abstract: Machine comprehension is a representative task of natural language understanding. Typically, we are given context paragraph and the objective is to answer a question that depends on the context. Such a problem requires to model the complex interactions between the context paragraph and the question. Lately, attention mechanisms have been found to be quite successful at these tasks and in particular, attention mechanisms with attention flow from both context-to-question and question-to-context have been proven to be quite useful. In this paper, we study two state-of-the-art attention mechanisms called Bi-Directional Attention Flow (BiDAF) and Dynamic Co-Attention Network (DCN) and propose a hybrid scheme combining these two architectures that gives better overall performance. Moreover, we also suggest a new simpler attention mechanism that we call Double Cross Attention (DCA) that provides better results compared to both BiDAF and Co-Attention mechanisms while providing similar performance as the hybrid scheme. The objective of our paper is to focus particularly on the attention layer and to suggest improvements on that. Our experimental evaluations show that both our proposed models achieve superior results on the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) compared to BiDAF and DCN attention mechanisms.
author: Zia Hasan
Samsung Electronics
Suwon, South Korea
`email@example.com`
Sebastian Fischer
Deutsche Telekom AG
Berlin, Germany
`firstname.lastname@example.com`
title: Pay More Attention: Neural Architectures for Question-Answering

# Introduction

Enabling machines to understand natural language is one of the key challenges to achieve artificially intelligent systems. Asking machines questions and getting a meaningful answer adds value to us since it automatizes knowledge acquisition efforts drastically. Apple's Siri and Amazon's Echo are two such examples of mass market products capable of machine comprehension that has led to a paradigm shift on how consumers' interact with machines.

Over the last decade, research in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) has massively benefited from neural architectures. Those approaches have outperformed former state-of-the-art non-neural machine learning model families while needing far less human intervention since they don't require any manual feature engineering. A subset of NLP research focuses on building systems that are able to answer questions about a given document. To jointly expand the current best practice, the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD) was setup as a basis for a global competition between different research groups . SQuAD was published in 2016 and includes 100,000+ context-question-triplets on 500+ articles, significantly larger than previous reading comprehension datasets . The context paragraphs were obtained from more then 500 Wikipedia articles and the answers were sourced with Amazon Mechanical Turk. Recently, researchers were able to make machines outperform humans (as of Jan 2018) . Answers in this dataset are taken from the document itself and are not dynamically generated from scratch. Instead of generating text that provides a suitable answer, the objective is to find the boundaries in which the answer is contained in the document. The aim is to achieve close to human performance in generating correct answers from a context paragraph given any new unseen questions.

To solve this problem of question answering, neural attention mechanisms have recently gained significant popularity by focusing on the most relevant area within a context paragraph, useful to answer the question . Attention mechanisms have proven to be an important extension to achieve better results in NLP problems . While earlier attention mechanisms for this task were usually uni-directional, obtaining a fixed size vector for each context word summarizing the question words, bi-directional attention flow applies an attention scheme in both directions (context-to-question as well as question-to-context). In this paper, we study two state-of-the-art neural architectures with an attention flow going in both directions called Bi-Directional Attention Flow (BiDAF) and Dynamic Co-Attention network (DCN) that were once themselves leading architectures in the SQuAD challenge. We would also like to propose yet another hybrid neural architecture that shows competitive results by bringing together these two models. More specifically, we combined the attention layer of both BiDAF and Co-Attention models. In addition to this, we propose another simpler model family called Double Cross Attention (DCA) which in itself performs better than both BiDAF and Co-Attention while giving similar performance as hybrid model. **The objective of this paper is to do a comparative study of the performance of attention layer and not to optimize the performance of the overall system**.

# Model

We started our development by re-implementing the BiDAF and DCN models. We figured that these models individually enhanced the baseline performance significantly, so the hope was that a combination would eventually lead to superior results. Thereby we created our "hybrid" model, which we will subsequently explain shortly. In the following subsections, we describe each layer of our model in more detail.

## Word and Character Embedding Layer

The word embedding layer maps each word in a context and question to a vector of fixed size using pre-trained GloVe embeddings . First, we encode each word in the question and context with the pre-trained Glove embedding as given in the baseline code. Then we concatenate to the word encodings an optional *Character-level Embedding* with CNNs since it helps to deal with out-of-vocabulary words . The joint concatenated encoding of words and characters is subsequently fed into the context and question encoding layer.

## Context and Question Encoding Layer

Once we have a context and question embeddings, we use a Bidirectional GRU to translate these context and question embeddings into encodings. Whereas a simple LSTM/GRU cell encodes sequence data such as a sentences only from left-to-right, a bi-directional approach also parses a sentence from the end to the start. Both representations of a sequence are then usually concatenated and are assumed to encode the sequence structure more expressively ultimately leading to higher model performance.

## Attention Layer

The attention layer is the modeling layer that eventually involves modeling the complex interactions between the context and question words. Next, we describe several different attention mechanisms that we implemented in our system.

### Bidirectional attention flow

We implemented a complete BiDAF layer as suggested in the project handout and in the original paper . Bi-directional attention flow approaches the machine comprehension challenge slightly differently. Instead of using an attention layer for transforming context inputs to fixed-size vectors, the BiDAF model computes the attention from both question-to-context as well as context-to-question and combines them effectively. The basic idea is essentially to obtain a similarity matrix to capture relations between context and question words and use this matrix to obtain context-to-question as well as question-to-context attention vectors. Finally, these attention vectors are concatenated to the context encodings in a specific way to obtain the output of the Bi-directional attention flow layer. In the original BiDAF paper, an additional Bidirectional-RNN is used to again encode these concatenated vectors. However, it didn't give any improvement in our setup, hence we chose to omit it in our final implementation.

### Dynamic Co-Attention

Dynamic Co-Attention Network layer (DCN), similar to BiDAF involves a two-way attention between the context and the question but unlike BiDAF, DCN involves a second-level attention computation over the previously computed attentions . The dynamic co-attention network (DCN) is an end-to-end neural network architecture. The authors claim that the ability of attending to context inputs strongly depends on the query (question). The intuition behind that is also reflected by a human's ability to better answer a question on an input paragraph, when the question is known before reading the context itself, because then one can attend specifically to relevant information in the context. For details, please check the project handout, the original paper and our implementation code. In the original paper and the project handout, there was also a concept of sentinel vectors that was introduced but in our tests, it again didn't seem to provide any significant advantage, so we again chose to omit this as well in our final implementation.

### Hybrid BiDAF-Co-Attention (New Model)

This is model that we propose and it builds heavily on aspects of the BiDAF as well as the DCN models. Since the attention outputs from both the BiDAF and DCN seem to have their merits, our idea was to combine them by concatenating both attentions to the original context states. The intuition was that the neural network should be able to train in order to use and pick them both effectively. Experimental results that we describe later, also verify our claim. Please check the code for exact implementation details

### Double Cross Attention (New Model)

In this section, we propose another simple idea called Double Cross Attention (DCA) which seem to provide better results compared to both BiDAF and Co-Attention while providing similar performance as concatenated hybrid model discussed in previous section. The motivation behind this approach is that first we pay attention to each context and question and then we attend those attentions with respect to each other in a slightly similar way as DCN. The intuition is that if iteratively read/attend both context and question, it should help us to search for answers easily. The DCA mechanism is explained graphically in Figure. and the formal description of the layer is as follows.

Assume we have context hidden states $\mathbf{c}_1, \mathbf{c}_2...,\mathbf{c}_N\in \mathbb{R}^{2h}$ and question hidden states $\mathbf{q}_1, \mathbf{q}_2...,\mathbf{q}_M\in \mathbb{R}^{2h}$ obtained after passing context and question embeddings through a bi-directional GRU. First, we compute a cross-attention matrix $\mathbf{S}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$, which contains a similarity score $S_{ij}$ for each pair of context and question hidden states $(\mathbf{c}_i,\mathbf{q}_j)$. We chose $S_{ij}=\mathbf{c}_i^T\mathbf{q}_j$, since it is a parameter free approach to calculate attention but one can also construct this function with a trainable weight parameter (which can be shared in the subsequent step).

First we obtain Context-to-Question (C2Q) attention vectors $\mathbf{a}_i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_i = \text{softmax} \mathbf{S_{(i:)}}\in \mathbb{R}^M,
\mathbf{a}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{M}\alpha_i^j\mathbf{q}_j \in \mathbb{R}^{2h}
\end{aligned}$$

Next, we also obtain Question-to-Context (Q2C) attention vectors $\mathbf{b}_j$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_j = \text{softmax} \mathbf{S_{(:j)}}\in \mathbb{R}^N,
\mathbf{b}_j = \sum_{i=1}^{N}\beta_j^i\mathbf{c}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{2h}
\end{aligned}$$

Then we compute a second-level cross attention matrix $\mathbf{R}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times M}$, which contains a similarity score $R_{ij}$ for each pair of context and question attention states $(\mathbf{a}_i, \mathbf{b}_j)$. We again choose a simple dot product attention $R_{ij}=\mathbf{a}_i^T\mathbf{b}_j$. Additionally, we obtain Context Attention-to-Question Attention(CA2QA) cross attention vectors $\mathbf{d}_i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_i = \text{softmax} \mathbf{R_{(i:)}}\in \mathbb{R}^M,
\mathbf{d}_i = \sum_{1}^{M}\gamma_i^j\mathbf{b}_j \in \mathbb{R}^{2h}
\end{aligned}$$

Finally, we concatenate $\mathbf{c}_i$, $\mathbf{a}_i$ and $\mathbf{d}_i$ as a new state $[\mathbf{c}_i; \mathbf{a}_i; \mathbf{d}_i]$ and pass it through a biLSTM layer to obtain double query attended encoded context states as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\{\mathbf{u}_1,.... \mathbf{u}_N\} = \text{biLSTM} (\{[\mathbf{c}_1; \mathbf{a}_1; \mathbf{d}_1],.... [\mathbf{c}_N; \mathbf{a}_N; \mathbf{d}_N]\})
\end{aligned}$$

Finally all attention layer outputs are concatenated and fed into a Softmax layer that computes the probability distributions for the start and end token independently, as it is done in the baseline implementation.

# Experiments

Before we started the enhancements of the baseline model, we studied the SQuAD data set. Figure. shows the distribution of the answer, question and context lengths as well as the relative position of the answer span inside a context. Furthermore, we counted the different question types. We found that most answers have a length less than 5 words. Additionally, a question usually consists of 5-20 words. Moreover, we noticed that on average a context is of length  120 (visualization excluded due to lack of space). Furthermore, answers for a question tend to be represented by spans of context words that are at the beginning of a context. Finally, we can see that "what" questions build the majority of questions, almost the same amount as all other question types combined.

## Results

In this section, we report the results of our experiments. To ensure the generality of our model, we used Dropout technique for regularizing neural networks. We start our experiments with default hyperparameters: embedding size of 100, batch size 100, hidden size 200, learning rate of 0.001 and a dropout rate of 0.15. For character level encoding, default character embedding size is 20, kernel size is 5 and number of filters are 100. For each architecture, we report the evaluation metrics F1 and EM (Exact match) computed on the dev set.

The effect of character embedding on the BiDAF model is reported in Table . We can notice that character embedding boosts up the performance by roughly 2% for both EM and F1 score. This is expected since character embedding can help deal with non-dictionary words by giving them a unique embedding. Next, we report the results of the model performances for baseline, BiDAF, Co-Attention, Hybrid and DCA attention mechanisms in Table . Notice that none of these architectures were optimized for EM/F1 scores but we are more interested in difference between these mechanisms for a fixed set of hyperparameters. Hybrid and DCA have a slight edge over plain BiDAF and Co-Attention module as per the results. Co-Attention with char embedding was giving us worse results so we put the best numbers we got for Co-Attention there. We would like to point out that the BiDAF model here doesn't include BiLSTM layer as present in original paper because the BiLSTM didn't give any advantage except for slowing down the training. Selected tensorboard visualizations are also shown in Figure . Visualizations demonstrate that both hybrid and DCA models perform better than vanilla Co-Attention and BiDAF attention mechanisms and reduce the losses faster and increase the dev F1/EM scores faster as well.

| **MODEL (BiDAF)**       | **F1** | **EM** |
|:------------------------|:-------|:-------|
| Char Embedding Disabled | 45.94% | 36.91% |
| Char Embedding Enable   | 47.48% | 38.62% |

Performance Results

| **MODEL**      | **F1** | **EM** |
|:---------------|:-------|:-------|
| Baseline\*     | 43.44% | 34.37% |
| BiDAF          | 47.48% | 38.62% |
| Co-Attention\* | 69.56% | 58.52% |
| Hybrid         | 70.95% | 60.54% |
| DCA            | 70.68% | 60.37% |

Performance Results

\*no char embedding

| **MODEL** | **what** | **how** | **who** | **when** | **which** | **where** | **why** |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Baseline | 44.23/34.81 | 54.14/42.38 | 34.94/31.51 | 39.28/29.63 | 45.76/38.57 | 34.50/26.47 | 48.65/14.29 |
| BiDAF | 50.12/41.51 | 57.84/46.36 | 42.64/36.99 | 44.64/36.42 | 51.37/44.71 | 39.91/30.88 | 72.06/57.14 |
| DCN | 71.44/61.53 | 73.83/60.93 | 66.24/60.73 | 66.08/53.08 | 76.35/67.57 | 68.64/58.82 | 82.12/57.14 |
| Hybrid | 74.83/64.92 | 77.71/66.89 | 66.29/58.45 | 65.30/53.09 | 76.52/67.58 | 73.22/63.24 | 74.05/57.14 |
| DCA | 73.16/63.62 | 77.59/65.56 | 68.77/61.19 | 65.39/51.85 | 74.35/64.51 | 71.33/61.76 | 70.24/57.14 |

F1/EM% on different question types

## Hyperparameter Tuning

We made a brief attempt to do a bit of hyperparameter tuning on our proposed DCA model and we report the results in Table . Ideally, hyperparameter tuning for neural network architectures should be done using bayesian hyperparameter optimization but due to the lack of time we tried to do a random search on a small set of hyperparameters that we guessed could be more suitable. While, we didn't find any significantly good set of parameters, we noticed that reducing the hidden size has a minor effect on improving the performance. This is probably because it reduces the system complexity which makes the model easier to train.

| **dropout** | **learning rate** | **hidden size** | **glove** | **batch-size** | **F1** | **EM** |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| 0.15 | 0.001 | 200 | 100 | 100 | 70.68% | 60.37% |
| 0.15 | 0.01 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 71.01% | 60.66% |
| 0.25 | 0.01 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 70.88% | 60.67% |
| 0.15 | 0.001 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 71.30% | 60.78% |
| 0.10 | 0.0001 | 300 | 300 | 50 | 66.26% | 54.83% |

Hyperparameter Tuning for DCA Model

## Error Analysis

In Table , we briefly provide error analysis on a small sample of results for hybrid and DCA models and try to explain the model behavior.

|  |  |
|:---|:---|
| **Context** | southern california is home to many major business districts. central business districts (cbd) include downtown los angeles, downtown san diego, downtown san bernardino, downtown bakersfield, south coast metro and downtown riverside. |
| **Question** | what is the only district in the cbd to not have "downtown" in it's name? |
| **True Answer** | south coast metro |
| **Predicted Answer** | ""(Hybrid model) / central business districts (DCA model) |
| **Explanation of Model Behavior** | Hybrid model didn't output any results probably because end position might have been smaller than the start position and this error results in making a mistake on the whole answer, DCA model gets confused as "central business districts" term also doesn't contain downtown. |
| **Context** | ................ , the most important of which were use of a nitrogen/oxygen mixture instead of pure oxygen before and during launch, and removal of flammable cabin and space suit materials. the block ii ......... |
| **Question** | what type of materials inside the cabin were removed to help prevent more fire hazards in the future? |
| **True Answer** | flammable cabin and space suit materials |
| **Predicted Answer** | space suit materials (Hybrid model) / flammable cabin and space suit materials(DCA model) |
| **Explanation of Model Behavior** | Hybrid model was not able to capture the "flammable cabin" part probably because it was followed by cabin and it looked for materials following the word "cabin". DCA captures this correctly. Technically both answers are correct |
| **Context** | .............., the statistical behaviour of primes in the large, can be modelled. the first result in that direction is the prime number theorem, proven at the end of the 19th century, which says that......... |
| **Question** | what theorem states that the probability that a number n is prime is inversely proportional to its logarithm ? |
| **True Answer** | the prime number theorem |
| **Predicted Answer** | the prime number theorem (Hybrid model) / prime number theorem , proven at the end of the 19th century(DCA model) |
| **Explanation of Model Behavior** | While Hybrid model gets it right, DCA answer is not wrong but a model trained on tighter start and end dependencies might have been able to capture this more accurately. |

Error Analysis on Hybrid and DCA models on some sample examples

# Conclusions and Future work

In this paper, we studied and implemented two well known attention mechanisms namely, BiDAF and Co-Attention. We also introduced a simple combination of these two schemes called Hybrid attention mechanism that outperforms both BiDAF and Co-Attention. In addition to this, we propose our own attention mechanism called Double Cross Attention that gives similar results as the Hybrid model. The objective of the paper was primarily to study and compare the two aforementioned popular attention schemes on their own and not to chase the leaderboard scores. In particular, we isolated the attention layer and suggested our own improvements to it. The comparative results between different schemes are obtained for same set of hyperparameters.

To improve the F1/EM scores of the overall system, a number of enhancement techniques could be used. For e.g. while we simply concatenated character and word embeddings, more advanced techniques to effectively combine them have been suggested in the literature . Also. a number of other attention mechanisms have been suggested which need to be investigated as well . Another possible improvement is to properly condition the end position on the start position of the answer span. An LSTM based solution was used in the original BiDAF paper. Exponential moving average of weights and ensembling are additional common methods to further fine-tune and improve the results. Hierarchical Maxout Network as mentioned in the co-attention paper could be a replacement to our simple Softmax output layer to improve the performance even further. There are also a few possible directions where DCA model can further be improved/extended. We can continue recursively calculating the cross attention weights and combine them in some more intuitive or non-linear way. While, we didn't optimize for the number of parameters, it is possible to reduce the overall number of trainable parameters by appropriately sharing weights between layers when possible.

All of the above mentioned suggestions, we see as enhancement opportunities (some we partially already tried to implement but could not finally manage to include in final running model). As a final project for the cs224n course, we found the task challenging but we were extremely satisfied with our own personal learning curve. We are sure that with even more time, we could significantly improve our model from the baseline enhancement we achieved so far. All in all, we believe that the experience of this project, will be of utmost value for our future professional work.

# Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank the course instructor Richard Socher for making the class highly informative and a great learning experience. We would also like to thank the TAs for prompt feedback and insightful discussions. Lastly, we would like to thank the fellow students who regularly helped each other on course forum regarding any questions..


abstract: The nature of pulsar-like compact stars is essentially a central question of the fundamental strong interaction (explained in quantum chromo-dynamics) at low energy scale, the solution of which still remains a challenge though tremendous efforts have been tried. This kind of compact objects could actually be strange *quark* stars if strange quark matter in bulk may constitute the true ground state of the strong-interaction matter rather than $^{56}$Fe (the so-called Witten's conjecture). From astrophysical points of view, however, it is proposed that strange cluster matter could be absolutely stable and thus those compact stars could be strange *cluster* stars in fact. This proposal could be regarded as a <u>general Witten's conjecture</u>: strange matter in bulk could be absolutely stable, in which quarks are either free (for strange quark matter) or localized (for strange cluster matter). Strange cluster with three-light-flavor symmetry is renamed *strangeon*, being coined by combining "strange nucleon" for the sake of simplicity. A strangeon star can then be thought as a 3-flavored gigantic nucleus, and strangeons are its constituent as an analogy of nucleons which are the constituent of a normal (micro) nucleus. The observational consequences of strangeon stars show that different manifestations of pulsar-like compact stars could be understood in the regime of strangeon stars, and we are expecting more evidence for strangeon star by advanced facilities (e.g., FAST, SKA, and eXTP).
address: $^1$ School of Physics and Engineering, Hubei University of Education, Wuhan 430205, China
  $^2$ School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  $^3$ Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
author: Xiaoyu Lai,$^1$ Renxin Xu$^{2,3}$
title: Strangeon and Strangeon Star

# Introduction: *What is a strangeon*?

The baryonic matter in the Universe is well described by the Standard Model of particle physics. Six flavors of quarks are fundamental Fermions that constitute baryonic matter, among which up ($u$), down ($d$) and strange ($s$) quarks are light flavors (the other heavy flavors: $c, t, b$). Atomic nucleus, the most familiar baryonic matter to us, is composed of nucleons which is further composed of only two favors of constituent quarks, i.e. $u$ and $d$ quarks. In other words, the nucleon is the constituent of a 2-flavored micro-nucleus. Similarly, the "strangeon" we are explaining in this contribution is the constituent of a 3-flavored macro-nucleus, and is simply an abbreviation of "strange nucleon" (with strangeness degree of freedom there).

The existence of 3-flavored nuclei might be superficially understood by analysis of energy scale. Quarks are often described by mass parameters that are measured indirectly since they are confined inside hadrons rather than free particles, and the mass parameters are the key parameters to make a judgment on the quark-flavor degrees of freedom at a certain energy scale. The current mass of both $u$ and $d$ quarks are only a few MeV while that of $s$ quark is around 100 MeV. For nuclei or nuclear matter with baryon density $n_0\simeq 0.16 \rm\ fm^{-3}$, the separation between quarks is $\Delta x\sim 0.5$ fm, and the energy scale is then in the order of $E_{\rm nucl}\sim 400$ MeV according to Heisenberg's relation $\Delta x \cdot pc \sim \hbar c \simeq 200\ \rm MeV\cdot fm$. All of the heavy flavors of quarks have masses larger than 1 GeV, and would then not participate in dense matter with density $n\sim n_0$ as valence quarks. One could thus naively expect that 3-flavored nuclei could exist in case of density around $n_0$ because $u$ and $d$ quarks are the lightest and $E_{\rm nucl}$ is much larger than the mass difference between $s$ and $u$/$d$ quarks. However, it is a fact that the valence strangeness degree of freedom is absolutely missing in stable nuclei with sizes $\sim$ fm. On one hand, the mass of $s$ quark is larger than that of $u$/$d$ quarks, so $s$ quarks would convert to $u$ and $d$ quarks via weak interaction. But, on the other hand, the light-flavor ($u$, $d$ and $s$) symmetry might be restored if the flavor symmetry leads to lowering the energy (as for an example of nuclear analogue, the symmetry energy), especially in case that the strong-interaction matter is very big. We are trying to explain in this proceeding that 3-flavored matter could be manifested in the form of "gigantic nucleus", and that "strangeon" is the constituent of such a 3-flavored "nucleus".

To demonstrate the difference between two- and three-flavored nuclei, we could first look at the structure of an atom. Before the era of Ernest Rutherford who was the father of nuclear physics, the structure of atoms was described in J. J. Thomson's model, which states that an atom is composed of positively charged medium (occupying the whole atomic volume) as well as electrons embedded. In 1911, E. Rutherford proposed that positively charged nucleus, carrying almost all atomic mass, is actually a tiny part of an atom while electrons are not inside but around the nucleus, according to the experimental results of deflecting $\alpha$-particles passing through a thin gold foil . In the Standard Model of particle physics, ordinary nuclei, composed of nucleons, have only two flavors of quarks ($u$ and $d$) in fact. Conceptually, why is our baryonic matter symmetric with two flavors rather than three?

A philosophical explanation could be simple: micro-nuclei are too small to have three-flavor symmetry, but bigger is different . The electric charges of $u$ and $d$ quarks are $+2/3$ and $-1/3$ respectively, so two-flavor symmetric strong-interacting matter should be positively charged, and electrons are needed to maintain electric neutrality. The probability of electrons inside a micro-nucleus is negligible because the nucleus radius ($\sim$ 1 fm) is much smaller than the Compton wavelength of electrons, $\lambda_{\rm e} \sim 10^3$ fm. Therefore, electrons contribute negligible energy there, and two-flavored micro-nuclei would be energetically economic. However, for a gigantic nucleus with size approximating to or even larger than $\lambda_{\rm e}$ (corresponding to number of nucleons $A>10^9$), it might be three-flavor symmetric. If the two-flavor symmetry still stays in macro-nucleus, it would become a huge Thomson atom with electrons inside it. Electron could then contribute a significantly high Fermi energy to the total energy of the system, being $E_{\rm F}\sim 100$ MeV. The situation becomes different if strangeness (i.e., three-flavor symmetry) is included: no electrons exist if the matter is composed of equal numbers of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks! In this case, the three-flavor symmetry, an analogy of two-flavor symmetry in micro-nucleus, may result in a ground state of gigantic nuclei. Strangeon, the constituent of a gigantic nucleus, is also an analogy of nucleon which is the constituent of a micro-nucleus. Certainly micro-physical calculations (e.g., an extended version of relativistic mean field theory applicable to strangeon matter) are really necessary and welcome in order to have a solid foundation of the starngeon conjecture.

It is worth noting that, rational thinking about stable strangeness datas back to 1970s and bulk strange object is speculated to be the absolutely stable ground state of strong-interacting matter, which is known as Witten's conjecture . Although the conjecture was proposed based on the matter composed of almost free quarks, we can make an extension that it still reasonably holds no matter whether quarks are free or localized.

In some of our previous papers, we use a word, "strange quark-cluster" , which has actually the same meaning as strangeon. This paper is organized as following. The gravity-compressed dense matter is introduced in Section 2 in order to make sense of realistic "gigantic nucleus" in astrophysics. The observational consequences of strangeon stars, including the surface and global properties, are discussed in Section 3. A brief summary is given in Section 4.

# Compact stars with strangeness

"Gigantic nucleus" is not a new concept. In the year 1932, L. Landau published a paper in which an idea of gigantic nucleus was presented : "*We expect that this must occur when the density of matter becomes so great that atomic nuclei come in close contact, forming one gigantic nuclues.*" Although the main motivation for Landau to write this paper was to explain the origin of stellar energy (and this explanation is certainly wrong), he recognized for the first time a kind of compact stellar object at about nuclear density, which is surely necessary for us to understand various extreme phenomena through astronomical observations. Two years later, in 1934, W. Baade and F. Zwicky conceived the idea that forming neutron stars could be the energy source of supernova rather than of stars . Neutron stars theoretically predicted were finally discovered when Hewish and Bell detected radio pulsars in 1967 . The gigantic nucleus proposed by Landau was then identified by astronomers to be "neutron stars", as neutrons and protons at that time were believed to be elementary particles and gigantic nucleus should be neutron-rich. After physicists realized that the more fundamental baryonic particles are quarks, some models were built about compact stars including quark degree of freedom, either in the core of neutron star (i.e. mixed or hybrid stars) or as the whole star (quark stars).

One may speculate the nature of dense matter inside pulsar-like compact stars as following. After core-collapsing of an evolved massive star, the supernova-produced rump left behind where normal nuclei are intensely compressed by gravity to form "compressed baryonic matter" which could manifest the behaviors of pulsar-like compact stars. The average density of compressed baryonic matter, or compact stars, should be supra-nuclear density (a few nuclear saturation densities) due to gravitational force. Dense matter may change from a hadronic phase to a deconfined phase as baryon density increases, but a very serious problem is: can the density of realistic compact stars be high/low enough for quarks to become deconfined/confined?

We argue that gravitationally compressed baryonic matter might be in a state of strangeon matter by starting from deconfined quark state with the inclusion of strong interaction between them. With the Dyson-Schwinger-Equation approach to the non-perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD), one would estimate the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$ , $$\alpha_{\rm s}=\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(0)}{\ln (e+a_1x^{a_2}+b_1x^{b_2})}, \label{alpha}$$ where $\alpha_{\rm s}(0)=2.972$, $a_1=5.292$ GeV$^{-2a_2}$, $a_2=2.324$, $b_1=0.034$ GeV$^{-2b_2}$, $b_2=3.169$, $x=p^2$ with $p$ the typical momentum in GeV. In compact stars with quark number density $n\sim 3 n_0$, $p^2\simeq 0.16$ GeV$^2$, so the coupling parameter $\alpha_{\rm s}$ would be even larger than 2. This means that a weakly coupling (i.e., non-perturbative) treatment could be inadequate for realistic dense matter in compact stars. It is also worth noting that the dimensionless electromagnetic coupling constant is about $1/137<0.01$, which makes quantum electromagnetic dynamics (QED) tractable in a perturbative way. That is to say, a weakly coupling strength comparable with that of QED is possible only if the baryon number density $n_{\rm B}>10^{123}n_0$, being unbelievable and unrealistically high. From this point of view, although some efforts have been made to understand the state of pulsar-like compact stars in the framework of conventional quark stars, including the MIT bag model with almost free quarks  and the color-superconductivity state model , realistic stellar densities cannot be high enough to justify the use of perturbative QCD which most of compact star models rely on. The strong coupling between quarks may naturally render quarks grouped in quark-clusters, and each quark-cluster/strangeon is composed of several quarks condensating in position space rather than in momentum space .

What's new about the concept of gigantic nucleus? In a word, the answer is that: Landau's gigantic nucleus is 2-flavored, while ours 3-flavored. The compact star composed of quark-clusters could also be regarded as a gigantic nucleus, then why should the gigantic nucleus be necessarily 3-flavored? A 3-flavored gigantic nucleus consists $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks grouped in strangeons, while a 2-flavored micro-nucleus consists $u$ and $d$ quarks grouped in nucleons. The only difference between gravitationally compressed baryonic matter and micro-nucleus could be a simple change from non-strange to strange: "2"$\rightarrow$"3". Certainly, the state of compressed baryonic matter in compact stars is essentially a non-perturbative QCD problem and is difficult to answer from first principles. Nevertheless, strangeon matter in bulk may constitutes the true ground state of strong-interacting matter rather than $^{56}$Fe, and this could be seen as a generalized Witten's conjecture, while the traditional Witten's conjecture focuses on the matter composed of almost free $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks. Consequently, we suggest that a gigantic nucleus is actually condensed matter of strangeons which is 3-flavored.

The weak equilibrium among $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks is possible, instead of simply that between $u$ and $d$ quarks. At the late stage of stellar evolution, normal baryonic matter is intensely compressed by gravity in the core of massive star during supernova. The Fermi energy of electron is significant in compressed baryonic matter, and it is very essential to cancel the electrons by weak interaction in order to make a lower energy state. There are two ways to kill electrons as shown in Fig. : one is via the conventional *neutronization*, $e^-+p\rightarrow n+\nu_e$, where the fundamental degree of freedom could be nucleons; the other is through the unconventional *strangeonization*, where the degrees of freedom are quarks. While neutronization works for removing electrons, strangeonization has both the advantages of minimizing the electron's contribution of kinetic energy and maximizing the flavor number, with the latter perhaps related to the flavor symmetry of strong-interaction matter. These two ways to kill electrons are relevant to the nature of pulsars, corresponding to neutron star and strangeon star, respectively, as summarized in Fig .

In a word, strangeon matter is conjectured to be the state of matter inside compact stars, where strangeons form due to both the strong and weak interactions and become the dominant components inside those stars. Then, what could be a realistic strangeon? We know that $\Lambda$ particle (with structure of {$uds$}) possesses light-flavor symmetry, and one may think that a kind of strangeons would be $\Lambda$-like. However, the interaction between $\Lambda$'s could be attractive, which would render more quarks grouped together. Motivated by recent QCD simulations of the $H$-dibaryons (with structure $uuddss$), a possible kind of strangeons, $H$-clusters, is proposed , and it is found that H-cluster matter could be more stable than nuclear matter when the in-medium stiffening effect is taken into account. Actually we are not certain about the number $N_{\rm q}$ of valence quarks inside a strangeon, but one could speculate that $N_{\rm q}$ = 6, 9, 12, and even 18. Moreover, because of their classical behavior (as a large mass may result in a small quantum wavelength), strangeons that exist in compact stars could locate in periodic lattices (i.e., in a solid state) when temperature becomes sufficiently low. Pulsars are in the low temperature limit, and they could then be solid strangeon stars.

Different models of pulsar inner structure are summarized in Fig. . The conventional neutron stars (hadron star and hybrid/mixed star) are gravity-bound, while strange stars (strange quark stars and strangeon stars) are self-bound on surface by strong force. Let's explain in details, with attention paid to the differences among these models. In the neutron star picture, the inner and outer cores and the crust keep chemical equilibrium at each boundary, so neutron star is bound by gravity. The core should have a boundary and is in equilibrium with the ordinary matter because the star has a surface composed of ordinary matter. There is, however, no clear observational evidence for a neutron star's surface. Being similar to traditional strange quark stars, strangeon stars have almost the same composition from the center to the surface, and the strangeon matter surface could be natural for understanding some different observations, as shown in the next section. Strangon stars are self-bound by the residual interaction between strangeons, while strange quark stars by bag-like strong interaction.

# Observational consequences expected in a strangeon star model

Observations of compact stars, depending upon surface and global properties, could provide hints for the state of compressed baryonic matter, as discussed in the following subsections.

## Surface properties

*(1) Drifting sub-pulses.* Although pulsar-like stars have many different manifestations, they are populated by radio pulsars, and it seems that most of radio sub-pulses are drifting. Among the magnetosphere-dynamics models for pulsar radiative process, the Ruderman-Sutherland  model is a virtue not shared by others, and the drifting sub-pulses were first explained. The RS model suggests strong binding of particles on pulsar polar caps, but the calculated binding energy in neutron star models could not be so high. This problem could be naturally solved in bare strangeon star scenario due to the strong self-bound of strangeons on surface.

The magnetospheric activity of bare strangeon star was investigated in quantitative details . Since strangeons on the surface are confined by strong color interaction, the binding energy of strangeons can be even considered as infinity compared to electromagnetic interaction. As for electrons on the surface, calculations have shown that the huge potential barrier built by the electric field in the vacuum gap above the polar cap can usually prevent electrons from streaming into the magnetosphere. Therefore, in the strangeon star model, both positively and negatively charged particles on the surface are usually bound strongly enough to form a vacuum gap above its polar cap, and the drifting (even bi-drifting) sub-pulses can be understood naturally . Certainly, more researches, both theoretical and observational, on this topic are welcome since this subpulse drifting phenomenon could hold the key to understanding the magnetospheric activity as well as the surface material of pulsar.

*(2) Clean fireball for SNE/GRBs.* It is still an unsolved problem to simulate supernovae successfully in the neutrino-driven explosion models of neutron stars. Nevertheless, in the strangeon star scenario, the bare strangeon matter surface could be essential for successful explosions of both core and accretion-induced collapses . A nascent strange star born in the center of GRB or supernova would create a thermal fireball due to its ultrahigh surface temperature , and the photon luminosity is not constrained by the Eddington limit since the surface of strange star could be bare and chromatically confined . Therefore, in this photon-driven scenario the strong radiation pressure caused by thermal emission from strangeon star might play an important role in promoting core-collapse supernovae  and even in explaining long-lived plateau of light curves of GRB afterglow .

The neutrino burst observed during supernova 1987A could also be understood in the regime of strangeon star . Huge internal energy is stored in a newborn strangeon star after collapse, and then the energy is released by photons and neutrinos, but being dominated initially by neutrino radiation. A liquid-solid phase transition at temperature $\sim 1$ MeV may occur only a few ten-seconds after core-collapse, and the thermal evolution and the neutrino emission of a strangeon star could then be modeled, as illustrated in Fig. .

*(3) Non-atomic spectral features.* The existence of atomic features in the thermal X-ray emission of neutron star atmosphere is expected in neutron star models. Differently, a bare strangeon star does not have atomic features in the thermal X-ray emission because no atom exists on its surface. Note that slight plasma may cover on a strangeon star surface, which is optically thin in X-ray bands (see "*(5)*" below for discussions). The featureless spectrum predicted by strangeon star model is consistent with observations of *Chandra* and *XMM-Newton*, both of which have not detected certain atomic feature predicted in neutron star atmosphere models. In neutron star scenario, the spectrum determined by radiative transfer in atmosphere should differ substantially from Planck-like one.

*(4) Absorption lines in thermal X-ray spectrum.* Although the three-light-flavor symmetry breaking is tiny (with the electric charge per baryon $\sim 10^{-5}$), the electron number density is still high and the Fermi energy of electrons is $E_{\rm F}\sim 10$ MeV, one order smaller than that in case of two-light-flavor symmetry. Strangeon matter is bound by the strong interaction, while electrons are bound to strangeon matter by the electromagnetic interaction, so some of the electrons in the surface region of a strangeon star reside outside of strangeon matter boundary, leading to a fairly thin (thousands of femtometers thick) electron sea on the surface of strangeon matter . The global motion of the electron sea on the magnetized surface was investigated , and it is found that hydrodynamic surface fluctuations of the electron sea would be greatly affected by the magnetic field. Some observations did show absorption lines of pulsar-like stars, and the best absorption features are detected for the central compact object (CCO) 1E 1207.4-5209, at $\sim 0.7$ keV and $\sim 1.4$ keV . The absorption feature of 1E 1207.4-5209 could be understood in this hydrocyclotron oscillations model . Besides the absorption lines in 1E 2107.4-5209, the detected lines around (17.5, 11.2, 7.5, 5.0) keV in the burst spectrum of SGR 1806-20 and those in other dead pulsars (e.g. radio quiet compact objects) would also be of hydrocyclotron origin . It seems that X-ray absorption feature could be natural in strangeon star model.

*(5) Strangeness barrier.* The constituent quarks in a strangeon are of three flavors (*u*, *d* and *s*) rather than of two flavors (*u* and *d*) for normal nucleons. Consequently, the fundamental weak interaction does play an essential role to convert normal 2-flavored matter (i.e., nucleons) to 3-flavored one (i.e., strangeons) during an accretion phase. The weak-conversion, however, is not easy, and could be successful only after frequent collisions (order of $\gg 1$), similar to the famous $pp-$reaction with flavor change. We would then introduce a term of *strangeness barrier* to describe this kind of difficulty . Because of this barrier above strangeon star surface, which separates two-flavor matter from three-flavor matter, most of the ordinary nuclei falling onto a strangeon star might bounce back. Therefore, a strangeon star may be surrounded by a hot corona or an atmosphere, or even a crust for different accretion rates. The strangeness barrier could help us to understand the redshifted O VIII Ly-$\alpha$ emission line (only with $z=0.009$) and the change in the blackbody radiation area of 4U 1700+24 if it is a low mass strangeon star , as well as the low mass function measured for the puzzling X-ray binary.

Additionally, the strangeness barrier could also be meaningful to understand Type-I X-ray bursters as well as to constrain their masses and radii . Despite these, the barrier could also be necessary to solve the optical/UV excess puzzle with a strangeon star atmosphere. X-ray dim isolated neutron stars (XDINSs) are characterized by Planckian spectra in X-ray bands, but show optical/ultraviolet (UV) excesses exptrapolated from X-ray spectra. In the regime of strangeon stars, the ISM-accreted matter could form a plasma atmosphere due to strangeness barrier. A radiative model of bremsstrahlung emission from the plasma atmosphere could fit well the spectra of the seven XDINSs, from optical/UV to X-ray bands, as shown in Fig.  for the famous one, RX J1856.5-3754 .

It is worth noting that this strangeon star atmosphere could simply be regarded as the upper layer of a normal neutron star atmosphere, but with almost homogeneous electron (or ion) temperature. Therefore, in the strangeon star atmosphere, thermal X-rays from lower layer of normal neutron star atmosphere are prohibited, and relatively more optical/UV photons are then radiated. Hard X-ray cut-off (i.e., without a hard tail) would also be natural in our model. Furthermore, the optical/UV spectral deviations from a Rayleigh-Jeans distribution could come from non-uniformities of the atmosphere .

## Global properties

*(1) Stiff equation of state and massive strangeon star.* The equation of state of strangeon matter would be stiffer than that of nuclear matter for two main reasons: 1) strangeons should be non-relativistic particles for its large mass, and 2) there could be strong short-distance repulsion between strangeons (an analogy for the hardcore of nuclear force). It is also worth noting that, both the problems of hyperon puzzle and quark-confinement do not exist in strangeon star model, whereas those two are still challenging in conventional neutron star and quark star models.

It has been addressed that strangeon stars could have high maximum masses ($>2M_{\odot}$) inferred by the stiff equation of state, as well as very low masses ($< 10^{-2} M_{\odot}$) as a direct consequence of self-bound surface . Later observations of PSR J1614-2230 imply a mass of $1.97\pm 0.04 M_{\odot}$ , indicating a stiff equation of state. It is conventionally though that the state of dense matter softens and thus cannot result in high maximum mass if pulsars are quark stars. However, strangeon stars could not be ruled out by massive pulsars, and the observations of pulsars with higher mass (e.g. $>2.5 M_{\odot}$) would even be a strong support to strangeon star model . New observation indicates that the mass of PSR J2317+1439 would even be larger than $2.04 M_\odot$ (at 90% confidence) , being expected in strangeon star model.

*(2) Self bound and low mass strangeon stars.* As discussed previously, similar to strange quark stars, strangeon stars are bound by strong force instead of gravity. Self-bound strangeon stars have non-zero surface density, and their radii usually increase as masses increase, while for gravity-bound neutron stars the radii decrease as mass increase. Gravity only play a significant role when the mass of the strangeon star approaches the maximum mass, beyond which the (repulsive) interaction between strangeons could no longer resist the gravity and the star would collapse to become a black hole. Specially, $M\propto R^3$ for low-mass strangeon stars with negligible gravity, so the mass of strangeon stars could be very low with masses as low as $\sim 10^{-2} M_{\odot}$   (being even manifested in the form of strangeon planet ).

*(3) Anisotropic pressure and extra-free energy besides powers of spin, accretion and heat.* Strangeon stars could be in a solid state at low temperature. The local pressure could be anisotropic in elastic matter, so for solid strangeon stars the radial pressure gradient could be partially balanced by the tangential shear force. Release of the elastic energy as well as gravitational energy would not be negligible, and may have significant astrophysical implications.

A sudden change of tangential force may result in a starquake, with release of both gravitational and elastic energy. There are actually two kinds of starquakes in the solid strangeon star model: bulk-invariable (type I) and bulk-variable (type II) starquakes, with energy release negligible for the former but significant for the latter. Typical energy of $10^{44-47}$ erg is released during superflares of soft gamma-ry repeaters (SGRs), and a type II giant starquake could reproduce such a flare . Both types of glitches with (type II) and without (type I) X-ray enhancement could be naturally understood in the starquake model of solid strangeon stars .

Significant stellar oscillations could usually accompany a starquake, especially for the Type II quakes. The magnetospheric activity in the polar cap region of pulsars could be excited under such oscillations. The toroidal oscillation of the star propagates into the magnetosphere, which provides additional voltage due to unipolar induction, changes Goldreich-Julian charge density from the traditional value due to rotation, and hence influences particle acceleration . The onset of radio emission after glitches/flares in SGRs or AXPs (anomalous X-ray pulsars) could be the result of oscillation-driven magnetic activities of solid strangeon stars. Within that model, transient radio signals of AXPs/SGRs may be caused by activation of the pulsar inner gap from below the radiative death line, due to an oscillation-induced voltage enhancement.

*(4) Rigidity.* Rigid body precesses naturally when spinning, either freely or by torque, but fluid one can hardly. The observation of possible precession or even free precession of B1821-11  and others could suggest a global solid structure of compact star. It is suggested that the gravitational wave behaviors should be mass-dependent , and no gravitational wave originated from $r$-mode instability could be detected for solid strangeon stars. Moreover, the bumpy distortion, i.e. local mountains on star surface, can lead to asymmetry about a pulsar's rotation axis, which could be tested by gravitational wave detectors in the future. By precision pulsar timing, either in radio or in X/$\gamma$-ray bands, we may discover more and more candidates with precession, that might provide a reliable way to test the strangeon star model. We are looking forward to these observations and discoveries.

The discovery of the gravitational waves  opens a new window for exploring the Universe. It is worth noting that, strangeon star with rigidity is quite likely to be tested by kilo-Hz gravitational wave observations of two kinds of events at least: 1) merger of pulsar-pulsar/pulsar-black hole binaries, during which the predicted waveform and the tidal effects in inspiral depend on the equation of state of supra-nuclear matter; 2) starquake of pulsar-like compact stars, during which the induced gravitational waves of compact stars may be discovered by sensitive detectors. Certainly, electro-magnetic diagnostics is important for both events of gravitational wave radiation, to remove the degeneracy of physical parameters.

# Summary

Normal micro-nuclei with two flavors, formed initially during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, make our Universe rich and colorful. We conjecture, from an astrophysical point of view, that a gigantic nucleus in which three-flavor symmetry is restored could form by compression of gravity during a supernova, and its constituent are strangeons made of almost equal numbers of $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks. That is to say, all the pulsar-like compact stars could actually be strangeon stars. Here we improve the original idea of gigantic nuclei presented by L. Landau over 85 years ago, with the main difference being from two-flavor to three-flavor, or from non-strangeness to strangeness. We demonstrate that the strangeon stars could be necessary to understand different manifestations of pulsar-like compact stars, and are expecting to test this model by future observation with advanced facilities, including either ground radio telescopes Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) and Square Kilometre Array radio telescope (SKA), or space-based high energy observatories Lightweight Asymmetry and Magnetism Probe (LAMP) and enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry (eXTP).

Let's summarize the paper by a famous sentence of P. W. Anderson (1932 - ): "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the Universe". As for the state of supra-nuclear matter in pulsar-like compact stars, we are still quite embarrassed because, besides the many-body problem, the fundamental law of strong interaction is still unclear in the low-energy scale.

**Acknowledgments:** We are grateful to the members at the pulsar group of Peking University. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11673002 and U1531243) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of CAS (No. XDB23010200).

# References


abstract: In an $\Omega=1$ universe dominated by nonrelativistic matter, velocity field and gravitational force field are proportional to each other in the linear regime. Neither of these quantities evolve in time and these can be scaled suitably so that the constant of proportionality is unity and velocity and force field are equal. The Zeldovich approximation extends this feature beyond the linear regime, until formation of pancakes. Nonlinear clustering which takes place *after* the breakdown of Zeldovich approximation, breaks this relation and the mismatch between these two vectors increases as the evolution proceeds. We suggest that the difference of these two vectors could form the basis for a powerful, new, statistical indicator of nonlinear clustering. We define an indicator called velocity contrast, study its behaviour using N-Body simulations and show that it can be used effectively to delineate the regions where nonlinear clustering has taken place. We discuss several features of this statistical indicator and provide simple analytic models to understand its behaviour. Particles with velocity contrast higher than a threshold have a correlation function which is biased with respect to the original sample. This bias factor is scale dependent and tends to unity at large scales.
author: J.S.Bagla[^1] and T.Padmanabhan[^2]
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411 007, INDIA
date: Submitted to MNRAS
title: A New Statistical Indicator to Study Nonlinear
  Gravitational Clustering and Structure Formation

= -.5 true in

# Introduction

Large scale structures like galaxies etc. are believed to have formed out of small density perturbations via gravitational instability. This process, in most popular models, is driven by dark matter which is the dominant constituent of the universe. We can compute rate of growth of clustering usint linear theory when the perturbations are small.. Linear theory however has a very limited domain of validity and we have to resort to numerical simulations for studying evolution of inhomogeneities at late epochs.

In linear regime density field is related to velocity field in a unique manner \[ in the growing mode\] and the density field alone specifies the system completely. Evolution of perturbations is described by a second order differential equation and specification of initial density field and velocity field completely determine the state of the system at any later time. However for a given nonlinear density field there is no practical method for computing velocity field. Our understanding of nonlinear regime will improve if we have a simple physical indicator of velocity field. We introduce velocity contrast, a new statistical indicator, that may be used to quantify some features of velocity field.

Velocity contrast can be used for comparison of simulation results with observations. It provides a simple and stable algorithm in contrast with some other methods that are used for this purpose. These methods are required as studies of nonlinear gravitational clustering have focussed mainly on aspects relating to dark matter. Comparison of these studies with observations is made difficult by the fact that we observe only sources of light. Many techniques have been devised for isolating regions that can host galaxies in numerical simulations. Some of these are quite elaborate, like DENMAX , and hence computationally very intensive. Other schemes, like density threshold or the friend of friend algorithm are very simple to implement but have problems with interlopers as these algorithms do not use dynamical information. We show that velocity contrast can be used to isolate regions of interest in a relatively simple and robust manner.

In next section, we briefly review dynamical evolution of trajectories in a system undergoing gravitational collapse. This is used to motivate the form of new indicator which is introduced in §3. In §4 we use N-Body simulations to study velocity contrast for CDM and an HDM like spectrum. §5 contains discussion of the new indicator using spherical model and nonlinear approximations. In §6 we compare density and velocity contrast and study the average relation between them as well as dispersion around it. We also discuss clustering properties of nonlinear mass and with respect of total mass.

# Evolution of Trajectories

The problem of gravitational dynamics in an expanding universe can be simplified considerably for nonrelativistic matter, at scales that are much smaller than hubble radius. In this domain, we can take the newtonian limit of relativistic equations. If mass of the universe is dominated by collisionless matter \[ e.g. dark matter\] then the system is entirely characterised by the following equations : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d {\bf u}}{db} & = & - \frac{3}{2} \frac{Q}{b} \left({\bf u} -
{\bf g} \right)\nonumber\\
\nabla^2 \psi & = & \left(\frac{\delta}{b} \right) \nonumber\\
{\bf g} & \equiv & - \nabla \psi \equiv - \frac{2}{3H^2_0 \Omega_0}
\left(\frac{a}{b} \right)  \nabla \varphi\nonumber\\
Q  & = & \left(\frac{\rho_b}{\rho_c}
\right)  \left(\frac{\dot a b}{a \dot b} \right)^2\label{baseqn}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u} = d {\bf x} / db$ is the "velocity" at time $t$, $\varphi$ is the gravitational potential due to the perturbed dark matter distribution, ${\bf g}$ is the rescaled gravitational force, $a(t)$ is the expansion factor, $\rho_b$ is the background density, $\rho_c$ is the critical density and $b(t)$ is the growing solution to the equation $$\ddot b + \frac{2 \dot a}{a} \dot b = 4 \pi G \rho_b b. \label{growth}$$ In a matter dominated universe with $\Omega = 1$, we have $b=a$ and $Q=1$. \[ We shall consider only this case here though generalisation of our analysis to other models is straightforward.\]

The equations () describe a complicated many body system even in the limit of a smooth gravitational potential. From the structure of (), we can distinguish four different epochs in the evolution of clustering — linear, Zeldovich, quasilinear and nonlinear.

At sufficiently early time $\delta \ll 1$ and we can use linear perturbation theory to study growth of perturbations. In this limit, we can easily solve () and show that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \left(a, {\bf x} \right) & = & af \left({\bf x} \right)\nonumber\\
{\bf u} \left(a, {\bf x} \right) & = & u \left({\bf x} \right)  = {\bf g}
\left({\bf x} \right)\nonumber\\
{\bf g} \left({\bf x} \right) & = & - \nabla \psi
\left({\bf x} \right) \nonumber\\
\nabla^2 \psi\left({\bf x}\right) & = & f\left({\bf x}\right) \label{linear}
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, ${\bf u} \left(a, {\bf x} \right)$ and ${\bf g} \left(a,
{\bf x} \right)$ are independent of $a$ and $\delta \propto  a$. Also note that in linear regime, ${\bf u} \left(a,{\bf x}
\right) = {\bf g} \left(a,{\bf x} \right)$. \[Velocity here is, of course, defined in a dynamically relevant manner as ${\bf u} = \left(d {\bf x} / da \right)$; the conventional definition of peculiar velocity is ${\bf v} = a \dot {\bf
x} = a \dot a {\bf u}$ and it scales as ${\rm v} \propto a \dot a
\propto a^{1/2}$. We shall work with ${\bf u}$ since we can always obtain ${\bf v}$ by a simple rescaling.\]

Linear theory becomes invalid when density contrast becomes comparable to unity, however we can understand some aspects of dynamics by using the Zeldovich approximation . This approximation extrapolates equality of velocity and force beyond linear regime. $$\begin{aligned}
\quad {\bf u} \left(a,{\bf q} \right) & = & {\bf g} \left(a_{in},{\bf q}
\right)  = - \nabla \psi \left(a_{in},{\bf q} \right)\nonumber\\
{\bf x} & = & {\bf q} + b\left(a\right) {\bf u}\left(a,{\bf
q}\right)\label{zel}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bf q$ is initial position of the particle, also called its lagrange position. Particles move with constant velocity ${\bf u}$ that is related to the force at its initial position at the initial epoch. This approximation compares well with true motion before shell crossing. Validity of this approximation can be used to infer that ${\bf
u}(a,{\bf x}) \simeq {\bf g}(a,{\bf x})$ in the Zeldovich regime.

Zeldovich regime ends with formation of pancakes and shell crossing. After shell crossing particles oscillate about pancakes and form small clumps. These clumps move towards each other or have some bulk motion towards deep potential wells. Therefore in quasilinear regime velocities of particles are not aligned with gravitational force, except in direction of bulk motion of clump to which these belong.

The mismatch between velocity and force steadily increases till velocities are randomized inside clumps and dominate over any residual bulk motion. Such a situation is expected in highly nonlinear and large clusters that have either virialised or are close to it.

# New statistical indicator : Velocity Contrast

Above discussion shows that mismatch between velocity and gravitational force is a good indicator of nonlinearity in dynamics for pancake like models. However, it is as good an indicator for hierarchical models because nonlinearity in dynamics at small \[ mass\] scales does not influence evolution of larger scales. *Shell crossing is neccessary for formation of nonlinear objects at a given scale, independent of dynamical state of smaller scales.* Virialised structures can not form without shell crossing and mixing in the phase space. Merger of smaller structures leading to a larger virialised object is always accompanied by shell crossing at the new scale. Therefore, while studying a given mass scale we can neglect nonlinearity in dynamics at much smaller scales. In fact numerical simulations of hierarchical models are based on the assumption that nonlinearity at small scales does not influence larger scales.

Mismatch between velocity and gravitational force is a vector quantity and is therefore difficult to handle and interpret. In addition it is a dimensional quantity and numerical value of the mismatch must be compared with something else for making a model independent estimate of the level of nonlinearity in dynamics. These considerations lead us to suggest the following form for velocity contrast : $$D_{gu} \equiv {\left({\bf u} - {\bf g} \right)^2 \over {\rm u}^2 }
\label{velcont}$$ In this equation we can think of ${\bf u}$ and ${\bf g}$ as velocity of a given particle and force acting on it, respectively. Alternatively if smooth velocity and force fields are given, () defines a scalar field $D_{gu} \left(a, {\bf x}
\right)$. These two descriptions are equivalent for our purpose. If linear theory \[ or Zeldovich approximation\] is valid for most particles \[ regions\], then this quantity will be nearly zero for a large fraction of particles \[ mass\]. With further evolution of clustering, more and more particles \[ mass\] acquire significant values for this parameter. Regions containing particles \[ mass\] with $D_{gu}$ larger than a threshold will exhibit highly nonlinear dynamics and a study of these regions will offer insight into the study of nonlinear clustering. Luminuous objects that we see have nonlinear density contrasts, therefore it is more meaningful to compare clustering properties of nonlinear objects in simulations with observations. $D_{gu}$ provides a simple method for selecting nonlinear structures in a simulation.

This algorithm has two specific advantages over the method of density threshold or the friends of friends algorithm where one finds nonlinear structures by requiring local density to be higher than some cutoff or particles to be within some linking length of its nearest neightbour. Density threshold \[ linking length\] for an object that has decoupled from expansion depends on the local symmetry of collapse, whereas deviations of velocity from accleration depend only on the stage of dynamical evolution. When particles in a particular region are counted, in order to ascribe a density to that region, one does not take into account velocities of particles. A fast moving particle which is merely passing through a region will be counted in this process *even if it is following a Zeldovich trajectory with* ${\bf u} = {\bf
g}$. In using $D_{gu}$ as an indicator we exclude such particles until the alignment between ${\bf u}$ and ${\bf g}$ is disrupted. Our algorithm will select "nonlinear particles" in underdense regions as well. These are found in regions where pancakes are forming in otherwise underdense regions or where density is low but shear is important.

Velocity contrast suggests another method for studying approximation schemes. Note that $D_{gu}$ directly characterises what could arguably be considered the most significant factor in formation of bound structures: *the ability of a local mass inhomogeniety to pull back particles towards it and therby increase the local potential depth.* It is precisely the failure to do this which makes Zeldovich approximation break down at the onset of significant nonlinearity. For comparison, consider the "frozen potential approximation" \[ FPA hereafter; see Bagla and Padmanabhan ; also suggested independently by Brainerd, Scherrer and Villumsen \] which may be thought of as a logical continuation of Zeldovich approximation: in ZA, velocities are frozen to initial values and force is ignored; in FPA, gravitational force is frozen to the initial value and the particles are moved in this given background potential. Studies have shown that FPA correctly reproduces the behaviour of particles near the mass concentrations since $\left({\bf u} - {\bf g} \right)$ is not pre-assigned to vanish in this approach. Therefore the structure of pancakes in FPA is similar to that in N-body simulations; pancakes do not thicken though they are not as thin as those seen in N-body simulations. Comparison of $D_{gu}$ in FPA and N-body will be useful in understanding both.

Note that this statistical indicator takes into account both the velocity and force. It is possible to devise approximation schemes, like frozen flow , adhesion model , etc. which will move particles to the right regions but will give a physically unacceptable picture for the velocity field. In our opinion, approximation schemes should also provide correct velocity field if they have to offer insight into dynamics. $D_{gu}$ may be used to discriminate between the dynamical content of different approximation schemes.

Velocity contrast can be used to compare analytical models with N-body. For simple analytic models of structure formation like spherical top hat it is possible to compute $D_{gu}$ as a function of the density contrast $\delta$. As we shall see this helps one in forming an intutive picture of the nonlinear evolution.

# N-body Simulations

To understand velocity contrast, we study it using N-Body simulations. Use of analytical methods for this study is made difficult by the fact that velocity contrast vanishes in linear regime. In this section we present results for two representative models of structure formation.

First model we consider is standard unbiased CDM normalized to COBE. Simulation of this model used a particle-mesh code on a $128^3$ box with $128^3$ particles. The size of the box in physical units is $90 h^{-1} Mpc$. Figure 1 shows projected density field and velocity contrast field for slices $14
h^{-1} Mpc$ thick. These slices corresponds to reshifts $Z=3$, $Z=1$ and $Z=0$.

Comparison of panels at a given redshift shows that density and velocity contrast select almost the same set of nonlinear regions. These tend to disagree for some regions that appear dense to the eye but have not reached a sufficiently high level of nonlinearity in dynamics. On the other hand, some regions in what appears to be a void have a high value of velocity contrast. Highly nonlinear regions appear to have a larger radius of influence as diagnosed by velocity contrast, in comparison with density. This may indicate that velocity contrast does not increase substantially after virialisation, so that almost all members of a virialised cluster have similar values of velocity contrast even though density varies rapidly with distance from the centre. Evolution with redshift follows the expected pattern with more regions becoming nonlinear at later times.

Regions selected for contours of high velocity contrast tend to be spherical. This indicates that planar and filamentary structures can not attain a very high level of nonlinearity in dynamics — for nonspherical structures there is always some direction in which bulk velocity dominates over random motions.

An interesting feature that emerges from figure 1 is that velocity contrast filters out voids \[ apart from regions within them where large shear leads to formation of structures\] more effectively as compared to density contrast.

The CDM model is a prime example of hierarchical clustering scenario with power at all scales and effective index varying from $-3$ to $1$. To see how this algorithm works in other cases, we studied the other extreme example. We considered a hypothetical universe which has power peaked at one dominant scale. The power spectrum for this model is taken to be $$P(k)= \frac{A}{\Delta k (2\pi)^{1/2}}
\exp\left[-\frac{\left(k-k_0\right)^2}{2(\Delta k)^2}\right]\label{pofk}$$ with $k_0 = \pi/16$ and $\Delta k = \pi/64$. Clearly, this has power only in a band of width $\Delta k$ peaked at $k_0$. We chose $A=68000$ so that the linearly extrapolated amplitude of the peak is unity at $Z\sim2$, giving us sufficient coverage of both the linear and nonlinear regime. Our choice of $k_0$ and $\Delta k$ ensures that the power is peaked at a large scale and it is concentrated in a very narrow range of scales. Note that this spectrum is somewhat similar to HDM models as far as the peak and smaller scales are concerned; standard HDM has $P \left(k \right)  \propto k$ for small $k$ but this model has an exponentially low power at small $k$. This is not very important since a $k^4$ spectrum will be generated due to dynamics . The evolution of this model provides an interesting paradigm for structure formation and will be discussed in detail elsewhere . Here we merely use this model to study velocity contrast so as to test it in the widest possible range. This simulation used a $128^3$ box with $64^3$ particles.

Figure 2 shows projected density and velocity contrast fields for this model. The thickness of the slice used here is $20L$, where $L$ is one grid length in the simulation box. Panels of this figure follow the pattern of panels in figure 1, showing that the general behaviour of velocity contrast is independent of the type of model considered. Particular values of velocity contrast for particles will of course depend on the mass resolution used in simulations, but the smoothed field has same properties for a large range in mass scales : $M_{particle}\ll M \ll
M_{box}$.

One key difference between density and velocity contrast is that density is a function of space and is same for particles located at same position whereas velocity contrast can be different for such particles. This feature of velocity contrast suggests that it can give us insight about some facets of clustering in highly nonlinear regions that are inaccessible through density contrast. We bring out these differences by studying some clusters in greater detail. Figure 3 shows close up of two rich clusters from the CDM simulation. For each cluster we have plotted projected density and velocity contrast fields for a cube of size $14h^{-1}Mpc$ centered at the cluster. Comparison of panels for density and velocity contrast shows that for high density regions information content of these indicators differs significantly. Contours of equal density indicate positions of density peaks and outlines of pancakes, whereas contours of velocity contrast show us regions that have significantly nonlinear dynamics.

Some regions that appear as pancakes or small density peaks are not seen in contours of velocity contrast, particles in these regions have not undergone any shell crossing but are only falling into the cluster. In all such regions, bulk flow towards the nearby cluster dominates over any random motions within the infalling mass. Many density peaks show complex substructure within. This can result from two scenarios : either there has been some recent merger of two small clusters and these have not mixed sufficiently or a group of particles with a much lower level of nonlinearity in dynamics has fallen into the cluster and it has not become an integral part of the cluster in dynamical sense.

Figure 4 shows a similar close up of a cluster for the model with gaussian power spectrum. Here, the substructure is not as complex as in figure 3 as there was no small scale power in the initial spectrum. However, broad features are similar for both these models.

We now give the above results in a less picturesque manner. Figure 5 shows the fraction of particles with velocity contrast above a threshold as a function of threshold velocity contrast at different epochs for the CDM model. Same figure shows corresponding curves for the second model as dashed lines. For reference, we have labelled the equivalant density contrast for top hat spherical collapse on the top axis. These curves show that as clustering proceeds the fraction of particles with $D_{gu}$ larger than a given threshold increases. Also, the fraction of particles selected with a high cutoff are significantly less than those selected by a smaller value of $D_{gu}$. These features are expected in any indicator of nonlinearity and it is heartening to see that velocity contrast satisfies these criterion. These features can also be seen, at a qualitative level, in figures 1 and 2.

# Analytical Models and Nonlinear Approximations

In this section we study velocity contrast with help of nonlinear models and analytical approximations. Spherical top hat collapse is one model of nonlinear collapse where it is possible to calculate almost all quantities of interest. Here we compute velocity contrast as a function of density contrast for this model. Initial velocities are related to initial density contrast through the potential as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf u}\left( a, {\bf x}\right) & = & {\bf g}\left( a, {\bf
x}\right) = -\nabla\psi\left( a, {\bf x} \right) \nonumber\\
\nabla^2 \psi\left( a, {\bf x} \right) & = & \frac{\delta\left( a
\right) }{a}\label{sthinvel}
\end{aligned}$$ Here **x** is the comoving coordinate and relates to the proper coordinate **r** in the usual way. These initial conditions put the system into growing mode and this leads to the following solution. $$\begin{aligned}
r & = & \frac{r_{max}}{2} \left(1-\cos\theta\right)\nonumber\\
a & = & \frac{3 a_i}{5 \delta_i}\left[ \frac{3}{4} \left( 1 + \delta_i
\right) \left( \theta - \sin\theta \right) \right]^{2/3}\nonumber\\
\delta & = & {\frac{9}{2}} {\frac{\left(\theta -
\sin\theta\right)^2}{\left(1-\cos\theta\right)^3}} - 1\label{sthdel}
\end{aligned}$$ We can also write down expressions for ${\bf g}$ and ${\bf u}$, leading to an expression for velocity contrast. $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf g} & = & - \frac{\delta}{3 a^2} {\bf r}\nonumber\\
{\bf u} & = & - \frac{1}{3a} \frac{\partial \ln(1+\delta)}{\partial a}
{\bf r}\label{sthgu}
\end{aligned}$$ From these, given a value of velocity contrast we can determine the corresponding phase angle and solve for density contrast. In figure 6 we have plotted density contrast as a function of velocity contrast for this model.

One certainly does not expect STH to be a good model for generic nonlinear collapse and it is worthwhile to consider evolution of velocity contrast for symmetric collapse in other approximations. In figure 6 we have also plotted curves computed using FPA for one , two and three dimensional models; that is, in each case we solve for particle trajectory around the potential produced by a sheet \[1-D motion, sheet is 2D\], filament \[2D motion, source is 1D\] or a spherical region of constant density. These curves show that for a given velocity contrast, density is lowest for planar collapse and highest for spherical collapse. The ratio of densities for $D_{gu{\bf
c}} = .1$ is $1:3.2:8.9$. This clearly shows that velocity contrast is a better algorithm for selecting nonlinear regions as it defines nonlinearity as deviations from trajectories in the linear regime. It is clear that a density threshold for selecting nonlinear structures will either select spherical objects that have not turned around or shell crossed, or it will miss out mildly nonlinear planar structures. Another feature that is seen in these graphs is that after shell crossing, density decreases while velocity contrast increases. When the particle turns back towards the pancake, it is possible for it to return to very small values of $D_{gu}$ but this happens only because in FPA we are using the initial gravitational force. In exact evolution, ${\bf g}$ evolves sufficiently to rule out small values of $D_{gu}$. Another feature that is seen here is that shell crossing occurs in FPA at $D_{gu} = 1$ as acceleration vanishes at the point where pancake is formed. \[In FPA we use initial acceleration, which vanishes at the caustic in symmetric cases. In a general case, there will be some residual acceleration along the caustic.\]

Velocity contrast can be studied within the framework of adhesion model . In this model the equation of motion is modified to include an ad hoc viscous term that ensures thin pancakes. The equation of motion is $$\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial a} + \left({\bf
u}.\nabla\right){\bf u} = \nu \nabla^2 {\bf u}\label{adhesion}$$ A comparison with () shows that viscosity term tries to mimic gravitational force, and $${\bf g}_{eff} = {\bf u} + \frac{2b}{3Q}\nu\nabla^2 {\bf u}\label{geff}$$ In this equation, gravitational force is some kind of an effective acceleration modelled by the viscosity term.

The general solution to () is well known and it allows us to compute ${\bf u}$ for any particle, given the initial velocity potential. We can use this solution to compute velocity contrast, for the effective force in adhesion model. It is apparent that $D_{gu}$ is significantly large only at the caustics in the limit $\nu=0$. At present we are studying $D_{gu}$ as a function of $\nu$, which could lead to an understanding of the origin of effective viscosity in the adhesion model.

# Evolution and Clustering of Nonlinear Structures

Velocity contrast and its relation with density contrast is shown in figure 7 where we have plotted contours of equal population on the $(1
+ \delta) - D_{gu}$ plane. This plot shows contours for two epochs each for the two models we are using in this paper : CDM and gaussian power spectrum. For comparison we have also plotted the curve obtained from STH on each of the panels. These plots show that there is an average relation between velocity contrast and density that is independent of epoch and model, and holds for a large range of scales. For CDM simulations, it is apparent that the relation evolves at high velocity contrast and the density for a given velocity contrast increases with time. This could imply a shift from mostly planar collapse occuring at early epochs towards more instances of spherical collapse at later stages.

There is a large dispersion about the average relation between density and velocity contrast. Part of this dispersion arises from the fact that collapse of various kinds, from planar to spherical, is occuring in the simulation volume. As indicated by relation of velocity contrast with density for symmetric collapse in FPA, the variation in density contrast for a given velocity contrast may be as large as an order of magnitude. Contours for the second model show a very large dispersion at large velocity contrast. This indicates ongoing collapse of objects with different local symmetries.

Velocity contrast is a good indicator of nonlinearity. In a simulation output we can identify nonlinear regions by requiring velocity contrast to be higher than some threshold. Regions selected in this manner will in general have clustering properties that differ from those of the total underlying mass. We study clustering properties of these regions and define a scale dependent bias parameter. Only those regions where particles have undergone shell crossing \[ at the scale of a galaxy\] can we form virialised structures like galaxies that we see. Therefore, the clustering properties of regions with velocity contrast above a threshold are essentialy clustering properties of regions that can host visible structures. Figure 8 shows averaged correlation function for the underlying mass and also for regions with velocity contrast above a threshold in a CDM simulation at Z=0. Threshold values used here were $0.1$, $1$ and $17$. The averaged correlation function $\bar\xi$ and bias $b$ are defined here as : $$\begin{aligned}
\bar \xi \left(a, x \right)= \frac{ 3}{ x^3 } \int\limits^x_0
\xi \left(a, y \right)y^2 d y\nonumber\\
b^2 \left( x\right) = \frac{\bar\xi\left(x ; D_{\bf gu} > D_{{\bf
gu}c}\right)}{\bar\xi\left(x ; {\rm all\,\,  particles}\right)}\label{bias}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is the two point correlation function. The relative bias decreases with the scale, approaching unity at very large scales, and increases with the cutoff used in selecting particles. This scale dependent bias may be used in understanding relative bias between different kinds of objects, like different populations of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Unlike the method of peaks in the initial distribution, the algorithm described in this paper clearly picks out regions that are dynamically "nonlinear" and therefore are potential sites for galaxy formation. It may be possible to model the environmental effects in galaxy formation as $D_{gu}$ describes the level of "churning" for nonlinear regions which is likely to be an important factor.

# Conclusions

The purpose of this note was to introduce this new statistical parameter, study its behaviour and establish a prima facie case that it is worth being considered further. It will be interesting to see whether one can develop an analytic model for the evolution of this statistical indicator – or a closely related one. This and related questions are under investigation.

We are also studying the bias parameter introduced here in detail, including effect of mass resolution etc. This work is in progress and will be reported elsewhere .

JSB is being supported by the Senior Research Fellowship of CSIR India.

[^1]: E-mail : email@example.com

[^2]: email@example.com