abstract: We present the techniques and early results of our program to measure the luminosity function for White Dwarfs in the SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey. Our survey covers over three quarters of the sky to a mean depth of $I\sim19.2$, and finds $\sim9,500$ Galactic disk WD candidates on applying a conservative lower tangential velocity cut of $30$kms$^{-1}$. Novel techniques introduced in this survey include allowing the lower proper motion limit to vary according to apparent magnitude, fully exploiting the accuracy of proper motion measurements to increase the sample size. Our luminosity function shows good agreement with that measured in similar works. We find a pronounced drop in the local number density of WDs at a $M_{bol}\sim15.75$, and an inflexion in the luminosity function at $M_{bol}\sim12$.
address: $^1$ Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ
  $^2$ Département de Physique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada
author: N. R. Rowell$^{1\bigstar}$, N. C. Hambly$^1$, P. Bergeron$^2$
title: The Luminosity Function for White Dwarfs in the SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey.

# Introduction

The potential use of White Dwarfs (WDs) as chronometers has long been recognised. The relative accuracy of stellar age estimates based on up-to-date models, combined with the long evolutionary timescales of WDs and their abundance in most Galactic systems, means this approach has been used to age a wide variety of stellar configurations. These include WD - subdwarf binaries (Monteiro et al. 2006), single burst populations such as globular and open clusters (Hansen et al. 2007; von Hippel & Gilmore 2000, Jeffery et al. 2007), and continuous populations such as the Galactic disk (Winget et al. 1987, Oswalt et al. 1995, Leggett et al. 1998). The standard tool used for this technique is the luminosity function (LF) for WDs, which contains information on both the absolute age and the star formation history of a stellar system. The star formation history is essentially imprinted on the entire LF, and authors working on parametric forms for the LF (eg. Noh & Scalo 1990) predict bumps and inflexions corresponding to changes in the rate of star production in the past. The absolute age is constrained by the marked downturn in the LF at faint magnitudes, where the cooling ages of WDs converge on that of the population as a whole.

Modern surveys that apply this to the Galactic disk have suffered from small observational samples of faint WDs at the LF turning point. This is confounded by the fact that the atmospheric physics of such 'ultracool' WDs is currently poorly understood, with only a handful of stars extensively studied (eg Bergeron & Leggett 2002). The largest LF measurement currently published is that of Harris et al. (2006), using a sample of 6000 WDs selected from a combination of the SDSS and USNO-B. The presence of only 4 stars beyond the turning point precludes any accurate constraint on the LF at these magnitudes.

We are working on a program to measure the WDLF by exploiting data from the all-sky SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey (SSS). Sensitive proper motion detection combined with accurate photometry over wide angles enables large samples of WDs to be catalogued using reduced proper motion methods. In section 2 we outline the SSS, and go on to descibe our survey procedures in sections 3, 4 and 5. We present our LF in section 6, and discuss the limitations and possible future refinements in section 7.

# The Data

The SuperCOSMOS Sky Survey was compiled by digitizing several generations of photographic Schmidt plate surveys. The photographic source material includes the POSS-I and POSS-II surveys in the northern hemisphere, and a combination of ESO and SERC surveys in the south. Over 1700 fields are required to cover the entire sky, with each field being observed in four photographic bands $B_J$$R_{59F}$$I_N$ and $R_{103aE/63F}$ in the north/south respectively. Only $B_J$$R_{59F}$ and $I_N$ are normally used for photometry, $R_{103aE/63F}$ being generally of poorer quality and very similar in response to $R_{59F}$. $R_{103aE/63F}$ is used to provide an early epoch for improved astrometric solutions in each field. The subscripts refer to particular filter/emulsion combinations, and will be dropped throughout the rest of this paper. We will sometimes refer to $R_{103aE/63F}$ and $R_{59F}$ as first- and second-epoch $R$ respectively. Due to reasons outlined in section , we restrict our analysis to objects detected at all four epochs. The survey data is housed in relational databases available online at `http://surveys.roe.ac.uk/ssa/`. An introduction to the SSS and further technical details can be found in Hambly et al. 2001a. We avoid the Galactic plane by $10^\circ$ and the centre by $20^\circ$. These regions are heavily affected by blending and poor photometric calibration due to differential extinction within the field. We also reject six fields centred on the Magellanic clouds for the same reasons. This gives a total sky coverage of 10.2 sr, or about 80% of the sky. Taking into account the regions lost around bright stars due to diffraction spikes and scattered light haloes, the total survey area is 9.4 sr, or just over 75% of the sky.

# Sample Selection

## Image morphology criteria

The SuperCOSMOS Image Analysis Mode software measures 32 parameters for each object detection, some of which we restrict in order to ensure our final WD catalogue only contains objects with reliable, high quality images. We only accept objects with the *deblending flag* set to zero, meaning no image fragmentation has been detected. The *quality number* is an integer indicating situations encountered during image analysis, such as proximity to a bright star or plate boundary, and is set such that increasingly severe circumstances are assigned higher values. We restrict this parameter to values less than 128. The *profile classification statistic* $\eta$ gives a magnitude-independent measure of the 'stellarity' of an image, by quantifying the deviation of the radial profile slope from that of the mean stellar template. It is scaled to a zero mean, unit variance Gaussian distribution. Objects with $|\eta| > 4\sigma$ are rejected.

Previous studies utilising digitized Schmidt plate data have placed cuts on the ellipticities of images, in order to limit contamination by faint galaxies and noise. However, we have found that the ellipticities measured by SuperCOSMOS are extremely noisy at intermediate to faint magnitudes, and that any intuitively sensible cut will result in a seriously incomplete sample of stars. This may be due in part to the eight-fold nearest neighbour pixel connectivity employed by the SuperCOSMOS image analysis software. We have decided to ignore this parameter.

## Contamination in north due to repeated photographic copying

The northern half of the SSS data was digitized from photographic copies of POSS-I and POSS-II survey originals. Unfortunately, this seems to have degraded the quality of the data, resulting in erroneous astrometric fits for a fraction of objects. This may be due to the photographic copying process rendering blended objects harder to detect. Certainly, the distribution of the astrometric residuals for affected objects deviates significantly from the expected $\chi^2$ form, indicating that something is going wrong with the centroiding. This problem first became obvious when we started to analyse the reduced proper motion (RPM) diagram for the northern hemisphere (see section ), and noticed an extended population of objects at high values of RPM, in approximately the same region as cool WDs. This is what is expected if the proper motions of objects no longer correlate with distance - essentially, stars with bad proper motions are scattered from their usual locii and any discrimination between distinct Galactic and stellar components is lost. The main consequence for this work is that the highly numerous disk main sequence stars tend to scatter into the WD region, completely swamping the cool WD locus. Unfortunately, this contamination cannot adequately be removed by simply applying judicious selection cuts on the image parameters, and we have been forced to devise a new statistic to identify these objects. This statistic is calculated using the known distributions of $\chi^2$ (astrometric fit residuals) and $\eta$ for both reliable and unreliable objects. The main result is that bad objects are successfully removed by placing a selection cut on this new statistic, and that a certain fraction of good objects are also removed. This fraction can be precisely measured and corrected for in later analysis, given that this statistic is independent of magnitude, colour and proper motion.

# Survey Limits

## Proper Motion

The upper limit on proper motions is set to $0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}18$ yr$^{-1}$ for the entire survey. This arises from the mean epoch spread and reliable pairing radius between consecutive observations in each field. This limit is not so important for producing large stellar catalogues, due to the lower probability of stars having such motions. Note, however, that nearby ultracool WDs and halo stars are expected to show larger motions. To produce a large sample of stars, we reduce the lower proper motion limit as far as possible while maintaining a 5$\sigma$ proper motion detection threshold on all objects. This level has been chosen to limit observational scatter in the RPM diagram. Our lower limit is thus dictated by the proper motion errors, which in general differ from field to field due to varying time baselines and plate quality, and within individual fields are a function of apparent magnitude, due mostly to centroiding precision as detailed in section 2.2.5 of Hambly et al 2001c. It is natural therefore to allow our lower proper motion limit to vary from field to field, and to make it a function of apparent magnitude within each field. In general, there is no analytic form for the distribution of proper motion errors with apparent magnitude, and a numerical solution has to be found.

### Proper motion limit as a function of apparent magnitude

For every survey field, we plot the proper motion uncertainty $\sigma_{\mu}$ against $B$ for all objects. Many fields share the same general form for this distribution, in particular a minimum of $\sigma_{\mu}\sim5$ mas yr$^{-1}$ at around $B\sim17$, rising to considerably larger errors at brighter and fainter magnitudes. Objects detected on only three plates show a similar distribution offset to larger $\sigma_{\mu}$ by up to $0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}04$ yr$^{-1}$. Rather than attempting to define a separate lower proper motion limit for these objects, we simply discard them. We wish to find the upper boundary of this distribution, denoted $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$. We may then define our $5\sigma$-threshold lower proper motion limit at every magnitude by simply multiplying this function by 5. $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$ is estimated by first binning objects according to magnitude, interactively so that each bin contains 100 points, which allows reasonable estimation of $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$ at the extremes where objects are of low density. This results in $N$ bins, where $N = N_{\textrm{{\small objects}}}/100$ and is typically of the order of 100. Each of the $N$ points $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B_N)$ is then defined by the largest $\sigma_{\mu}$ at the mean $B$ value in each bin, after rejecting the top 3% of points as outliers. The set of points $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B_N)$ shows considerable noise on small scales, and is processed through one stage of smoothing to remove this. A Savitzky-Golay filtering technique is used (Savitzky & Golay 1964), generalized to allow for non-regular data. This results in a final set of $N$ points $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B_N)$, which are interpolated linearly to define $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$ at all magnitudes. Figure 1 shows an example of the proper motion error distribution and $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$ for one field.

<embed src="fig1.ps" style="width:8cm" />

**Figure 1:** Proper motion error distribution for northern field 12, with the upper boundary set by $\sigma_{\mu}^{\textrm{{\scriptsize upper}}}(B)$.

<embed src="fig2.ps" style="width:8cm" />

**Figure 2:** Observed and theoretical number count histograms for SERC-R survey field 149.

## Magnitude

The magnitude completeness of catalogues derived from Schmidt plates has been analysed extensively in the literature. We follow a similar approach to Tinney, Reid and Mould (1993), except that with nearly 8000 Schmidt plates in  1700 fields it is unfeasible to model the differential stellar and galactic number counts in each. We proceed by assuming that within each of the eight photographic surveys compiled into the SSS the completeness of each plate is an identical function of the plate detection limit. This allows for the considerable variation in depth of plates within each survey. We estimate the *completeness function* for each survey, using a subset of five fields chosen at high Galactic latitude, in order to reduce the effects of image crowding and interstellar extinction. The completeness function is defined to be the fraction of objects recovered as a function of apparent magnitude, and relies on an estimate of the intrinsic stellar and galactic number counts in each field. Figure 2 shows the typical number count histograms for observed and modelled data in one field.

### Theoretical source counts

Intrinsic stellar number counts are modelled using the Besancon Galaxy model (Robin et al. 2003). These will generally be different in each field due to different lines of sight through the Galaxy. Conversely, galaxy number counts are assumed to be isotropic, with the large ($\sim6^\circ\times6^\circ$) fields smoothing out any small scale structure. Suitable empirical counts have been published by many authors (eg Jones et al. 2001), and in this study we use those compiled by the Durham Cosmology Group[^1]. In log-number space the galaxy counts are well fitted by straight lines in each band over the range of interest.

### Completeness of digitized Schmidt plates as a function of plate depth

The completeness function in each field is given by $\cal C$$(m) = N_{\textrm{{\scriptsize obs}}}(m)/N_{\textrm
{{\scriptsize intrinsic}}}(m)$. For each survey we obtain five measures of $\cal C$$(m)$, which are individually shifted according to the plate depth then averaged to obtain $\overline{\cal C}$$(m')$, where $m'$ is magnitudes above the plate limit. Uncertainties are assigned from the sample variance of the individual measures. The resulting eight functions are used to define dynamic magnitude limits for the remaining fields in each survey. One such function is presented in figure 3. The offset from the plate limit chosen as the completeness limit ($m'_{lim}$) for each survey is given in table 1, along with the corresponding mean magnitude limits for each band.

<embed src="fig3.ps" style="width:8cm" />

**Figure 3:** Mean completeness function for survey ESO-R. $m'$ refers to magnitudes above the plate limit; in this example $m'_{lim}=0.6$.

Survey

m′lim
Mean depth

POSSI-E
0.8
20.2

POSSII-B
0.6
22.0

POSSII-R
0.7
20.5

POSSII-I
0.6
19.4

Southern hemisphere:

ESO-R
0.6
20.3

SERC-J
0.5
22.2

SERC-R
0.5
20.5

SERC-I
0.6
19.0

**Table 1:** Completeness limit offsets and mean depth of surveys.

# Methods

## Reduced proper motion

The *reduced proper motion* statistic $H_m = m + 5\log(\mu) + 5$ uses the correlation between proper motion and distance to estimate the absolute magnitude of nearby stars, and is commonly employed for identifying extremely sub-luminous WDs in proper motion surveys. The fact that $H_m$ can be expressed in quantities intrinsic to the star $H_m = M + 5\log(V_{tan}) -
3.379$ suggests that we can use stellar and kinematic models to predict the range of $H_m$ for WDs of various colour and velocity. This allows us to perform rigorous selections on $H_m$ to produce well defined catalogues of WD candidates. This is done in the $H_m$-colour plane, where an appropriate colour-magnitude relation can be used to find the regions inhabited by WDs of various tangential velocity. Figure 4 shows the reduced proper motion diagram (RPMD) for our objects. This is topologically similar to the HR diagram. Cooling tracks for WDs with hydrogen and helium atmospheres and a range of $V_{tan}$ are plotted. WDs of larger tangential velocity are located below these lines, and we select objects from below the DA track as our WD candidates.

### Tangential velocity cut

Cool WDs of low velocity share identical values of $H_m$ with subdwarfs in the high velocity tail of the halo, so these two populations overlap to some extent in the RPMD. Contamination by subdwarfs can be reduced by applying a minimum tangential velocity threshold to the kinematic selection of WDs. This essentially selects WD candidates from regions more widely separated from the subdwarf locus. The fraction of WDs that fall below the chosen $V_{tan}$ threshold can be corrected for by including a 'discovery fraction'. This is calculated by projecting the WD velocity ellipsoid onto the sky, and integrating the resulting $V_{tan}$ distribution over the range of allowed velocities, according to the prescription of Murray (1983). As each line of sight sees a slightly different projection of the velocity ellipsoid, this has to be done separately for each survey field. We assume the velocity ellipsoid for disk WDs matches that of local dM stars measured by Reid et al 1995, and set $\sigma_\textrm{u,v,w}$ = (43,31,25) kms$^{-1}$ with an asymmetric drift of -22 kms$^{-1}$ relative to the local standard of rest. The discovery fraction has a mean value of $0.85$ ($0.69$) ($0.52$) for $V_{tan}>20 (30) (40)$kms$^{-1}$.

## Photometric parallaxes

Photometric distances and temperatures are obtained by fitting the two SSS colours using the model atmospheres and cooling sequences described in Bergeron et al. (2001) and references therein (see also `http://www.astro.umontreal.ca/~bergeron/CoolingModels`), provided in the SuperCOSMOS passbands and interpolated at 10K intervals.

The appropriate two-colour diagram and model tracks are presented in figure 6. We use a simple variance-weighted least-squares fitting procedure, and reject objects with $\chi^2>5$. Such objects are mostly unresolved binaries, as detailed in section . With only one degree of freedom we cannot measure the gravity or atmosphere type of each star, so we assume $\log(g)=8$ for all stars and fit both hydrogen (DA) and helium (DB) atmospheres. Over- and under-massive WDs exist in roughly equal proportion, and fitting them with normal-mass atmospheres has opposite effects and so should (roughly) cancel out. We make no correction for reddening, as we expect the effect to be very small due to the proximity of our stars.

<embed src="fig4.ps" style="width:7cm;height:8cm" />

**Figure 4:** RPMD for stars in SSS. Light grey points are subdwarfs and disk main sequence stars, dark grey points are stars selected as WD candidates.

<embed src="fig5.ps" style="width:7cm;height:8cm" />

**Figure 5:** Theoretical colour-magnitude relations for hydrogen-rich (DA) and helium-rich (DB) WDs, assuming a normal surface gravity of $\log(g)=8$.

### WD atmosphere types

We allow WD candidates to contribute to the LF as both hydrogen and helium atmosphere WDs, with a weight for each type set according to the observed stellar abundances. For WDs bluer than $B-R\sim1$, corresponding to $T_{eff}\gtrsim5250$K, the particular choice of atmosphere has little effect on the fitted luminosity, so we simply assume all stars are hydrogen types. At lower effective temperatures helium atmosphere stars are more luminous, by around $1$ mag at $B-R\sim1.5$ (see figure 5), and we therefore expect helium WDs to be over-represented at the reddest colours. We shift the weight in favour of helium WDs in this range, and set it according to the fitted hydrogen atmosphere absolute magnitude. The values used are given in table 2.

### WD+dM binaries

WDs with unresolved cool companions will tend to scatter out of the WD locus in the colour-colour plane, due to the companion star contributing flux to the I band. Harris et al. (2006) include these objects in their survey by accepting only the bluest bands, however with only two colours we cannot do this and so must reject these objects. This to some extent represents an incompleteness in our survey, as around 10% of WD candidates are rejected in this way.

<embed src="fig6.ps" style="width:8cm" />

**Figure 6:** Two-colour plot for WD candidates and synthetic WD models. The dashed line is for helium-rich DB models, the solid line is for hydrogen-rich DAs.

Mbol, H

${\cal W}_{\textrm{H}}$
${\cal W}_{\textrm{He}}$

 < 15.2

1.0
0

15.2 → 15.5
0.5
0.5

15.5 → 16.0
0.2
0.8

 > 16.0
0
1.0

**Table 2:** Weights assigned to hydrogen and helium atmosphere WDs.

# Luminosity function methods

## The generalized $V_{max}$ technique

The spatial density of objects retrieved in a survey with both magnitude and proper motion limits can be most readily obtained using Schmidt's $1/V_{max}$ method. This involves summing the inverse of the *maximum* volume in which each object could have been observed, given it's absolute magnitude and tangential velocity, and the survey limits. This method has since been generalised to non-uniformly distributed populations, in particular to allow for the exponential density profile of the Galactic disk. $V_{max}$ is obtained by integrating the density law along the line of sight to the star, over the distance range in which the star passes the survey selection criteria. Errors are assigned to each luminosity bin by assuming Poisson statistics.

### $V_{max}$ with dynamic proper motion limits

A problem arises when the proper motion limit is allowed to vary with apparent magnitude in a non-analytic way. The distances d$_{min}$ and d$_{max}$ at which the star's proper motion crosses the survey limits can no longer be calculated analytically, and so this integral is evaluated in the following manner. The limiting distances due to the magnitude limits are calculated as normal, then the integral is evaluated numerically between these limits in steps of finite size. At each distance step, the star's proper motion is calculated and compared to the limits appropriate for the new apparent magnitude, and if the star is within the limits then the volume associated with this step is added to the integral. The final stage is to select an appropriate step size for this calculation. We have chosen to use steps of constant *generalized volume*, taking into account the disk density profile. This ensures that each step makes an identical contribution to the sum. Note that calculating the distance interval necessary to keep the generalized volume of each step constant is also non-trivial, and leads ultimately to a transcendental equation that must be solved numerically.

## The White Dwarf luminosity function

The LF derived for the 9480 WDs with $V_{tan}>30$kms$^{-1}$ is presented in figure . A scaleheight of 250pc has been assumed for the density profile, to allow comparison with other works. The LF is remarkably featureless on the rising side, apart from a slight inflexion at $M_{bol}\sim12$. The faint end shows a drop in density at $M_{bol}=15.75$, in agreement with that reported by other authors. Integrating the LF gives a total WD number density in the solar neighbourhood of $2.3\times10^{-3}$pc$^{-3}$. $\langle\frac{V}{V_{max}}\rangle = 0.505 \pm 0.003$ for this survey, somewhat larger than that for a complete survey ($\langle\frac{V}{V_{max}}\rangle=0.5$) but it should be noted that the assumed scaleheight affects this calculation, and increasing it to 350pc results in $\langle\frac{V}{V_{max}}\rangle = 0.498 \pm 0.003$.

# Future Work

Older stars are expected to have larger scaleheights due to kinematic heating, and $V_{max}$ will be underestimated for these objects by assuming a value of 250pc. We intend to improve our LF by measuring the variation in scaleheight with $M_{bol}$ for our objects. Optical spectra have been obtained for a subsample of WD candidates, which we will use to assess the reliability of our method and contamination from non- degenerate stars. We also have a high proper motion catalogue of SSS objects with motions in the range $0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}18 < \mu < 10.\!\!^{\prime\prime}0$ yr$^{-1}$, which contains most of the interesting ultracool WDs featured in the literature. Including this will push our disk LF to fainter magnitudes, and will also possibly provide enough halo WD candidates to measure a LF for this component.

# References

[^1]: Available online at `http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~nm/pubhtml/counts/counts.html`


abstract: We review recent numerical work investigating the equilibrium phase diagram, and the dynamics, of the cholesteric blue phases. In equilibrium numerical results confirm the predictions of the classic analytical theories, and extend them to incorporate different values of the elastic constants, or the effects of an applied electric field. There is a striking increase in the stability of blue phase I in systems where the cholesteric undergoes helical sense inversion, and the anomalous electrostriction observed in this phase is reproduced. Solving the equations of motion allows us to present results for the phase transition kinetics of blue phase I under dielectric or flexoelectric coupling to an applied electric field. We also present simulations of the blue phases in a flow field, showing how the disclination network acts to oppose the flow. The results are based on the Landau-de Gennes exapnsion of the liquid crystal free energy: that such a simple and elegant theory can predict such complex and subtle physical behaviour is remarkable.
author: G. P. Alexander${}^{a,b}$; J. M. Yeomans${}^{a}$
date: 2024-10-02
title: Numerical Results for the Blue Phases

# Introduction

One of the spectacular successes of de Gennes' Landau theory of liquid crystals is that it captures, without need for extension or modification, many of the remarkable and subtle phase transitions and properties of liquid crystals. Blue phases provide an especially vivid example of this. The general features and properties of these unique mesophases are both 'beautiful and mysterious'  and yet they can be understood qualitatively and quantitatively using de Gennes' ${\bf Q}$-tensor theory of liquid crystal phase transitions.

Blue phases are found in highly chiral liquid crystals between the high temperature isotropic fluid and the lower temperature cholesteric phases . They are remarkable mesophases, exhibiting a brightly coloured texture of individual, micron sized platelets. The bright colour indicates selective reflection due to a periodic structure, much like in an ordinary crystal, but with a much larger characteristic length scale, and indeed the reflection spectra show Bragg peaks that can be indexed by cubic space groups with lattice constants of several hundred nanometers. Furthermore, individual platelets of monodomain crystals themselves show distinctive facetting corresponding to Miller planes of the lattice structure and with the faces growing in a sequence of steps . Yet, blue phases are not crystals in the traditional sense: they have *no* long range positional order and are full three-dimensional fluids. The crystalline order is in the orientational degrees of freedom of the liquid crystal.

The key to understanding the properties of the blue phases was in realising that the locally preferred order in the chiral liquid crystal is one of *double twist*, with the molecules adopting helical ordering along two, perpendicular axes, as opposed to the usual single twist of an ordinary cholesteric helix . However, it is not possible to construct a global state with helical ordering in two directions, without introducing disclination lines into the structure. Therefore the blue phases consist of local, cylindrical, regions of double twist separated by a regular disclination network.

A tutorial, two-dimensional example of a blue phase texture is shown in Fig. . This demonstrates how local regions of double twist can be pieced together only by introducing a square array of topological defects. In physical, three-dimensional, crystals the disclination structures are more complex; three distinct blue phase textures have been identified upon cooling from the isotropic liquid. Typical experimental phase diagrams are shown in Fig. . Blue phases I and II exhibit textures with cubic symmetry corresponding to the space groups $O^{8-}$ and $O^2$ respectively . These are illustrated in Fig.  which shows both the disclination networks and the topology of the lattice of double twist cylinders in the two phases. Blue phase III is less well understood; it has an amorphous structure with the same symmetry as the isotropic fluid .

The unique combination of crystalline order with lattice constants comparable to the wavelength of visible light and full three dimensional fluidity make the blue phases ideal for technological uses such as fast light modulators, photonic crystals or tunable lasers . The principal obstruction to their application was the very limited temperature range, $\sim 1K$, over which the phases were stable. However, recently, the stability range has been extended to as much as $60K$, including room temperature, by the addition of bimesogenic molecules or photo-crosslinking of polymers . This has opened the way to device applications and, in May 2008, Samsung Electronics unveiled a prototype 'blue phase mode LCD' .

The theoretical description of the general features and properties of the blue phases was developed in the 1980s in a series of important papers, summarised in the review . Two approaches were followed, a low chirality theory, based on the Frank director field description  and a high chirality theory using the Landau-de Gennes $\bf Q$-tensor . The theoretical approaches were able to correctly predict the symmetries of the blue phases and to give a good account of the phase diagram, although with some discrepancies. For example, additional textures with space groups $O^{8+}$ and $O^5$ were found to be stable within the parameter range corresponding to the experiments, but were not observed experimentally.

The renewed experimental interest in the blue phases provided the motivation to revisit them theoretically. Since the original analytic investigations, computers have become a powerful tool for studying complex fluids, and it is now feasible not only to revisit and extend the calculations of the blue phase phase diagrams , but also to obtain results on blue phase kinetics and hydrodynamics . The aim of this article is to review recent research showing how numerical simulations of the blue phases are allowing us to gain further insights into their behaviour.

In Section II we describe the Landau-de Gennes equations that have proved so successful in modelling the blue phases and outline how they can be solved numerically. In particular we discuss how the size of the unit cell must be allowed to vary to correctly minimise the free energy. Then, in Section III, we revisit the classic calculations of the thermodynamic phase diagram showing the changes that result when the approximations necessary to make the analytic calculations feasible can be circumvented by a numerical solution. We also show that including additional terms in the Landau-de Gennes free energy can significantly change the phase diagram. Most dramatic among the results is the increase in the stability of blue phase I obtained in systems where the cholesteric undergoes helical sense inversion.

Many of the potential technological applications of the blue phases rely on the response of the material to an electric field. In the blue phases the effects of an electric field are particularly rich, including continuous distortions in the size and shape of the unit cell  and a series of field-induced transitions to new blue phase structures, not stable in zero field . In Section IIIC we show how the Landau-de Gennes expansion correctly predicts electrostriction and, in particular, the anomalous electrostriction of blue phase I.

We next, in Section IV, summarise the equations of motion which describe blue phase hydrodynamics. These can be used to investigate the kinetics of transitions between blue phases, and their response to an applied electric field or to an imposed flow. Section V is devoted to examples demonstrating the application of the dynamical equations. We describe an investigation into the viscoelastic properties of the blue phases as they are subject to a Poiseuille flow field. We then describe the kinetics of the phase transitions induced in blue phase I as it is coupled to an electric field, either via a dielectric, or a flexoelectric, term in the free energy. This allows us to propose a candidate structure for blue phase X.

# Minimising the Landau-de Gennes free energy

## Landau expansion in terms of the $\bf Q$-tensor

One of de Gennes' vital contributions to the theory of liquid crystals was to identify the $\bf Q$ tensor as a suitable order parameter . A Landau expansion of the free energy of liquid crystals in terms of $\bf Q$ has proved useful as a starting point for interpreting liquid crystal phase diagrams  $$\begin{split}
F = \tfrac{1}{V} \int_{\Omega} \text{d}^3r \Biggl\{ & \tfrac{A_0(1 - \gamma /3)}{2} \, \text{tr} \, \bigl( {\bf Q}^2 \bigr) - \tfrac{A_0 \gamma}{3} \, \text{tr} \, \bigl( {\bf Q}^3 \bigr) + \tfrac{A_0 \gamma}{4} \Bigl( \text{tr} \, \bigl( {\bf Q}^2 \bigr) \Bigr)^2 \\
& \; + \tfrac{L_{21}}{2} \Bigl( \nabla \times {\bf Q} + 2q_0 {\bf Q} \Bigr)^2 + \tfrac{L_{22}}{2} \Bigl( \nabla \cdot {\bf Q} \Bigr)^2 + q_0 L_{31} {\bf Q}^2 \cdot \nabla \times {\bf Q} \\
& \; + \tfrac{L_{34}}{2} Q_{\alpha \beta} \nabla_{\alpha} Q_{\gamma \delta} \nabla_{\beta} Q_{\gamma \delta} + \tfrac{L_{38}}{2} Q_{\alpha \beta} \nabla_{\gamma} Q_{\alpha \delta} \nabla_{\gamma} Q_{\beta \delta} \Biggr\} .
\end{split}
\label{free}$$ Here $A_0$ is a constant with the dimensions of an energy density, $\gamma$ plays the role of an effective temperature for thermotropic liquid crystals, $q_0$ defines the helical pitch and the $L_{ij}$ are elastic constants. The expansion, taken to second order in the derivatives of $\bf Q$, can only account for two independent Frank elastic constants and imposes that the magnitude of splay and bend are equal . In order to remove this constraint, and to allow for a temperature dependent helical pitch, it is necessary to consider, at least, terms cubic in $\bf Q$ and quadratic order in gradients . There are eight such terms and it is unrealistic to consider them all. We include one chiral $L_{31}$ and two achiral terms $L_{34}$ and $L_{38}$. The $L_{34}$ term was chosen as it contributes equally to all three elastic constants and the $L_{38}$ term as it gives the largest distinction between splay and bend and because it has the largest contribution to the energetics of an isolated double twist cylinder. (However, the choice is arbitrary and other coefficients may be non-zero in any given material, and may have a considerable effect on the phase diagram.)

Rewriting the free energy in terms of dimensionless variables demonstrates that it depends only on the two dimensionless parameters  $$\tau \; \colon \mspace{-12.0mu} =\frac{9(3 - \gamma)}{\gamma} , \hspace{20mm} \kappa^2 \; \colon \mspace{-12.0mu} =\frac{108q_0^2L_{21}}{A_0\gamma} ,
\label{eq:deftau}$$ known as the *reduced temperature* and the *chirality* respectively, together with ratios of the elastic constants. In line with previous work, phase diagrams will be presented in terms of these parameters.

## Numerical minimisation of the free energy

The free energy is minimised by relaxing the $\bf Q$-tensor according to a Ginzburg-Landau equation $$\partial_t {\bf Q} \; = \; \Gamma \, \biggl( \frac{-\delta F}{\delta {\bf Q}} + \tfrac{1}{3}\, \text{tr} \biggl( \frac{\delta F}{\delta {\bf Q}} \biggr) \, {\bf I} \biggr) .
\label{relax}$$ This equation can be solved using many different numerical approaches; the results presented here were obtained using a lattice Boltzmann algorithm .

To study the different blue phases it is necessary to implement appropriate initial conditions for the simulation. The ${\bf Q}$-tensor is initialised using analytic expressions appropriate to the high chirality limit ($\kappa \rightarrow \infty$), which act to define the symmetry of the chosen phase. For blue phase I  we use $$\begin{split}
Q_{xx} & \sim - \sin (ky/\sqrt{2}) \cos (kx/\sqrt{2}) - \sin (kx/\sqrt{2}) \cos (kz/\sqrt{2}) \\
& \quad + 2 \sin (kz/\sqrt{2}) \cos (ky/\sqrt{2}) , \\
Q_{xy} & \sim -\sqrt{2} \sin (kx/\sqrt{2}) \sin (kz/\sqrt{2}) - \sqrt{2} \cos (ky/\sqrt{2}) \cos (kz/\sqrt{2}) \\
& \quad + \sin (kx/\sqrt{2}) \cos (ky/\sqrt{2}) ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:QO8-}$$ where $k = 2\sqrt{2}\pi /a$, with $a$ the lattice constant, and the other components are obtained by cyclic permutation. Similarly, for blue phase II the ${\bf Q}$-tensor is initialised as  $$\begin{split}
Q_{xx} & \sim \cos (kz) - \cos (ky) , \\
Q_{xy} & \sim \sin (kz) ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:QO2}$$ where $k = 2\pi /a$ and the other components are again obtained by cyclic permutation.

Under numerical evolution using Eq.  the system relaxes to the structure of the same symmetry that locally minimises the free energy. We are therefore able to obtain, for any value of the parameters, local minima of the free energy corresponding to each of the cholesteric and blue phases. The global free energy minimum was taken to be the smallest of these calculated local minima.

To achieve a full minimisation of the free energy it is necessary to set the correct unit cell size in the simulation. This is not known *a priori*, but rather depends on the magnitude of the order parameter, a quantity that is only determined by the numerical minimisation itself. Therefore we must introduce a means of determining, and setting, the unit cell size as the ${\bf Q}$-tensor evolves during the simulation. It is possible to account for a change in unit cell size by rescaling the gradient contributions to the free energy and molecular field. This is accomplished in practice by changing the elastic constants to $$\begin{split}
q_0 & = q_0^{\text{init}}/r , \\
L_{ij} & = L_{ij}^{\text{init}} \times r^2 ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:rescalingtrick}$$ where a superscript 'init' denotes the initial value of a simulation parameter and $r$ is the appropriate rescaling factor, which is identical to the 'redshift' described in  .

To calculate the optimal size of the unit cell we note that, since the free energy is quadratic in gradients, it may be written formally in ${\bf k}$-space as $$f = ak^2 + bk + c ,
\label{eq:fredshifttrick}$$ where the coefficients $a,b$ and $c$ depend on the ${\bf Q}$-tensor, but not on ${\bf k}$. The optimum wavevector is given by $k = -b/2a$, and since the coefficients $a$ and $b$ are determined by the simulation it is straightforward to use these values to determine the exact value for the size of the unit cell at every timestep, thereby obtaining a full minimisation of the free energy.

# The equilibrium phase diagram

## Revisiting the analytic calculations

The phase diagram for chiral liquid crystals obtained for a selection of parameter values using the Landau-de Gennes free energy, Eq. , is shown in Fig. . Fig. (a), adapted from , shows the phase diagram calculated analytically in the high chirality limit, in the one elastic constant approximation, and Fig. (b) compares numerical results for the same parameters in the free energy. The differences between the analytic and numerical results show that including higher order harmonics in the minimisation of the free energy is significant, as might be expected for phases with small free energy differences. In the numerical (exact) minimisation $O^{8-}$ is stable over a larger range of parameters and at lower chirality values, in better agreement with the experimental phase diagram, Fig . Moreover, the regions of stability of the $O^5$ and $O^{8+}$ textures found in the early studies  are shifted to unphysically high values of the chirality . This result is again consistent with experiment, where blue phase structures of these symmetries have not been observed.

## Varying the elastic constants

We now compare the phase diagrams obtained as the ratios of the elastic constants are varied. To investigate the effect of the bend elastic constant we chose parameter values $L_{21}=L_{22}=L_{34}=0.02, \, L_{38}=0$ which corresponds to a ratio of splay to bend of about 0.5, while splay and twist remain degenerate. The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig. (c). Comparing to the case of equal elastic constants the stability of blue phase I is seen to decrease quite significantly relative to the cholesteric phase while at the same time there is a small increase in stability over blue phase II. There is only a minor shift in the cholesteric-blue phase I phase boundary at the transition temperature, however, as the temperature decreases the shift becomes larger.

The value of the twist elastic constant is controlled by the Landau-de Gennes parameter $L_{22}$. In most liquid crystals the twist elastic constant is smaller than either splay or bend. In order to match this, we constructed the phase diagram for parameter values $L_{21}=0.02, \, L_{22}=0.04, \, L_{34}=L_{38}=0$, which is shown in Fig. (d). This choice of parameters resulted in a ratio of splay to twist of about 1.5, while splay and bend remained degenerate. Again we observe that the stability of blue phase I is reduced relative to the cholesteric phase by an amount similar to that seen by varying the bend elastic constant.

Finally, we consider the effect of the chiral cubic invariant on the blue phases. We chose parameter values of $L_{21}=L_{22}=L_{34}=0.02, \, L_{38}=0.04, \, L_{31}=-0.18$, which gives a ratio of bend to splay of about $1.6$. Moreover, for these coefficients the cholesteric undergoes helical sense inversion  at a reduced temperature of about $\tau \approx -2$. The phase diagram is shown in Fig. (e). What is remarkable is the dramatic increase in stability of blue phase I relative to the cholesteric phase. The region of stability has been increased down to chiralities as low as $\kappa = 0.07$ and at such low chiralities the phase boundary is essentially independent of $\kappa$ for all $\tau$. In addition, there is a very small region of stability for blue phase II located close to the isotropic transition (Fig. (f)). Since blue phase I is now stable over a much larger temperature range it displays a significant variation in unit cell size as the temperature is lowered, with the lattice parameter more than doubling between $\tau=1$ and $\tau=-5$.

## Electrostriction

The response of the cubic blue phases to the application of an external field has been a topic of interest since the mid 1980s and continues to be so because of the importance to potential blue phase based devices . The principal features include electrostriction, a continuous distortion of the shape and size of the unit cell with increasing field, and a series of field induced textural transitions. The electrostriction involves a shift of the back-scattered Bragg peak of 5–10% and is quadratic in the field strength . The direction of the shift changes sign with the sign of the dielectric anisotropy, but blue phase I also displays an unusual response referred to as anomalous electrostriction, where an expansion along the field direction is seen when the field is applied parallel to the $[011]$ direction, but a contraction for fields parallel to $[001]$. At larger field strengths new blue phases appear. Three distinct field induced textures have been identified, possessing tetragonal, screw hexagonal and two-dimensional hexagonal symmetry with increasing field strength .

Much of the electric field behaviour has been understood theoretically via extensions of the Landau-de Gennes theory, including the qualitative features of the electrostriction and the field induced textural transitions . However, the approximations inherent in the analytic calculations limited the quantitative comparison that was possible and a number of features, including the anomalous electrostriction of blue phase I and the tetragonal field induced texture blue phase X, could not be accounted for .

The main additional difficulty in minimising the free energy of the blue phases in the presence of an electric field  is in accounting for electrostriction, as there is a change not only in the size, but also in the shape, of the unit cell as the field is applied. This distortion can be accounted for in two steps: first the shape of the simulation unit cell is fixed and the corresponding size, which minimises the free energy, is determined. This is then repeated for a set of varying shapes of the unit cell, e.g. from cubic to tetragonal. Hence the free energy is determined for several values of the ratio $L_z/L_x$ parameterising the cubic-tetragonal distortion and fitted to a quadratic. The actual distortion is then given by the miminum of this fit.

The field dependence of the blue phase lattice parameters is shown in Fig.  for an applied electric field along the $[001]$ direction. Note, in particular, that the unit cell expands along the field direction in blue phase II, but contracts in blue phase I, in agreement with experiment . When the field is instead applied along to the $[011]$ direction both blue phases undergo an expansion parallel to the field, a precursor to the transition to blue phase X that is observed at larger field strengths. It is very pleasing that a numerical approach can predict anomalous electrostriction in blue phase I as the effect is lost in the truncations needed in analytic calculations . Mapping from physical to simulation units gives a magnitude of the elctrostriction in the range $10^{-2} - 10^{-1} \mu m^2\, V^{-2}$ for both blue phases, again in good agreement with experiments .

# Hydrodynamic equations

The Ginzburg-Landau equation, Eq. , describes the relaxation of a liquid crystal to the minimum free energy, but does not describe physical dynamics in situations where flow is important. Several authors have recently used numerical approaches to solve the full hydrodynamic equations of motion for liquid crystals in the nematic and cholesteric phases. For example, it has been possible to simulate defect hydrodynamics , phase ordering , the kinetics of transitions between different liquid crystal phases , cholesteric rheology  and the effect of flow on device switching . Because of their disclination structure the kinetics and the rheology of the blue phases is an exciting, but demanding, numerical problem which requires intensive numerical resources. However, such simulations are rapidly becoming feasible: we summarise the equations of motion and some of the results obtained so far, and then discuss possible directions for future work.

The hydrodynamic equations of motion of liquid crystals are complex, both because of the anisotropy of the molecules and because of the coupling between the order parameter field and the flow field. In general, flow leads to a rotation of the local orientation, which in turn influences the flow. Similarly, if a disturbance is initiated in the director, its reorientation is generally accompanied by fluid motion, an effect sometimes referred to as *backflow*. If a system is close to a phase transition, or contains disclinations, variations in the magnitude of the order parameter can be significant and therefore a hydrodynamic description based on the ${\bf Q}$-tensor is needed .

The order parameter evolves towards the minimum of the free energy, but with a convective time derivative to account for the advection with the fluid $$D_t {\bf Q} \; = \; \Gamma \, \biggl( \frac{-\delta F}{\delta {\bf Q}} + \tfrac{1}{3}\, \text{tr} \biggl( \frac{\delta F}{\delta {\bf Q}} \biggr) \, {\bf I} \biggr)  .
\label{eq:Qevol}$$ The term in brackets on the right hand side is called the molecular field, ${\bf H}$, and $\Gamma$ is a collective rotational diffusion constant. The material derivative for rod-like molecules is given by  $$\begin{split}
D_t {\bf Q} & = \bigl( \partial_t + {\bf u} \cdot \nabla \bigr) \, {\bf Q} - \bigl( \xi {\bf D} + \boldsymbol{\Omega} \bigr) \, \bigl( {\bf Q} + \tfrac{1}{3} {\bf I} \bigr) - \bigl( {\bf Q} + \tfrac{1}{3} {\bf I} \bigr) \, \bigl( \xi {\bf D} - \boldsymbol{\Omega} \bigr) \\
& \quad + 2\xi \, \bigl( {\bf Q} + \tfrac{1}{3} {\bf I} \bigr) \, \text{tr} \, \bigl( {\bf QW} \bigr) \; ,
\end{split}
\label{eq:materialderivativeQ}$$ where ${\bf D} = ({\bf W} + {\bf W}^{T})/2$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega} = ({\bf W} - {\bf W}^{T})/2$ are the symmetric and antisymmetric parts, respectively, of the velocity gradient tensor $W_{\alpha \beta} = \nabla_{\beta} u_{\alpha}$. The constant $\xi$ depends on the molecular details of a given liquid crystal.

The fluid velocity field is taken to obey the continuity equation and a Navier-Stokes equation with a stress tensor generalised to describe liquid crystal hydrodynamics  $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_t \varrho + \nabla \cdot \bigl( \varrho {\bf u} \bigr) = 0 \; , \label{eq:continuity} \\
\varrho \bigl( \partial_t {\bf u} + {\bf u} \cdot \nabla {\bf u} \bigr) = - \nabla p + \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma} \; , \label{eq:NavierStokes} \\
\begin{split}
\sigma_{\alpha \beta} & = \mu \bigl( \nabla_{\alpha} u_{\beta} + \nabla_{\beta} u_{\alpha} \bigr) + 2 \xi \Bigl( Q_{\alpha \beta} + \tfrac{1}{3} \delta_{\alpha \beta} \Bigr) \, Q_{\gamma \delta} H_{\gamma \delta} \\
& \quad - \xi H_{\alpha \gamma} \Bigl( Q_{\gamma \beta} + \tfrac{1}{3} \delta_{\gamma \beta} \Bigr) - \xi \Bigl( Q_{\alpha \gamma} + \tfrac{1}{3} \delta_{\alpha \gamma} \Bigr) H_{\gamma \beta} \\
& \quad + Q_{\alpha \gamma} H_{\gamma \beta} - H_{\alpha \gamma} Q_{\gamma \beta} - \nabla_{\alpha} Q_{\gamma \delta} \, \frac{\delta F}{\delta \nabla_{\beta} Q_{\gamma \delta}} \; .
\end{split}
\label{eq:BEstress}
\end{gathered}$$

Eqs. ,  and  can be solved either using a lattice Boltzmann approach , or finite difference schemes  or, giving somewhat improved stability while retaining the advantages of lattice Boltzmann, a hybrid scheme where a lattice Boltzmann solution of the flow equation is coupled to a finite difference solution of the order parameter field .

# Blue phase rheology

## Response of the disclination lattice to a Poisueille flow

To investigate the rheological response of the blue phases we placed a unit cell between fixed plates and imposed constant force on the fluid, together with no-slip boundary conditions on the velocity field at the plates. In a Newtonian fluid this geometry leads to a quadratic, Poiseuille flow profile. The choice of boundary conditions for the director field was to assume that the disclinations are fixed at the boundaries. Fig.  compares the apparent viscosity (obtained comparing to the Poiseuille velocity) in blue phases I and II, in a phase comprising a square array of disclinations with two-dimensional cross section corresponding to Fig. , and in the isotropic phase. The corresponding disclination configurations, comparing zero and a finite velocity field, are shown in Fig. .

For small forcing the blue phase viscosities increase by a factor $\sim 4$ over that of the isotropic fluid. This is because the disclination network acts to oppose the flow and dissipate energy. The blue phases reach a stationary state in which the disclination network is bent and twisted by the flow. The viscosities of blue phases I and II are approximately constant over a range of forcing, but the square lattice structure shows shear thickening. This is because each defect line, of topological strength 1, opens to a disclination ring, comprising disclinations of strength 1/2. The ring then twists and bends on itself as the flow increases, as shown in Fig. .

As the forcing increases there is significant shear thinning in all three blue phase structures. This occurs because the disclination network is destroyed by the flow, and the viscosity drops to that of an isotropic liquid crystal.

These results indicate that blue phase rheology is extremely rich, and worthy of further study, both experimentally and numerically. There is a need for careful experiments, with good control over boundary conditions. On the numerical side, work is in progress to move towards larger numbers of unit cells in the simulations and to assess the effects of different flow geometries and boundary conditions .

## Blue phase X

The ability to solve the dynamical equations of motion means that it is possible to follow the way in which disclinations rearrange during continuous textural transitions. Moreover, the simulations provide a way to identify possible candidate structures for blue phases which have not yet been identified.

An example of this approach is simulations in which blue phase I is placed under an intermediate electric field applied parallel to the $[011]$ direction. This is the set-up corresponding to the blue phase I-blue phase X transition observed experimentally in the 1980s . The electrostriction distorts the shape of the unit cell until it becomes tetragonal, at which point there is a transition from the blue phase I texture to a new texture known as blue phase X. Starting from this geometry, and an unperturbed blue phase I, the evolution of the disclination network is simulated numerically. Initially, the disclinations in the network twist, they then merge to form a transiently branched structure, which finally reorganises into a new defect network, not stable at zero field as shown in Fig. . This is a candidate structure for blue phase X, as it is a new network, found via a continuous reorganisation starting from blue phase I, and only stable in a field. The results predict that in the candidate blue phase X (i) the disclinations perpendicular to the field are largely unaffected, (ii) the network conforms to the space group $D_4^{10}$ identified in Reference , and (iii) the double twist cylinders deform but do not break during the transition; this observation may be verified by experiments along the lines of those in References .

## Flexoelectric blue phases

In 1969 Meyer introduced the concept of flexoelectric coupling to an external electric field and showed that this could lead to a one-dimensional splay-bend distortion of the nematic director field . These results have recently been extended to show that, near the isotropic-nematic transition and with sufficiently strong coupling, two-dimensional splay-bend structures with hexagonal symmetry can be stable .

Fig.  shows the evolution of blue phase I when flexoelectric coupling to an applied field is increased quasistatically. As in the dielectric case, the electric field induces a twist in the disclination lines allowing them to transiently merge, thus fascilitating textural transitions. For the largest applied field strengths a transition is indeed observed to the two-dimensional hexagonal flexoelectric blue phase, as expected. However, at intermediate values, two further transitions precede it, each yielding distinct textures that are stable over a small range of field strengths. The first is to a centred tetragonal texture with space group $I4_122$. This has the same disclination network as the blue phase X structure found under dielectric switching and described above. At slightly higher field strengths there is a second transition to a distinct tetragonal texture with space group $P4_222$. In this texture, the disclinations are all parallel to the field, occuring in pairs that wrap around each other to form a double helix, and with the axes of the double helices themselves then arranged on a square lattice. Finally, as the flexoelectric coupling is inceased, the two members of a given double helix transiently merge and re-separate, allowing them to both straighten out and to adopt an hexagonal configuration in the plane perpendicular to the field.

# Discussion

The Landau-de Gennes expansion of the free energy of liquid crystals has proved a vital tool in understanding their thermodynamics. The theory has proven successful even when very subtle energy-entropy balances, such as those that stabilise the blue phases, come into play. Beautiful early calculations, using approximate theories based on the Landau-de Gennes formalism that are analytically tractable, helped understand many of the features of the blue phases. Here we have shown that it is possible to make further progress by exploiting modern computational resources to minimise the free energy exactly.

We have shown that significant quantitative differences in the phase diagram arise from retaining cubic order terms in the free energy expansion. In particular, choosing expansion coefficients appropriate to systems where the cholesteric undergoes helical sense inversion gives rise to a very significant increase in the stability of blue phase I. It would be interesting to see if this link can be established experimentally. Moreover, by minimising the free energy with respect to both the order parameter field and the size and shape of the unit cell it is possible to predict the electrostriction of the blue phases, obtaining good qualitative and quantitative agreement with experiments.

The major drawback of the Landau-de Gennes expansion is in the difficulty of knowing values of the expansion coefficients for any particular compound. Inevitably this programme becomes increasingly difficult as additional terms are added. Therefore the value of the theory is primarily in suggesting trends, and in identifying regions of parameter space where novel behaviour might be observed.

Although the major features of the equilibrium behaviour of the blue phases are understood, much less is known about their hydrodynamics. The current simulations are on tiny samples and it is necessary to guess suitable boundary conditions on the director field. However, the reponse of the blue phases and their disclination networks to an imposed flow is fascinating, and a programme of developing the numerical approach in tandem with experiment is likely to uncover novel physics.

Solving the equations of motion of the blue phases also makes it possible to investigate their dynamics under changes in an applied electric field. Understanding this is an important step to assisting device design. Moreover it is possible to follow the kinetics of transitions between the blue phases, as an external parameter such as the electric field is varied. This allows prediction of possible sequences of phases that will, in general, depend on the values of the free energy, whether there is a convenient path through phase space allowing any given phase to be accessed, and the speed with which the perturbation is applied. For the examples described here the structural evolution depended primarily on relaxation kinetics, with hydrodynamics playing a minor role. However, this may not always be the case.

Finally we return to blue phases that have been stabilised over a larger temperature range. One approach has been to use bimesogenic molecules, and there remain interesting questions as to whether the resulting blue phase is stable or metastable and in identifying the physical mechanisms behind the increased temperature range. The polymer stabilised blue phases can be interpreted in terms of the polymers pinning the disclinations. As numerical work on ever more complex fluids develops, there are many exciting questions about blue phases in mixtures of liquid crystals and polymers, colloids and nanoparticles, that will become increasingly accessible.


abstract: In astro-ph/0702542, Linder and Miquel seek to criticize the use of Bayesian model selection for data analysis and for survey forecasting and design. Their discussion is based on three serious misunderstandings of the conceptual underpinnings and application of model-level Bayesian inference, which invalidate all their main conclusions. Their paper includes numerous further inaccuracies, including an erroneous calculation of the Bayesian Information Criterion. Here we seek to set the record straight.
author: Andrew R. Liddle; Pier Stefano Corasaniti; Martin Kunz; Pia Mukherjee; David Parkinson; Roberto Trotta
date: 2024-10-02
title: Comment on "Tainted evidence: cosmological model selection versus fitting",
  by Eric V. Linder and Ramon Miquel (astro-ph/0702542v2)

# Introduction

In a recent paper, Linder and Miquel have mounted a vigorous attack on the use of model selection techniques in cosmology, particularly with regard to interpreting (forecasting) the outcome of (upcoming) surveys and in survey design applications. They instead advocate a frequentist parameter-fitting technique.

Our aim in this short note is to highlight important misunderstandings that invalidate all the main conclusions of their paper. In the process, we give a brief self-contained discussion of the model selection framework; for more details see e.g. Refs. . In the Appendix we highlight some specific inaccuracies in Ref. , many of which are consequences of the general misunderstandings outlined in the main body of this Comment.

# What is Bayesian model selection?

In Bayesian inference, model parameters are taken as random variables, because this allows propagation of the experimental measurement errors into self-consistent probabilistic statements about parameter uncertainties.

The first step of Bayesian parameter estimation is the choice of a model ($M_i$), which specifies a set of parameters ($\vec{\theta}_i$) to be varied in fitting to the data, along with a set of prior probability ranges $P(\vec{\theta}_i|M_i)$ for those parameters. Given a particular set of data $D$, the likelihood $P(D|\vec{\theta}_i,M_i)$ is used to update the prior probabilities to the posterior $$\label{bayes}
P(\vec{\theta}_i|D,M_i) = \frac{P(D|\vec{\theta}_i,M_i) \,
P(\vec{\theta}_i|M_i)}{P(D|M_i)} \,.$$ The posterior $P(\vec{\theta}_i|D,M_i)$ contains all the information about the state of knowledge on the parameters $\vec{\theta}_i$ after the arrival of the data. From this one can construct 'credible intervals', i.e. ranges encompassing say $68\%$ or $95\%$ of posterior probability for the parameters.

We remark that Bayesian credible intervals have a profoundly different meaning from frequentist confidence regions, where model parameters are not random variables but fixed unknown quantities. The fact that the two intervals are formally equal in the case of a Gaussian likelihood (and flat priors, in the Bayesian scheme) is traceable to the symmetry between the measured mean and the 'true' mean entering the Gaussian distribution. This formal equivalence can engender considerable confusion as to the different interpretations of the final result (for a detailed discussion see Ref. ).

Bayesian model selection (or comparison) is the extension of the parameter estimation framework to include multiple models, with different parameter vectors and priors. Bayes theorem can be applied again to update a prior model probability by the *evidence*, also known as the marginal likelihood of the model, which is the normalization constant in Eq.  $$P(D|M_i) = \int P(D|\vec{\theta}_i,M_i) P(\vec{\theta}_i|M_i)
d\vec{\theta}_i \,.$$ The evidence is the probability of the data given the model. Bayes theorem is then used to obtain the probability of the model given the data, $$P(M_i|D) \propto P(D|M_i) \, P(M_i) \,,$$ where $P(M_i)$ is the prior model probability. It is clear from the above equations that the evidence is the basis of the model comparison and is built upon the parameter estimation step.

All of the above is uncontroversial mathematics, providing a consistent and systematic inference system for evolving probabilities in light of experimental data. Any controversy about Bayesian methods centres around the explicit need to state the full set of prior information in order to do any calculation. The framework provides no guidance as to how to do this; instead physical insight is needed to select suitable models for comparison with data, and to assess their initial probability and the priors on the model parameters in advance of that comparison. Within a model, prior parameter ranges can be thought of as plausible regions of parameter space that are accessible to the model.

Bayes theorem can be thought of as a decomposition of the final result into prior knowledge and the likelihoods measuring the information coming from the data. Indeed, the Bayesian formalism forces us to state explicitly which part of the result is due to our assumptions, and which part is driven by the data. The hope or expectation, both at the parameter level and model level, is that data will be obtained of sufficient quality to overturn incorrect prior hypotheses. If there is a broad range of possible models, corresponding to different prior choices, it will require more data to converge to a robust conclusion. But in the Bayesian approach data will eventually overcome prior choices; the wider the range of plausible priors, the more data we can expect to need before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

The Bayesian evidence sets up a tension between the ability of a model to fit the data and the prior predictiveness of the model, in a quantitative implementation of Occam's razor. Note that that we prefer to use the term 'predictiveness' rather than 'simplicity/complexity'; the former is what is actually rewarded by the evidence, and is not necessarily directly related to, for instance, the number of parameters. The models that do best are the ones that make specific predictions that later turn out to fit the data well. Less predictive models, even if they can fit the data as well, score more poorly. The Bayesian evidence has been widely applied to cosmological problems in recent years .

Some statistics have been extensively used as proxies to the actual evidence, such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) . But unlike the evidence these approximations are often biased, and by construction disfavour models with more parameters, even when those parameters are not constrained by the data (see IIIC for more on this in relation to the evidence, and Ref.  for a discussion of the limitations of some information criterion based approaches). Wherever possible the full evidence should be used.

# Misconceptions about model selection

The paper of Linder and Miquel launches a primarily rhetorical attack on the model selection framework. We will argue here that the paper contains numerous factually-incorrect statements. These appear largely to be traceable to three fundamental misunderstandings concerning the Bayesian framework and its applications, which we now describe.

## Model selection does not replace parameter estimation. It extends it.

Linder and Miquel appear to believe that model selection and parameter estimation are competing techniques. This is incorrect. As described above, model selection extends the Bayesian framework to the model level. Within each model, parameter estimation is carried out in the usual manner. This would include, as usual, goodness-of-fit and data subset consistency checks.

Specifically, we see that parameter estimation corresponds to model selection where the prior model probabilities of all but one model have been set to zero. This seems a regressive step; one can hardly claim that our understanding of, for instance, dark energy is so good that we should focus on only one possible description.

From this perspective, the need to choose model priors is clearly an advantage, not a drawback. Parameter estimation corresponds to one particular choice of those priors. By acknowledging that other choices are possible, a much more wide–ranging and robust investigation of the possible outcomes of future experiments can be made, as was done in Ref. .

A further advantage of model selection is that it allows one to ask new types of question. As it subsumes parameter estimation, one can obviously still ask about parameter confidence ranges, for instance, either model-by-model or via Bayesian model averaging as in Ref. . But one can also ask whether entire models are excluded by data at a given strength of evidence, based on their posterior model probability, or whether data provide support for additional model parameters. Indeed, the current leading questions in dark energy studies are of model selection type, viz. is the equation of state $w$ equal to $-1$ or is it variable? In the latter case, is $w$ constant or time-varying? One can also compare models that are not nested, for instance is quintessence a better description of the data than a modified gravity model? Such questions are not accessible to parameter fitting analyses and often cannot even be phrased in frequentist terms.

An important application of model selection is survey forecasting and design, where one assesses or constructs a survey in order to optimize the ability to answer a particular question or questions . The details will inevitably depend to some extent on prior assignments, and it is of course important to vary these within reasonable ranges. Model selection forecasting allows optimization for a broader range of possible questions.

Linder and Miquel also claim that survey design based on model selection is betting on the absence of structure in the possible parameter space, apparently confusing the space of possible 'true' models with the likelihood in that space given a particular 'true' model. The opposite is true. By including several models, one can focus attention on particular regions of parameter space that are especially well motivated, for instance $\Lambda$CDM, or the locations predicted by one-parameter quintessence models. In fact it is parameter estimation that assumes that the parameter space is a blank canvas in which each point is of equal value.

## Physical intuition and priors are the same thing!

Linder and Miquel criticize the Bayesian methodology for giving results that are often dependent on prior assumptions, and simultaneously claim that it seeks to avoid, or even prevent, use of physical intuition. Apparently they have not realised that physical intuition and priors are the same thing! After all, where do the models come from that we decide to compare to the data? What decides their prior model probabilities, and the reasonable ranges for their parameters? This is where the physics comes in. The mere fact that it can be difficult to put our physical intuition in quantitative terms by selecting prior ranges and prior probabilities is no good reason to give up the exercice.

The Bayesian model selection framework, by allowing us to specify multiple models with both model and parameter priors, *maximizes* our chance to incorporate physical intuition into data analysis. Linder and Miquel's claims to the contrary hold no substance at all. From this perspective, the prior dependence in Bayesian analysis should be viewed in a positive light, not a negative one, as it allows different intuitions to be tested. Bayes' theorem provides a convenient decomposition into the parts of the conclusions that are data-driven (the parameter and model likelihoods) and those that are prior-driven (the physical intuition), and so one can always keep track of the balance between those two. As long as the data cannot decide the issue, our physical intuition influences the outcome of our conclusions, but in the Bayesian framework we are made explicitly aware of this situation through the need to specify an explicit prior. There is no inference without assumptions. As the amount and quality of data increases, the priors become less important and the conclusions based on our expectations are replaced by conclusions based on actual data. This is how physics should work.

## Model selection does not act against models whose parameters cannot yet be measured.

Linder and Miquel give a historical overview, titled 'reality check', which seeks to show by example that model selection techniques, if applied in the past, would have led researchers astray. In our view all of this section is incorrect, as we explain in detail in the Appendix. Here we will address the reason why Linder and Miquel have gone astray.

Their main mistake is a failure to recognize the difference between two distinct circumstances. The first is a situation where a phenomenon could have been discovered, but wasn't; this corresponds to a likelihood function well localized within the prior of the relevant parameter, but consistent with a zero value. Model selection statistics act against models with the extra parameter in that case (an example being spatial curvature). The second is the situation where observations were of insufficient power to constrain the parameter, corresponding to a flat or nearly flat likelihood across the prior. In this case, the contribution of the parameter factorizes out of the evidence integral, leaving it unchanged. Therefore *Bayesian model selection does not act against parameters that are unconstrained by existing data* (see Ref.  for a detailed discussion). Comparisons of such models are inconclusive, awaiting new data. All the examples they give purporting to show model selection going astray are actually in the second category, and not in the first as they say.

Their misunderstanding can be partially traced to their use of the BIC . This model selection criterion assumes that all parameters are well measured. If this is not the case, then the BIC will exclude models that are perfectly acceptable when using full Bayesian model comparison, as e.g. demonstrated in Ref. . There it was shown that the BIC rules out the "kink" parametrisation of the dark energy equation of state, in disagreement with the full Bayesian evidence. Indeed, in the derivation of the BIC only the scaling with the number of data points $N$ was kept, while even in the idealized case of linear models with Gaussian errors the overall scaling of the log-evidence for a model with $k$ parameters is rather $k\ln(N/k)$ . Additionally there is a term that depends on the size of the error bars relative to the size of the prior, which often dominates. For these reasons, the BIC tends to give an unrealistically high penalty to extra parameters, compared to the full Bayesian evidence, if its underlying assumptions are not met. Only the evidence is a full implementation of Bayesian model comparison.

# Conclusions

We regard model selection techniques as a powerful tool for cosmologists, both for data analysis and for survey forecasting and design. They broaden the range of questions one can ask of present and future observations, and can be applied in a consistent and rigorous framework. While there remains room for debate about the relative merits of frequentist and Bayesian approaches in cosmology, we believe that the many demonstrable flaws of the Linder–Miquel paper prevent it from contributing constructively to that debate.

# Detailed critique

In this Appendix we provided a detailed critique of some of points made by Linder and Miquel.

## Linder and Miquel: Section III/V

In our view, the discussion in their section III, seeking instances from history where model selection would have misinformed, is entirely wrong or irrelevant. Since this is the sole motivation for their Section V, it too has no validity. We take their account paragraph by paragraph.

a\) This paragraph claims that, pre-1998, model selection would have dismissed the now-favoured $\Lambda$CDM model. Absolutely not! Data before that epoch were unable to meaningfully constrain $\Lambda$. As discussed above, the comparison would have been inconclusive. This is in accord with the fact that in the 1990s papers typically considered several cosmological models, including $\Lambda$CDM, on a roughly equal footing. In 1998 better data came along able to rule out the critical-density and open models, at which point model selection would correctly pick out the dark energy model.

b\) This paragraph mentions Feynman's repackaging of all equations of nature into $\bar{U} = 0$. We can see no relevance in this point. Repackaging equations does not change the number of model fit parameters, and hence affects neither parameter estimation nor model selection.

c\) This paragraph claims that before 1992 model selection would have argued against structure in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), on the grounds that $C_\ell=0$ is simpler than independently specifying each $C_\ell$. Absolutely not! This point confuses the data and the models. No one has ever thought that a separate specification of each $C_\ell$ was a model, and certainly not in 1992. Indeed, clearly the acceptable models of the time, the CDM family with or without $\Lambda$, all predicted CMB structures that were indeed subsequently seen. Not that this has anything much to do with model selection; models cannot be rejected before obtaining data that actually constrains them.

d\) This paragraph notes that the galaxy two-point correlation function was for many years thought to be a power-law, without an underpinning physical model. However, that the power-law model is no longer considered is irrelevant. Would any more physical model have been wrongly ruled out by model selection, had they existed? No is the answer. When data improved, would model selection support them over the power-law model? Yes. As it should.

e\) This paragraph makes a point about there being the deeper physics of the halo model behind the matter power spectrum, but this has nothing to do with cosmological model selection.

f\) This paragraph claims that the modern electro-weak theory would have been rejected by model selection had it existed contemporaneously with the Fermi theory during its heyday. Absolutely not! Had the Glashow–Weinberg–Salam model been around in say 1950, it would *not* have been ruled out by model selection because all of its parameters were poorly constrained. Model selection would have been unable to distinguish it from the simpler Fermi model. Later on better data came along and ruled out the simpler model. Just as it should.

g\) This paragraph makes a point that seemingly complex phenomenology may have a simple underlying structure, e.g. atomic spectra. There is some relevance to this point, though a 'complicated' say two-parameter equation of state model for dark energy is unlikely to have a substantially simpler 'fundamental' description. Nevertheless, if improved physical understanding comes along and creates a compelling model of that type, then that is the time to try out model selection statistics on it. Such a model can hardly be ruled out before it even exists, nor tested until its predictions are defined.

## Linder and Miquel: Section IV

In Section IV the authors advocate a frequentist 'rejection of null hypothesis' test where $\Lambda$CDM is the null hypothesis. This is done by simulating data only for $\Lambda$CDM and drawing likelihood contours, with the viability of $\Lambda$CDM then interpreted according to the position of actual measurements with respect to those contours. Note that this approach seeks to rule out $\Lambda$CDM in favour of a more general dark energy model without ever computing the probability of the data under the latter model.

We first note that the quantity they compute and call BIC is *not* the BIC. A giveaway is that they are claiming that the lower likelihood models are preferred. The correct computation of the BIC requires simulation of data at each point in the parameter space, and then a model comparison test of $\Lambda$CDM versus the two-parameter dark energy model at each point. We carried out exactly such an analysis, computing the full evidence rather than the BIC, in Ref. . Linder and Miquel only simulate $\Lambda$CDM, and then simply flip the sign of the relative log-likelihood, which is not equivalent.

On top of the above flaw, Linder and Miquel's argument then goes on to describe a situation in which a frequentist analysis delivers a $90\%$ confidence contour around the $\Lambda$CDM model (based on synthetic data) in the $(w_0, w_a)$ plane, and claims that a measurement lying outside that region would exclude the $\Lambda$CDM at the $90\%$ confidence level. This is an incorrect statement in frequentist statistics, as it slips in the wrong assumption that the probability of the data given the hypothesis (i.e., the frequentist confidence region) is the same as the probability of the hypothesis given the data.[^1] The latter quantity is undefined for a frequentist, for whom a hypothesis is either true or false (although we might not know which one is true) and a probabilistic statement about it would be meaningless. For a Bayesian of course the two are related through Bayes theorem.

Linder and Miquel also voice their discontent about the BIC condition being stronger, i.e. making it harder to rule out $\Lambda$CDM. But this is hardly surprising, being just a manifestation of Lindley's well-known 'paradox' ; as summarized in Appendix A of Ref.  (see Figure A1), in general frequentist significance tests do not agree with Bayesian model selection, since the former ignore the information gained through the data. This is evident in Figures 1 and 2 of Ref. , which is exactly the comparison Linder and Miquel are trying to make. There is no basis to claim, using a frequentist significance test, that the BIC 'spuriously rules out' a particular set of models, because there is no basis to take the frequentist result as the 'truth'. We could equally well say that model-level Bayesian inference demonstrates that parameter estimation 'spuriously rules out $\Lambda$CDM' in those circumstances.

It is true that model selection gives a larger parameter area in which $\Lambda$CDM would not be ruled out even if it is wrong, though usually returning an inconclusive verdict in that case, to be deferred to future data. The trade-off is that parameter estimation techniques applied for model comparison are much more likely to rule out $\Lambda$CDM even if it is right (by not recognizing that the data has lower probability under a less predictive model). One cannot win on both sides of that coin.

Independently of the above misconceptions, Linder and Miquel further claim that if $\Lambda$CDM results in a poor likelihood in light of new data, then it should be rejected in favour of a more general (less predictive) model, i.e. one in which $w_0$ and $w_a$ vary freely over any range. It is not clear for example why *this* model was chosen instead of, for example, one where $w(z)$ varies in 1000 redshift bins, which would probably achieve an even better fit. In the Bayesian framework we can admit all those models, assigning a prior probability to each that reflects our relative degree of belief based on our understanding of the physical processes at work. One then goes on to compute the posterior probabilities for each of the models.

## Linder and Miquel: Section II

We disagree with all statements in Section II of their paper implying that parameter estimation and model selection are distinct endeavours. In addition we note

1\) The statement that we wouldn't want to throw away a tree containing one fit fruit is misleading. If the fit fruit is a better fit that those on other trees, then the goodness-of-fit will be rewarded by model selection. If it is no fitter than those on smaller trees (and is everywhere constrained meaningfully by data) then of course we *do* want to throw away that tree: this is what Occam's Razor is all about and without it we have no control over arbitrarily complex models.

2\) It is implied that model selection might disadvantage fundamental models that might have apparently complicated phenomenological manifestations. Specific examples mentioned are braneworld models of modified gravity and inverse power-law potentials. This criticism is not true at all; people are welcome, indeed encouraged, to deploy fundamental parameters in model selection rather than phenomenological ones where possible.

## Rhetoric

We end by pointing out that this paper uses the rhetorical trick of attributing, without citation, and then rebutting, some vaguely ridiculous assertions supposedly held by model selection advocates. For instance, no-one has suggested that model selection techniques should be 'blindly applied' without regard to physical insight, and if they had it would have been a pretty ludicrous suggestion. No one has claimed that parameter fitting is 'misguided', it being a key part of the inference procedure, though we have indeed argued that it is inadequate if one wishes to answer questions phrased at the model level (e.g. is quintessence a better description of data than a particular modified gravity model). We are also unaware of any cases where 'overenthusiastic application of model selection led to some claims about the probability of future experiments failing to see characteristics such as dynamics that current data cannot access', though we may have been enthusiastic about being able to make probabilistic forecasts under carefully-defined prior assumptions .

[^1]: To convince oneself of the difference between the two quantities, imagine selecting a person at random — the person can either be male or female (our hypothesis). If the person is female, her probability of being pregnant (our data) is about $3\%$, i.e. $P(\text{pregnant}|\text{female}) = 0.03$. However, if the person is pregnant, her probability of being female is much larger than that, i.e. $P(\text{female}|\text{pregnant})\gg 0.03$. For further details, see Ref. .