 0})
\propto \sum_{\{J_{j\to 0}\in\{0,\pm 1\};j\neq i\}} W(\vec J)\ .$$ The probability $P_i(J_{i\to 0}\neq 0) = 1-P_i(0)$ of having a non-zero coupling can be used to rank genes according to their relevance for gene 0. However, the direct calculation requires a sum over $3^{N-1}$ configurations and is therefore infeasible even for relatively small systems. The construction of high-weight vectors itself is already an NP-hard task, so we need to apply heuristic methods to approximate $P_i$.

The main idea is to use belief propagation (BP). Variables and constraints exchange messages, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bp1}
P_{i\to \mu} (J_{i\to 0}) & \propto & e^{-h |J_{i\to 0}|}\
\prod_{\nu\neq \mu} \rho_{\nu\to i} (J_{i\to 0})\ , \nonumber\\
\rho_{\mu\to i} (J_{i\to 0}) & \propto &
\sum_{\left\{ J_{j\to 0},\ j\neq i\right\} } \exp\left\{ -\beta
\Theta\left[ -x_0^\mu\cdot \sum_k J_{k\to 0} x_k^\mu \right]\right\}
\prod_{j\neq i}P_{j\to \mu}(J_{j\to 0})\ ,
\end{aligned}$$ which have to be determined self-consistently. They can be used to calculate the BP approximation for the marginal distributions, $$P_{i} (J_{i\to 0}) \propto e^{-h |J_{i\to 0}|}\
\prod_{\mu}\rho_{\mu\to i}(J_{i\to 0})\ .$$

Looking a bit closer to the second of equations , we see that it still contains the exponential summation over coupling configurations. Due to the factorization of messages used in BP it results in an average over independent random variables. The quantity to be averaged depends only on the sum over these variables, so we may use a Gaussian approximation $$\label{eq:bp_gauss}
\rho_{\mu\to i} (J_{i\to 0})  \propto \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{dh}{\sqrt{2\pi}
\Delta_{\mu\to i}} \exp\left\{ -\frac{(h-h_{\mu\to i})^2}{2\Delta_{\mu\to i}^2}
-\beta \Theta\left[ -x_0^\mu\cdot (J_{i\to 0} x_i^\mu + h )\right]\right\}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mu\to i} &=& \sum_{j\neq i} x_j^\mu\ \langle J_{j\to 0} \rangle_{j\to\mu} \ ,
\nonumber\\
\Delta_{\mu\to i}^2 &=& \sum_{j\neq i}\ \left(\ \langle J_{j\to 0}^2
\rangle_{j\to\mu} -  \langle J_{j\to 0} \rangle_{j\to\mu}^2\ \right) \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ which brings the computational cost for a single message update down to linear time in $N$. Very similar constructions were used in .

Having calculated the marginal probabilities, we can also determine the energy of the average coupling vector $$E = \sum_{\mu=1}^M \Theta \left( -x_0^\mu\cdot
\sum_{i=1}^N \langle J_{i\to 0} \rangle_i\ x_i^m \right)$$ and the Bethe entropy $$\label{eq:entropy}
S = \sum_{\mu=1}^M S_\mu - (N-1)\sum_{i=1}^N S_i$$ characterizing the number of "good" coupling vectors. In the last expression, the site entropy $S_i$ is given by $$\label{eq:S_i}
S_i = \sum_{J_i=-1,0,1} P_i(J_{i\to 0})\ \ln P_i(J_{i\to 0}) \ ,$$ and the pattern entropy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S_mu}
S_\mu &=& \sum_{\vec J} P_\mu(\vec J\; )\ \ln P_\mu(\vec J\; )\ , \\
P_\mu(\vec J\; ) &=& \exp\left\{ -\beta
\Theta\left[ -x_0^\mu\cdot \sum_k J_{k\to 0} x_k^\mu \right]\right\}
\prod_{i}P_{i\to \mu}(J_{i\to 0})\ ,
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ can be calculated in analogy to $\rho_{\mu\to i}$ via a Gaussian approximation of the sum over $\vec J$.

These quantities can be used to fix the free parameters. Imagine, *e.g.*, that we want to achieve some dilution $N_{eff}(\vec J)$. Then we can start at high temperature $\beta^{-1}$ and low diluting field $h$, and during the iterative solution of the BP equations we adopt the parameters slowly such that at the end $N_{eff}(\vec J)$ takes the desired value, and the entropy $S$ vanishes. This end point corresponds to the ground state at given dilution. In the case that the noise level in the data is known, we can also use this to fix a (possibly pattern- and gene-dependent) temperature right from the beginning.

# Artificial data

Before applying the algorithm to real biological data, it is useful to check its performance on artificial data. The basic idea is to first generate data by some known network, and then to feed it to our algorithm. The inferred couplings can be compared to the known ones of the generator.

Here we consider a very simple data generator which has the advantage of being analytically tractable with tools from the statistical physics of disordered systems, more precisely with the replica trick. To do so, we still simplify a bit the situation and look only to binary data $x_i^\mu=\pm 1$, and to $N$ inputs ($i=1,...,N$) and one output ($i=0$) which are related to each other by the relation $$\label{eq:generator}
x_0^\mu = {\rm sign} \left( \sum_{i=1}^N J^0_{i\to 0}\ x_i^\mu + \eta^\mu
\right)\ ,$$ for all $\mu=1,..,M$. The inputs are assumed to be independent and unbiased random numbers. To render the inference task non-trivial, we assume two major differences with respect to the ternary classification done by BP:

-   *Heterogeneity of couplings*: The couplings $J^0_{i\to 0}$ may take values different from $0,\pm 1$, allowing for weak and strong influences of repressor and activator genes. In this study we use $$\rho(J^0_{i\to 0}) = (1-k_1-k_2) \delta(J^0_{i\to 0}) + \frac{k_1}2
    [\delta(J^0_{i\to 0}+1)+\delta(J^0_{i\to 0}-1)] + \frac{k_2}2
    [\delta(J^0_{i\to 0}+2)+\delta(J^0_{i\to 0}-2)].$$ Generalizations are straight-forward. To meet the biological constraint of diluted interactions we assume $k_{1,2}\ll 1$.

-   *Noise*: Biological data are noisy. We therefore include white Gaussian noise with $$\begin{aligned}
    \overline {\eta^\mu} &=& 0 \ ,\nonumber\\
    \overline {\eta^\mu \eta^\nu} &=& \gamma\ N\ \delta_{\mu,\nu}\ .
    \end{aligned}$$ The scaling of the variance with $N$ ensures a finite signal-to-noise ratio. For the special case $\gamma = k_1+ 4 k_2$, the statistical properties of signal and noise are identical.

Obviously, biological data coming out of a full network are correlated even at the input level to gene 0, but we do not consider such correlations here. Since original and inferred couplings take different values, we use the following standard notation for comparing both vectors: $$\begin{array}{lll}
J_{i\to 0}^0 = 0\ \ \ \  & J_{i\to 0} = 0\ \ \ \  &
{\mbox{ true negative (TN)}}\\
J_{i\to 0}^0 \neq 0 & J_{i\to 0} = 0 & {\mbox{ false negative (FN)}}\\
J_{i\to 0}^0 = 0 & J_{i\to 0} \neq 0 & {\mbox{ false positive (FP)}}\\
J_{i\to 0}^0 \neq 0 & J_{i\to 0} \neq 0 & {\mbox{ true positive (TP)}}
\end{array}$$ A major aim in network inference is to predict a *fraction* of all couplings with high precision, i.e. to have an as high as possible number of TP with a low number of FP. The quality measure we use will be the confrontation of the *recall*, or *sensitivity*, $$RC = \frac{N_{TP}}{N_{TP}+N_{FN}}\ ,$$ and of the *precision*, or *specificity*, $$PR = \frac{N_{TP}}{N_{TP}+N_{FP}}\ .$$ The recall describes the fraction of all existing non-zero couplings which are predicted by the algorithm, whereas the precision tells us which fraction of all predicted links is actually present in the data generator. Both quantities are in competition: To have a very high precision, only the strongest signals ($P_i(J_{i\to 0}=0)\ll 1$) should be taken into account, but obviously this reduces the recall. A high recall is achieved by accepting also weaker signals, and obviously the FP rate will grow accordingly.

The nicest aspect of the simple data generator is that it can be analyzed using the replica trick, at least in the thermodynamic limit $N\to \infty$ with $\alpha=M/N = {\cal O}(1)$ and $k_{1,2}={\cal
O}(1)$. Details of this analysis are given elsewhere , here we only show some results.

Figure shows the performance of BP in the noiseless case for $k_1=k_2=0.025$, i.e., only 5% of the couplings in the generator are non-zero. A perfect algorithm would reach recall one with precision one, a completely random algorithm would have precision 5% right from the beginning. Curves in between the two extrema see some of the structure of the generator, but include also false positives. We see that obviously a higher number of patterns improves considerably the performance, but even for $\alpha=0.1$ curves start at precision one. The performance depends on the dilution $n_{eff}=N_{eff}/N$ of the inferred coupling, a dilution slightly below the one of the generator turns out to be optimal. As a comparison, we have also included the result of a simple pair-based algorithm ranking input genes according to their mutual information with the output, as done in some state-of-the-art approaches to network inference . We see that BP outperforms this approach, mainly because it is able to detect some combinatorial effects which by definition are not seen by a pair-correlation based method.

Figure evaluates the noise influence for the same dilution parameters at $\alpha=0.5$. Curves go from zero noise to $\gamma=k_1+4 k_2$ where input signal and noise have the same variance. The performance of BP obviously goes down with increasing $\gamma$, but the performance loss is continuous.

To resume this section, we see that BP is able to outperform simpler, pair-based approaches. For very low pattern number $M$, however, this performance gain is relatively small. Only for intermediate data quantity the strength of BP becomes really relevant.

# The yeast network

After having analyzed the performance of BP in the case of artificial data, now we discuss its application to real gene-expression data. More specifically we look at genome wide data for baker's yeast (*Saccharomyces cerevisae*) using publicly available data of Gasch, Spellman *et al.* . Expression levels of 6152 genes have been recorded under 172 environmental conditions (like temperature shock, osmotic pressure, starvation etc.).

First we have preprocessed data: We have eliminated genes which are known to directly respond to external stress since we are interested only in internal regulatory mechanisms. Further on we have filtered out all genes of small variance (we have used three-times the minimum variance), and genes with more than 10 missing data points in the 172 arrays. The resulting 2659 genes are used for inference, whereas the smallest found variance was used as a (slightly pessimistic) estimate of the noise level. We used it to fix the temperature, so only the diluting field remains as a free parameter.

To increase $\alpha$, we did not use all filtered genes as possible input variables, but restricted the search to 460 potential regulators (known TFs, signaling proteins, proteins structurally similar to known regulators etc.) . Further on, to estimate the quality of our prediction, for each of the 2659 output genes we divided the data set ten times randomly into a training set of 142 patterns, and a test set of 30 patterns. BP was run using only the training patterns, and the average coupling vector was used to estimate the generalization error on the test data. Doing so, we had to run BP 26590 times, which took less than two weeks on a single desktop PC.

As an output, we found on average 2.3 regulators per gene. The predictability on the test data was about 76%, which is only slightly better than the one obtained using as a predictor the three most correlated genes (74% correct predictions on average). This result has, however, to be compared to an error bound obtained on the basis of the noise estimate: In particular genes of expression close to zero have a considerable probability of being measured with opposite sign in the micro-array, leading thus to an *a priori* error in the cost function. Taking the specific values of yeast, we expect about 20% of all measured expression levels to have the wrong sign compared to the actual mRNA abundance, so the mean predictability cannot grow beyond 80%.

Is there some biological signal in the inferred couplings? To answer this question, we have looked to all those links which have gene-ontology annotations (see http://www.geneontology.org/) for both extremities of the link, and we have determined the fraction of links with at least one common annotation. In figure the results are presented, with the genes ranked according to their predictability (highest rank = smallest prediction error). As a comparison the results for a null model (randomly rewired graphs having the same in- and out-degrees as the inferred one) are depicted. Symbols and bars represent averages and variances of the null model. It is obvious that the BP results show a significant enrichment in common functional annotations, with a strong correlation to the quality of the prediction error. No such signal is detected if we use the three most correlated input genes as predictors.

Last but not least, figures and show an example of combinatorial control. The upper part of figure shows the expression of gene YGL001 together with its prediction by the BP selected input regulators, the left bars depicts the training, the right ones the test set. The lower bars are the three most important input genes according to BP. Note that some of the cases where the first input gene has an opposite sign compared to the output gene are cured by the two other genes, which gives a clear illustration of combinatorial control. Figure shows the analogous result for the three most correlated genes. The first input here is identical to the one found by BP, but its errors are not corrected by the other inputs. In fact we find the prediction on the test set to be much better for BP than for pair correlations.

# Conclusion and outlook

In this article, we have introduced, analyzed and applied a message-passing algorithm for the inference of gene interactions from genome-wide expression experiments. With the aim to infer a sparse, directed network showing combinatorial control we have set up a minimal model classifying regulators into three classes: repressors, activators or non-regulators. Even if simplified compared to biological reality, this simple model is expected to reflect part of the relevant biological processes.

In the case of artificial data we have shown that the algorithm predicts some true positive links even in the case of very few input patterns. The performance increases if more patterns are present. We have also seen that BP outperforms simpler pair-correlation based approaches. The advantage of BP was small for few data, and big for an intermediate number of data. In the limit of infinitely many data both algorithms are expected to perform well.

In the case of biological data, more precisely yeast expression profiles, a small but systematic advantage of BP compared to correlations was observed. This suggests that we are still in the low-data regime, and more data would be needed to profit from the high potential of message passing techniques. However, we have seen that genes resulting in a smaller than average prediction error show strongly enriched common functional annotations between regulators and regulated genes. We therefore expect that more and less noisy data lead to a more pronounced difference between BP and traditional pair-correlation based tools.

One of the weak points in the derivation of the algorithm is that we neglected correlations between input genes. It is known that these correlations are strong in biological data, so it appears to be important to study systematically the influence of correlations on the performance of BP. This will be done in a future work.

Further on, the fact that only few data are available requires the integration of further biological knowledge. We already used a precompiled list of potential regulators (instead of all genes), but it could be highly interesting to include also sequence information on putative binding sites.

# Acknowledgments

We acknowledge interesting discussions with Michele Leone, Francesca Tria and Yoshiyuki Kabashima.

# References


author: Borun D. Chowdhury; , Andrea Puhm
bibliography: Papers.bib
title: Is Alice burning or fuzzing?

# Introduction

Recently Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski and Sully (AMPS) have argued that if a black hole formed by collapse of a pure state is to evaporate away to a pure state, then an observer falling into the black hole at sufficiently late times will encounter high energy quanta and burn up at a *firewall* .

To many people this is a surprising result because of the lore that the state at the horizon[^1] of black holes formed by collapse of a pure state is the vacuum state for the infalling observer. However, previous papers of Mathur and Avery have shown that small corrections (those which vanish for very massive black holes) to such a state cannot ensure purity of the final state. They used these results to argue for the fuzzball proposal. While, the recent Gedankenexperiment by AMPS has incorporated this result and provided a testing ground for black hole complementarity, they conclude that these degrees of freedom at the horizon are a firewall that leads to a 'drama' for the infalling observer.

There have been several responses to AMPS' firewall result. In Mathur and Turton claim that a macroscopic detector cannot detect the difference between the thermal and a typical state before crossing the horizon. In [^2] Bousso and Harlow argue for the persistence of an information-free horizon using observer complementarity saying the various subsystems are entangled differently for different observers.[^3] Giddings had earlier argued in for non-local effects that will restore unitarity but which are "non-violent" such that all infalling observers have a free infall through the horizon.

Our purpose in this letter is to explicate AMPS' analysis in the language of decoherence and ask what the ÔfateÕ of an infalling wave packet is. While the main result of AMPS, that there must be information at the horizon in order to preserve unitarity, agrees with the essence of the fuzzball proposal, when phrasing the infall question in the language of decoherence we disagree with AMPS' interpretation of this structure as a firewall at which infalling observers *universally* burn. We first comment on the realization of the degrees of freedom as fuzzballs which are singularity-free and horizonless configurations with some very complicated structure in a region around the would-be horizon. We advocate, by the application of Occam's razor, that fuzzballs are the most conservative resolution of the information loss paradox. We then address the infall question in detail using the decoherence language. We find that depending on the width of the infalling wave packet its interaction with early and late radiation is different. While it seems unlikely that for narrow wave packets ( asymptotically) the interaction with early and late radiation is consistent with the picture AMPS advocate[^4], wide wave packets ( asymptotically) perceive a 'thermal bath' of quanta which one may call a firewall. Note, however, that the interaction of low energy quanta with this 'thermal bath' is not constrained to (a microscopic distance from) the horizon and is thus qualitatively different from AMPS firewall. In the context of fuzzballs this can be seen as a macroscopic probe being able to see only the coarse grained description while a microscopic probe can perceive the structure of the fuzzballs.

# The Gedankenexperiment of AMPS

AMPS start with three postulates as put forth in based on the assumption that black hole evolution is consistent with quantum mechanics:

-   Postulate 1 (BHC): The process of formation and evaporation of a black hole, as viewed by a distant observer, can be described entirely within the context of standard quantum theory. In particular, there exists a unitary S-matrix which describes the evolution from infalling matter to outgoing *Hawking-like* radiation.

-   Postulate 2 (BHC): Outside the stretched horizon of a massive black hole, physics can be described to a good approximation by a set of semi-classical field equations.

-   Postulate 3 (BHC): To a distant observer, a black hole appears to be a quantum system with discrete energy levels. The dimension of the subspace of states describing a black hole of mass M is the exponential of the Bekenstein entropy S(M).

and add one more Postulate to this set which states:

-   Postulate 4 (AMPS): A freely falling observer experiences nothing out of the ordinary when crossing the horizon[^5].

They go on to argue citing results of that if a body in a pure state is radiating unitarily, the entanglement entropy in the radiation initially rises but at some point has to start decreasing and eventually reaches zero when the body has radiated away completely. Moreover, there is an upper bound, known as the Page time, when the entropy has to start decreasing: namely when half the entropy has been radiated away. Imagine a pure state collapsing into a black hole and emitting half its entropy in early Hawking radiation denoted by A. Unitary black hole evaporation now requires that any further outgoing quantum of radiation B has to be maximally entangled with A so that the entropy of the combined system of early and later Hawking radiation starts decreasing. Let us introduce an infalling observer, called Alice, who encounters these outgoing Hawking quanta B close to the stretched horizon and later their partner quanta C behind the horizon. Since B is already maximally entangled with A it cannot be maximally entangled with C, the latter is however a necessary requirement for the BC system to be the vacuum state for Alice. AMPS claim that this implies Alice encounters high energy quanta and 'burns up', hence the name *firewall*.

In summary, the postulates 1), 2) and 4) - purity of the Hawking radiation, semi-classical behavior outside the horizon and absence of infalling drama, are mutually inconsistent and AMPS decide to give up the last one. That an information-free horizon cannot lead to a unitarity evolution of black hole evaporation has already been shown by Mathur . But while he proposes that the interaction of Alice with the fuzzball[^6] involves strong dynamics that may give rise to a complementarity picture that leads to free infall for high energy observers [^7], AMPS propose that every infalling observer burns up at the horizon.

# The rephrased Gedankenexperiment

We wish to rephrase the 'observer-centric' language of the previous section in favor of decoherence . Therefore, we replace the 'observers' Alice and Bob by wave packets. While we will continue to use the names Alice and Bob, they should not be understood as some sentient beings but as wave packets with the usual properties of large density of states etc. to make them classical enough[^8]. In this picture wave packets interact when they overlap via a local, unitary evolution and get entangled.

## Black hole complementarity

We want to understand the fate of a wave packet that is moving towards the black hole horizon in the black hole complementarity picture. Far from the black hole Alice is described by semi-classical evolution (figure ).

When it gets close to the horizon there are two complementary descriptions: one where it passes through and then hits the singularity (figure ) and another where it hits a 'membrane', scrambles, and with its information being finally re-emitted unitarily, escapes to infinity (figure ).

While discussing in a non-observer centric language we realize that the crucial feature in black hole complementarity is that when the wave packet reaches the stretched horizon it evolves in two distinct ways. In *some sense*, its state gets mapped onto *two copies* in separate Hilbert spaces which then evolve with different Hamiltonians[^9].

This remarkable proposal was forwarded in to reconcile a pair of otherwise incompatible statements, that there is nothing from which a wave packet can *bounce off* at the horizon and yet *somehow* information must be recovered.

In normal situations such an ad hoc prescription is not allowed as it leads to many inconsistencies and - in trying to fix them - unnecessary postulates. Copying of quantum states e.g. leads to *cloning*. While this does not evoke problems if the copies cannot interact as is in the case of black hole complementarity, one might still ask what it means to have two copies of a state?

This prescription is consistent if the complementary pictures are *dual* descriptions. For example, the state of a closed string heading towards a stack of D-branes gets mapped onto them as open string states in one picture, while in the dual description the close string continues to move on into an AdS space[^10]. For such dual descriptions there is no issue with cloning. However, the Hamiltonian evolutions of the states need to be consistent since, at the end of the day, in one description, the closed string emerges out of the AdS as a closed string in flat space and in the other description the open strings leave the D-brane as a closed string. They must be in the *same state*.

However, black hole complementarity is not a duality. This conclusion can be drawn from the completely different outcomes in the two complementary pictures.[^11] If it is not a duality then one can ask *what* it is and what is this operation that makes two copies of the states[^12]? We will comment on a recent proposal of Mathur where an *energy scale dependent* complementarity can arise in the context of fuzzballs in Section . For now we continue with our non observer-centric description.

## The firewall argument

Now let us look at the AMPS Gedankenexperiment in terms of these wave packets. We begin with the unitary evolution process of Alice away from the black hole in the causal future of early radiation A. While for clarity we have drawn only one wave packet A in figures , it should be thought of as many wave packets: when Alice interacts with A, it interacts in fact with many such wave packets successively. How strong the interaction is and how much entanglement will be generated between Alice and A in the process is governed by local unitary dynamics and the properties of the wave packet Alice, e.g. what frequencies is the wave packet supported on. This will cause the crucial difference in Alice's 'experience' which we alluded to in Section . We will come back to this issue in Section . Regardless of this, in each encounter there is some mixing between Alice and wave packets in A.

When Alice gets closer to the horizon it interacts with wave packet B. Since B is just a blue shifted version of A and Alice is also blue shifted, this interaction is stronger than any of the Alice-A interactions.

After these interactions Alice heads towards the stretched horizon. At this point, it is worth observing that Alice's interactions with A and B are encoded in Alice and in the AB system. We have not talked about any measurements or observations. We will have something to say about this in Section .

When Alice reaches the (stretched) horizon we make use of black hole complementarity: According to one picture Alice (entangled with AB) goes through the horizon and encounters wave packet C, the infalling Hawking pair of B, with which it interacts and mixes and eventually hits the singularity (figure ).[^13] In the complementary picture Alice's (entangled with AB) state gets mapped onto the thermal membrane at the stretched horizon where it gets scrambled and eventually re-emitted unitarily as radiation to infinity (figure ).

Unitarity of black hole evaporation requires B to be maximally entangled with A while free infall requires B to be maximally entangled with C. A system cannot be maximally entangled with two distinct systems. Alice interacting with system AB will have different evolutions depending on whether B was maximally entangled with A or C to begin with.  The state of this wave packet will then be recorded on the stretched horizon in one of the black hole complementarity pictures. In the other complementary picture it falls through the horizon, and interacts with C. The interaction of Alice with C will have a different evolution depending on whether B was maximally entangled with A or C to begin with. Eventually in this complementary picture Alice hits the singularity.

AMPS argue that since B is maximally entangled with A, Alice's encounter with B is fatal for it (which in our language should be read as its wave packet changing so much that it does not resemble its former self). Thus they advocate that black hole complementarity has to be given up. However, while it is clear that Alice's state will be different from what one would have thought without the benefit of AMPS Gedankenexperiment, it is not immediately clear by how much. The answer to this will depend on the properties of the wave packet Alice and the Hamiltonian. We thus see the possibility of a *scale dependent* complementarity that depends on the properties of the infalling wave-packet. Such an idea was recently proposed by Mathur and we will talk about this more in Section  and Section .

## Observer complementarity: Alice in Wonderland

In follow-up papers to the AMPS argument Bousso and Harlow have argued, using *observer complementarity*, that the interpretation of strong sub-additivity by AMPS is incorrect. They claim that different observers can find different answers to the question of whether B is maximally entangled with A or C without leading to contradictions.

We list the postulates stated explicitly in :

-   Postulate 1 (H): From the point of view of observers asymptotically far away from the black hole, its formation and evaporation may be described by a unitary S-matrix. In the intermediate state where the black hole exists, its microscopic entropy is given by the Bekenstein-Hawking formula $S = \frac{A}{4G}$.

-   Postulate 2 (H): No observer sees violations of low energy effective field theory away from a stretched horizon.

-   Postulate 3 (H): If two observers can causally communicate the results of their experiments, they must agree on the results of those experiments.

-   Postulate 4 (H): An observer freely falling through a sufficiently large black hole horizon from some finite distance away in Schwarzschild units will experience no ill effects in doing so.

Furthermore Postulate 3 of section is implicitly assumed[^14].

In it is argued that since different observers have different causal diamonds they have their 'own theory'. Although an outside and an infalling observer, both, need to find the early Hawking radiation A to be consistent with unitary evolution, the infalling observer 'relinquishes' the possibility of measuring the full S-matrix and is therefore 'free to claim' that A is not entangled with B. After crossing the horizon the infalling observer then concludes that B and C are entangled and is safe.

While points out that the possibility of communication between the two observers could lead to a contradiction in the outside diamond, it is argued that it should not be possible for an infalling observer to send a message and report the absence of a drama at the horizon to the outside observer. Ref.  follows through with a calculation arguing that the possibility of a communication between the infalling and the outside observer is not realized. An infalling observer who has an upper bound on what temperatures are 'unhealthy' i.e. will burn him/her, cannot process the information of the encounter with such an unhealthy quantum B and send it to an asymptotic observer before getting to the stretched horizon.

There is a potential problem with the above argument. If infalling Alice is to semi-classically communicate her experiences to Bob then they have to have a predetermined algorithm. For example they may decide that Alice in her frame sends a red signal if she encounters B entangled with A and a yellow signal if she encounters B entangled with C. When Bob receives her signal he will use his effective field theory transformation rules to reverse the distortion that Alice's signal experienced while traveling to him. If this transformation yields a red signal Bob may conclude that Alice encountered B entangled with A. However, if the physics close to the horizon is so different that Alice may encounter B entangled with C the yellow signal she sends may, while traveling to Bob, become distorted differently such that Bob's transformation rules may tell him that the signal Alice send was red. Thus, allowing physics close to the horizon to be so different for different observers would lead to a communication breakdown anyways and thus also to information loss even before the horizon is reached.

There are some other problems with using observer complementarity to argue for an information-free horizon also because of which, by the time of updating to the current version of this article, has been withdrawn and has been modified substantially.

# Fuzzballs

Black hole complementarity tried to reconcile the two opposing ideas of unitarity and free infall at the horizon. History has shown us that attempts to reconcile contradicting fundamental notions on the black hole solution cannot be forced upon without leading ad absurdum. Mathur has recently shown that to be able to describe black hole evaporation by a unitary S-matrix for an asymptotic observer the traditional picture has to give way to one where the state at the horizon is not the vacuum state for an infalling observer. AMPS have also agreed with this result.

This picture was long ago proposed by Mathur and incorporated in the fuzzball community. According to the fuzzball conjecture the true microstates of quantum gravity are singularity-free and horizonless solutions. While one would expect that most of the typical fuzzballs require a fully stringy description in the core region and are therefore not describable in terms of supergravity, some of them may actually admit a supergravity description in terms of smooth geometries[^15]. In either case, since there is no horizon and no singularity there is no information loss. The radiation is emitted from the surface of the fuzzball which need not be, and most likely is not, constrained to within a Planck length from the horizon. Indeed, a family of non-typical near-extremal black hole microstates  , recently constructed within supergravity, indicates that the surface of the fuzzball fluctuates from one solution to the other. For reviews on fuzzballs we refer the reader to and to see how radiation from fuzzballs carries information see .

It is then interesting to ask what happens to an observer falling into a fuzzball. Mathur has recently addressed this question proposing *fuzzball complementary* based on which can be viewed as an approximate form of complementarity distinguishing between different energy scales of infalling observers. According to this proposal when a high energy wave packet ($E \gg T_H$) hits a typical fuzzball, it excites the collective modes of the latter. While the details of this process are not describable with the current technology, it is possible to make a coarse-grained approximation where infall into a typical fuzzball can be replaced by infall into a black hole. The wave packet hitting the singularity should be interpreted as thermalization of the collective modes. Mathur refers to this complementary picture for fuzzballs as *approximate* because unlike black hole complementarity the picture of free infall only works for $E \gg T_H$.

A realization of fuzzballs, inherently stringy objects, giving a complimentary description of black holes would be a fulfillment of the prediction made in : *It is our view that black hole complementarity is not derivable from a conventional local quantum field theory. It seems more likely that it requires a radically different kinematical description of physics at very high energy, such as string theory.*

# Is Alice burning or fuzzing?

The results of support the basic idea of the fuzzball proposal that there has to be an order one correction (i.e. not suppressed in $M^{-1}$) to the black hole horizon to preserve unitarity. However, they claim that infalling observers of all energy scales burn up at the horizon as opposed to the idea of fuzzball complementarity mentioned in Section . In this Section we will give some evidence in support of the fuzzball complementarity picture.

Nomura et al claim in that AMPS' conclusion that an infalling observer sees a firewall is incorrect based on the following very interesting reasoning. AMPS' claim that since the state of the final Hawking radiation is pure it can be written as an early and late part $$|\Psi \rangle = \sum_i |\psi_i \rangle_E \otimes |i \rangle_L\,,$$ where $|i \rangle_L$ is an arbitrary complete basis for late radiation and $|\psi_i \rangle_E$ is a state in the early Hawking radiation. After Page time the Hilbert space of the early radiation will be much larger than that of the late radiation and so, for typical states $|\Psi \rangle$, the reduced density matrix describing the late-time radiation is close to the identity. Thus one can construct operators acting on early radiation whose action on $|\Psi \rangle$ is $$P_i |\Psi \rangle \propto |\psi_i \rangle_E \otimes |i \rangle_L\,.$$ While this is true, AMPS claim that Alice can make measurements on early radiation tantamount to projection into the eigenvector of the number operator. In an objection is raised to this stating that 'the existence of the projection operator for an arbitrary $i$ does not imply that a measurement in a sense that it leads to a classical world can occur to pick up the corresponding state'. In other words measurement is a dynamical process dictated by unitary evolution of the state.

Translated in our wave packet language this means that when Alice passes through early radiation A it cannot *choose* which basis it projects onto. This is because the interaction of Alice and A is governed by a local Hamiltonian. Let the typical energy of quanta in A be $T_H$ which is of the order of the Hawking temperature. Then we have two different kind of scenarios:

-   Alice is a wave packet with support on energies $E \gg T_H$ and is thus smaller than typical wave packets in A. In this case Alice interaction with A does not project onto the number operator basis in any typical interaction and it cannot 'predict' the number of quanta in a mode of B.

-   Alice is a wave packet with support on energies $E \sim T_H$ and thus is of the same size as wave packets in A. In this case a typical interaction of them will project A onto the number operator basis. When Alice falls in, it will encounter B and will be able to 'predict' the number of quanta in a mode of B.

The remaining case of $E \ll T_H$ is not so interesting as for such wave packets the wavelength is bigger than the black hole. Such wave packets are reflected off the potential barrier surrounding the black hole.

We see that we clearly have two different scenarios but what is also very interesting is that we also have two different expectations on what happens to infalling wave packets.

-   Mathur claims that for quanta of energy $E \gg T_H$ there is approximate complementarity (approximate in that it does not apply to wave packets of energy $E \sim T_H$) as explained in the previous section. Such wave packets can have free infall.

-   AMPS claim that an infalling observer encounters high energy quanta in the number basis near the horizon. While this seems not to be true for $E \gg T_H$[^16] it is true for $E \sim T_H$. Thus, such a wavepacket will not have free infall.

Based on these observations we have the following interesting picture of fuzzballs. High energy wave packets pass through the Hawking-like quanta without being affected much and hit the bottom of the fuzzball. Based on , these wave packets will excite the collective modes of fuzzballs. For typical fuzzballs an infalling wave packet with asymptotic energy $E \gg T_{H}$ experiences an effective geometry until it gets closer to the would-be singularity, whereas for an infalling wave packet with asymptotic energy $E \sim T_{H}$ spacetime ends before the horizon where it bounces off the Hawking quanta and the 'fuzz' (microstate structure at the scale of the horizon).[^17]. While we focused on the extreme limit of $E\sim T_H$ and $E\gg T_H$ which yield dramatic to free infall, respectively, we expect intermediate wave packets to have an experience ranging between these two extremes.

So finally, in response to the question 'Is Alice burning or fuzzing?' one should ask back what Alice is made of or sing the song 'Alice, Alice, Who the \*\*\*\* is Alice?' .

# Acknowledgments

This paper is based on many discussions we had with many people. We express our gratitude especially to Marco Baggio, Iosif Bena, Jan de Boer, Sheer El-Showk, Samir Mathur, Masaki Shigemori, David Turton, Dieter van den Bleeken and Bram Wouters. We would like to thank Daniel Harlow for helpful discussion and Finn Larsen for comments on an earlier version of the paper. The work of BDC is supported by the ERC Advanced Grant 268088-EMERGRAV. AP is supported by DSM CEA-Saclay. BDC would like to thank the CEA Saclay for hospitality where most of this work was carried out.

[^1]: We do not attempt go give a precise definition here; we think the concept of a 'state at the horizon' is an ill-defined concept in a full theory of quantum gravity where the horizon cannot exist according to the fuzzball proposal as it leads to information loss.

[^2]: While at the time of updating this paper to the current version the cited references have been withdrawn or completely rewritten , we retain this discussion to highlight some crucial issues regarding communication and observer complementarity.

[^3]: We would like to point out a confusing use of the term equivalence principle in where the notion of observer complementarity is introduced as a response to AMPS' result in order to 'save' the equivalence principle. AMPS found that there is a stress tensor at the horizon and therefore concluded that an infalling person does not fall freely. This is no more a violation of the equivalence principle than an astronaut not feeling weightless upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere is. We thank David Turton for this analogy.

[^4]: AMPS' argument of burning is based on an infalling observer's measurement of early radiation projecting the entangled late radiation in the number operator basis as pointed out by Nomura et al. . For narrow wave packets such a 'measurement', which is governed by local, unitary evolution, will, if it can be performed, be very fine tuned.

[^5]: It is worth noting that the word "experiences" might leave room for different interpretations. In addition the observer-centric language can cause confusion, like the Schrodinger cat paradox has already taught us. Below we review the main points of AMPS' argument and in Section we reformulate their argument in terms of local interactions of wave packets.

[^6]: In the fuzzball proposal the horizon disappears and, instead of the 'state at the horizon', an infalling observer interacts with the fuzzball.

[^7]: We will have more to comment on Mathur's *fuzzball complementarity* proposal in section .

[^8]: Since we view Alice and Bob as wave packets we will use the word *it* to refer to them. We apologize to them for this rudeness.

[^9]: For discussion why this is consistent with no quantum cloning see and our comments below.

[^10]: We thank Samir Mathur for pointing this out to us.

[^11]: We note in passing that AdS/CFT does not provide a solution to the information paradox: this duality requires the same evolution of two copies of information but in the presence of a black hole in the infra-red the evolution of these two copies is different and there is no duality.

[^12]: If one is uncomfortable with the language of making two copies of the states one can say it is two descriptions of the same state which evolve differently.

[^13]: While one may argue that the singularity will get resolved at Planck scale it is not clear how this picture can be modified to make black hole complementarity an actual duality.

[^14]: We thank Daniel Harlow for an explanation of observer complementarity.

[^15]: Even if this is not the case for all fuzzballs, those are the ones that are possible to construct with current technology and they are very useful to probe the properties of black holes.

[^16]: It is not immediately clear that a local wave packet Alice cannot sample all of A on the sphere in some coherent way and then fall in and encounter B projected on a number basis. However typical interactions will not have this effect.

[^17]: This picture is not very different from a wave packet heading towards a burning piece of coal. A wave packet of thermal energy undergoes Brownian motion by being scattered off the outgoing radiation, while a wave packet of energy much greater than the thermal energy manages to travel on a 'classical trajectory' and hit the piece of coal. However, the analogy stops here because there is no nice approximate complementarity picture for a hot piece of coal.


address:  Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham, UK
author: **Ben Moore**
title: Simulating clusters of galaxies: a brief history of "N" and overmerging

# Introduction

The notion that a galaxy cluster forms via gravitational instability within an expanding universe was first discussed by van Albada (1961). The first numerical studies of cluster stability with 10-100 particles were carried out by von Hoerner (1960) and Aarseth (1963). An investigation of the virialisation process using several hundred particles was carried out by Henon (1964) and Peebles (1970). The assumption being that the "galaxies" had already collapsed prior to the turn around of the cluster. From these first simulations it was clear that one could form an equilibrium cluster of particles with global properties not too unlike the theorists "ideal" Coma cluster.

White (1976) followed the evolution of 700 unequal mass particles expanding with the Hubble flow. In this case it was possible to follow the collapse of groups of particles prior to the formation of the cluster. However, these clumps of bound particles were erased during the collapse and virialisation of the final system. This work may have been the key motivation behind the seminal paper "Core condensation within heavy halos..." (White & Rees 1978). This paper argued that cooling and settling of baryons at the centres of dark matter halos was essential to the formation and survival of galaxies in dense environments. Although a valid description of galaxy formation, it is now apparent that this process is not necessary in order to resolve substructure within hierarchical models.

In the 1980's more detailed cosmological models were developed in which the mass of the universe was dominated by collisionless particles. The linear power spectrum of density fluctuations was determined by the growth of fluctuations in the expanding universe and the temperature of the dark matter particle. The cold dark matter (CDM) model was born (Peebles 1983).

N-body simulations of cluster formation were used to constrain the hot dark matter model (White etal 1984) and most subsequent work has focussed on the cold dark matter model (CDM), the currently favoured scenario for structure formation in the universe. Warm dark matter has not received a great deal of attention in the literature - primarily because this model could not naturally produce a closure density of dark matter. Attention has now shifted from standard CDM models, which fail for a variety of reasons, to a Lambda dominated CDM universe. Since the universe is clearly not as simple as one might wish, alternative models such as warm or self interacting dark matter may become more popular. Perhaps the widespread acceptance of a positive Lambda term stems mainly from the fact that the most hierarchical model fails without its inclusion. Although a hierarchical universe can explain many fundamental observations, from the microwave background to clustering at high redshifts, we still know next to nothing about the physical nature of the dark matter.

Many of the numerical simulations during the 1980's focussed on a comparison between models and observations of large scale structure. Studies of individual halo properties were taken from large cosmological volume simulations. For example, Frenk etal (1985) and Quinn etal (1986) analysed the structure of dark matter halos that contained just a few thousand particles per object. Code development, "volume renormalisation" and faster computers lead to the ability to simulate individual clusters with more than $10^5$ particles and with a force resolution of approximately 1–2% of the virial radius (Dubinski & Carlberg 1991, Warren etal 1992, Summers etal 1996, Tormen etal 1996, 1997, 1998). These simulations still produced smooth dark matter halos with very little surviving dark matter subhalos – although interesting results were found concerning the inner structure of halos and the formation and accretion history of halos.

Warren etal and Carlberg were the first to resolve the inner 10% of a halos virial radius and claimed a power law slope $\rho(r) \propto r^{-1}$. Later simulations by Navarro etal (1997) revealed the remarkable scaling properties of CDM halos across a wide range of mass scales, from dwarf galaxies to galaxy clusters. Determining the central cuspy profile of dark matter halos is an important but difficult computational problem and we have seen recent progress in this area from many groups.

Analytic work concerning the overmerging problem began with White & Rees (1978) who discussed the various numerical and physical processes that could lead to the loss of substructure. Carlberg (1994) argued that particle-halo heating was the cause of overmerging, a result also claimed by van Kampen (1995). However the timescale for this process was at least a Hubble time whereas overmerging appeared on an orbital timescale. Moore etal (1996) argued that the resolution at that time was sufficient to overcome relaxation and tidally accelerated disruption by the finite mass background particles.

The physical processes of tidal disruption via halo-halo collisions and by the global cluster potential take place on a more rapid timescale and could explain the loss of substructure in the simulations prior to 1998 (Moore etal 1996 – the investigation of the importance of this process lead to the notion of galaxy transformation in clusters by tidal heating – galaxy harassment.) Tidal disruption is rapidly enhanced if halos are poorly resolved in their central regions ($\it cf$ Figure 2). The survival of dark matter substructure depends critically on the central density structure which in turn depends on the force and mass resolution in a simulation. For example, if halos have resolved singular density profiles $\rho(r)\propto r^{-2}$, then it is physically impossible to entirely disrupt a satellite halo. Only through physical merging can such halos be lost.

The key motivation behind the Seattle HPCC group (http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/) was to construct a high performance parallel treecode (PKDGRAV) that could simulate the formation of cosmic structures with high resolution. The aim was to resolve $\it sub-galactic$ halos with thousands of particles and $\it \sim kpc$ force resolution. After a long testing program a set of accuracy parameters were chosen that allowed the correct growth of fluctuations to be followed on large scales, as well as accurately following the orbits of particles in the most dense regions.

The first simulation to finish was the 1.3 million particle "Virgo" cluster simulation presented in Moore etal (1998) and analysed by Ghigna etal (1998). This was a simulation of the formation of a single galaxy cluster within a standard CDM universe (Figure 1). The box size was 100 Mpc but a series of nested shells of different mass particles allowed the cluster to be resolved at high resolution. Many hundreds of dark matter subhalos could be found orbiting within the cluster - the overmerging problem was resolved. A higher resolution study of the same cluster demonstrates that the central density profile appears to have converged as have the global properties of the subhalos within the cluster (Ghigna etal 2000). (Similar high resolution studies were being carried out at the same time by several other groups (c.f. Klypin etal 1999, Colin 1999, Okamoto & Habe 1999, Jing 2000, Fukushige & Makino 2000).

It is interesting to see how numerical calculations are scaling with respect to algorithmic and computational developments. The cluster simulation by Peebles (1970) contained 300 particles and had a force resolution of order 100 kpc. The highest resolution simulation published to date is by Ghigna etal (2000) in which a cluster halo was simulated with 10 million dark matter particles and force softening of 1 kpc. Roughly a factor of $10^7$ times the computational cost in a timescale of 30 years – an increase in speed that arises from both algorithmic and hardware developments. Four major development have lead to this performance increase: grid based codes or treecodes reduce the work of long range force calculations, multistepping saves moving all the particles on the same short timestep as the handful of particles in dense regions, faster cpu's, parallel codes can scale up to 90% efficiency on large numbers of nodes. Figure 3 shows the "N" versus year plot for several cluster simulations over the last 38 years.

We now have a host of new observational tests of the hierarchical structure formation paradigm that include: the extent of galactic halos in clusters or satellites in galactic halos, the orbital distribution of cluster/satellite galaxies, the number of satellites as a function of their circular velocity or mass, the spatial and velocity distribution of satellites, the central density profiles of clusters and galaxies are close to $r^{-1.5}$. Unfortunately, observational tests of these model predictions on cluster scales are non trivial and just a few exist in the literature (Tyson etal 1998, Natarajan etal 1999, Smith etal 2000).

# References