abstract: We study two different types of simplified models for Kelvin wave turbulence on quantized vortex lines in superfluids near zero temperature. Our first model is obtained from a truncated expansion of the Local Induction Approximation (Truncated-LIA) and it is shown to possess the same scalings and the essential behaviour as the full Biot-Savart model, being much simpler than the latter and, therefore, more amenable to theoretical and numerical investigations. The Truncated-LIA model supports six-wave interactions and dual cascades, which are clearly demonstrated via the direct numerical simulation of this model in the present paper. In particular, our simulations confirm presence of the weak turbulence regime and the theoretically predicted spectra for the direct energy cascade and the inverse wave action cascade. The second type of model we study, the Differential Approximation Model (DAM), takes a further drastic simplification by assuming locality of interactions in $k$-space via a differential closure that preserves the main scalings of the Kelvin wave dynamics. DAMs are even more amenable to study and they form a useful tool by providing simple analytical solutions in the cases when extra physical effects are present, e.g. forcing by reconnections, friction dissipation and phonon radiation. We study these models numerically and test their theoretical predictions, in particular the formation of the stationary spectra, and the closeness of the numerics for the higher-order DAM to the analytical predictions for the lower-order DAM .
address: $^1$ Dipartimento di Fisica Generale and INFN, Università degli Studi di Torino, v. Pietro Giuria 1, 10125, Torino, Italy
  and CNR-ISAC, Sezione di Torino, c. Fiume 4, 10133 Torino, Italy
  $^2$ CNRS, Institut Pasteur, Rue du docteur Roux 25, 75015 Paris, France
  $^3$ Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
author: Guido  Boffetta$^{1}$, Antonio  Celani$^{2,1}$, Davide  Dezzani$^{1}$, Jason Laurie$^3$ and Sergey Nazarenko$^3$
date: 2024-10-02
title: Modeling Kelvin Wave Cascades in Superfluid Helium

# Introduction

It is well known that a classical vortex filament can support linear waves. These were predicted by Kelvin more than one century ago and experimentally observed about 50 years ago in superfluid $^{4}He$. At very low temperature, where the friction induced by normal fluid component can be neglected, Kelvin waves can be dissipated only at very high frequencies by phonon emission . Therefore at lower frequency, energy is transferred among different wavenumbers by nonlinear coupling. This is the mechanism at the basis of the Kelvin wave cascade which sustains superfluid turbulence .

In recent years, the single vortex Kelvin wave cascade has attracted much theoretical , numerical and experimental attention. Even within the classical one-dimensional vortex model, different degrees of simplification are possible. For small amplitudes, the vortex configuration can be described by a two component vector field, made of the coordinates of the vortex line in the plane transverse to the direction of the unperturbed filament. These depend on the single coordinate that runs along the filament. As was shown in , this system of equations admits a Hamiltonian formulation, dubbed the two-dimensional Biot-Savart formulation (2D-BS), see (2) below. Another, more drastic, simplification is obtained by considering local interactions only. This leads to the local induction approximation (LIA) which was originally derived starting from the full 3D-BS . The main limitation of LIA is that it generates an integrable system with infinite conserved quantities, as it is equivalent to the nonlinear Schrödinger equation , and therefore, the resonant wave interactions are absent (at all orders) and one cannot reproduce the phenomenology of the full system. For this reason LIA, despite its simplicity, is of little help for the study of *weak* Kelvin wave turbulence. On the other hand, LIA contains solutions leading to self-crossings (numerical and analytical ) and, therefore, it can qualitatively describe vortex line reconnections in *strong* 3D-BS turbulence ("vortex tangle").

In this paper we consider simple models for a vortex filament that is able to sustain a turbulent energy cascade. The first model is obtained in the limit of small amplitudes by a Taylor expansion of the 2D-LIA. The truncation breaks the integrability of the Hamiltonian and therefore generates a dynamical system with two inviscid invariants (energy and wave action). For this class of systems, whose prototype is the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes turbulence , we expect a dual cascade phenomenology in which one quantity flows to small scales generating a *direct cascade* while the other goes to larger scales producing an *inverse cascade*. The possibility of a dual cascade scenario for Kelvin waves turbulence has been recently suggested but never observed, and in this paper we present the first numerical evidence for the inverse cascade.

The second class of simplified models, Differential Approximation Models (DAMs), use a closure in which the multi-dimensional $k$-space integral in the wave interaction term (collision integral in the wave kinetic equation) is replaced by a nonlinear differential term that preserve the main properties and scalings of the Kelvin wave dynamics such as the energy and wave action conservations, scaling of the characteristic evolution time with respect to the wave intensity and the wavenumber $k$. DAMs have proved to be a very useful tool in the analysis of fluid dynamical and wave turbulence in the past , and here we study them in the context of the Kelvin wave turbulence. DAMs are particularly useful when one would like to understand the temporal evolution of the spectrum, when the physical forcing and dissipation need to be included, or when the Kelvin wave system is subject to more involved boundary conditions leading to simultaneous presence of two cascades in the same range of scales, or a thermalization (bottleneck) spectrum accumulation near a flux-reflecting boundary . In the second part of this paper, we will present numerical studies of DAMs in presence of some of these physical factors and we will test some previously obtained analytical predictions.

# BSE

At a macroscopic level, the superfluid vortex filament is a classical object whose dynamics is often described by the Biot-Savart equation (BSE) $$\dot{\bf r} = {\kappa \over 4 \pi} \int {d {\bf s} \times ({\bf r}-{\bf s})
\over |{\bf r}-{\bf s}|^3},
\label{eq:bse}$$ which describes the self-interaction of vortex elements. The quantum nature of the phenomenon is encoded in the discreteness of circulation $\kappa=h/m$ .

The BSE dynamics of the vortex filament admits a Hamiltonian formulation under a simple geometrical constraint: the position ${\bf r}$ of the vortex is represented in a two-dimensional parametric form as ${\bf r}=(x(z),y(z),z)$, where $z$ is a given axis. From a geometrical point of view, this corresponds to small perturbations with respect to the straight line configuration, i.e. the vortex cannot form folds in order to preserve the single-valuedness of the $x$ and $y$ functions. In terms of the complex canonical coordinate $w(z,t)=x(z,t)+i y(z,t)$, the BSE can be written in a Hamiltonian form $i \dot{w} = \delta H[w]/\delta w^*$ with $$H[w] = {\kappa \over 4 \pi} \int dz_1 dz_2 {1 + Re(w'^{*}(z_1) w'(z_2))
\over \sqrt{(z_1 - z_2)^2 + |w(z_1)-w(z_2)|^2}},
\label{eq:h2d}$$ where we have used the notation $w'(z)=d w/ d z$. The geometrical constraint of a small amplitude perturbation can be expressed in terms of a parameter $\epsilon(z_1,z_2)=|w(z_1)-w(z_2)|/|z_1 - z_2| \ll 1$.

An enormous simplification, both for theoretical and numerical purposes, is obtained by means of the so called local induction approximation (LIA) . This approximation is justified by the observation that () is divergent as ${\bf s} \to {\bf r}$ and is obtained by introducing a cutoff at $a<|{\bf r}-{\bf s}|$ in the integral in () which represents the vortex filament radius.

When applied to Hamiltonian (), the LIA procedure gives $$H[w] = 2 {\kappa \over 4 \pi} \ln\left({\ell \over a}\right)
\int dz \sqrt{1 + |w'(z)|^2}
= 2 \beta L[w],
\label{eq:hlia}$$ where $\ell$ is a length of the order of the curvature radius (or inter-vortex distance when the considered vortex filament is a part a vortex tangle), $\beta=(\kappa/4 \pi)\ln(\ell/a)$. Here, it was taken into account that because $a$ is much smaller than any other characteristic size in the system, $\beta$ will be about the same whatever characteristic scale $\ell$ we take in its definition. We remark that in the LIA approximation the Hamiltonian is proportional to the vortex length $L[w]=\int dz \sqrt{1 + |w'(z)|^2}$ which is therefore a conserved quantity. The equation of motion from () is (we set $\beta=1/2$ without loss of generality, i.e. we rescale time as $2 \beta t \to t$) $$\dot{w} = {i \over 2} \left( {w' \over \sqrt{1+|w'|^2}} \right)'.
\label{eq:lia}$$ As a consequence of the invariance under phase transformations, equation () also conserves the total wave action (also called the kelvon number ) $$N[w] = \int dz |w|^2.
\label{eq:n}$$

In addition to these two conserved quantities, the 2D-LIA model possesses an infinite set of invariants and is integrable, as it is the LIA of BSE (which can be transformed into the nonlinear Schrödinger equation by the Hasimoto transformation, see Appendix B). Due to the integrability, in weak Kelvin wave turbulence [^1] the energy and the wave action cannot cascade within the LIA model, but this can be fixed by a simple truncation as we show in the next section.

# Truncated LIA

Integrability is broken if one considers a truncated expansion of the Hamiltonian () in power of wave amplitude $w'(z)$. Taking into account the lower order terms only, one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{exp}[w] &=& H_0 + H_1 + H_2 =  \nonumber \\
&=& \int dz \left( 1 + {1 \over 2} |w'|^2 - {1 \over 8} |w'|^4 \right).
\label{eq:expansion}
\end{aligned}$$ Neglecting the constant term, the Hamiltonian can be written in Fourier space as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{exp}&=&\int \omega_k |w_k|^2 dk + \int dk_{1234} W_{1234} \delta^{12}_{34} w_1^* w_2^* w_3 w_4,
\label{eq:expfourier}
\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega=k^2/2$, $W_{1234}=-\frac{1}{8} k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4$ and we used the standard notation $\delta^{12}_{34}=\delta(k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4)$ and $dk_{1234}=dk_1 dk_2 dk_3 dk_4$.

In Wave Turbulence, the near-identity transformation allows one to eliminate "unnecessary" lower orders of nonlinearity in the system if the corresponding order of the wave interaction process is nil . For example, if there are no three-wave resonances, then one can eliminate the cubic Hamiltonian. (The quadratic Hamiltonian corresponding to the linear dynamics, of course, stays). This process can be repeated recursively, in a way similar to the KAM theory, until the lowest order of the non-trivial resonances is reached. If no such resonances appear in any order, one has an integrable system.

In our case, there are no four-wave resonances (there are no non-trivial solution for the resonance conditions for $\omega \sim k^x$ if $x>1$ in one dimension). However, there are nontrivial solutions of the six-wave resonant conditions. Thus, one can use the near-identity transformation to convert system () into the one with the lowest order nonlinear interaction to be of degree six, (there are no five-wave resonances, the interaction coefficients in the quintic Hamiltonian are identically equal to zero after applying the canonical transformation.)

A trick for finding a shortcut derivation of such a transformation is described in . It relies on the fact that the time evolution operator is a canonical transformation. Taking the Taylor expansion of $w(k,t)$ around $w(k,0)=c(k,0)$ we get a desired transformation, that is by its derivation, canonical. The coefficients of each term can be calculated from an auxiliary Hamiltonian $H_{aux}$,

$$\begin{aligned}
H_{aux}&=&\int \tilde{V}_{123}\delta^{12}_3\left(c_1c_2c_3^* + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{123}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{U}_{123}\delta^{123}\left(c_1c_2c_3 + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{123}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{W}_{1234}\delta^{12}_{34}c^*_1c^*_2c_3c_4 dk_{1234}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{X}_{1234}\delta^{1}_{234}\left(c_1c_2^*c_3^*c_4^* + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{1234}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{Y}_{1234}\delta^{1234}\left(c_1c_2c_3c_4  + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{1234}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{Z}_{12345}\delta^{12345}\left(c_1c_2c_3c_4c_5  + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{12345}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{A}_{12345}\delta^{1}_{2345}\left(c_1c_2^*c_3^*c_4^*c_5^*  + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{12345}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{B}_{12345}\delta^{12}_{345}\left(c_1c_2c_3^*c_4^*c_5^*  + \mathrm{c.c.}\right) dk_{12345}\nonumber\\
&&+\int \tilde{C}_{123456}\delta^{123}_{456}c^*_1c^*_2c^*_3c_4c_5c_6 dk_{123456}.\nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$

The auxiliary Hamiltonian $H_{aux}$ represents a generic Hamiltonian for the canonical variable $c_k$, thus, defining $c_k$ in the canonical transformation will set the interaction coefficients of $H_{aux}$. Here all interaction coefficients, (terms denoted with tildes) present in the auxiliary Hamiltonian are arbitrary. A similar procedure was done in Appendix A$3$ of to eliminate the cubic Hamiltonian in cases when the three-wave interaction is nil, and here we apply a similar approach to eliminate the quadric Hamiltonian. The transformation is represented as $$\label{eq:trans}
w_k=c(k,0)+t\left(\frac{\partial c(k,t)}{\partial
t}\right)_{t=0}+\frac{t^2}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2 c(k,t)}{\partial
t^2}\right)_{t=0}+\cdots.$$ The transformation is canonical for all $t$, so for simplicity we set $t=1$. The coefficients of () can be calculated from the following formulae,

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HamSys}
\left(\frac{\partial c(k,t)}{\partial
t}\right)_{t=0}&=&-i\frac{\delta H_{aux}}{\delta c^*},\nonumber \\
 \left(\frac{\partial^2c(k,t)}{\partial t^2}\right)_{t=0}&=&-i
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\delta H_{aux}}{\delta c^*}.
\end{aligned}$$

Due to the original Hamiltonian () $H_{exp}$ having $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, we have no cubic order Hamiltonian terms, this greatly simplifies the canonical transformation (), because the absence of any non-zero three-wave interaction coefficients in $H_{exp}$ automatically fixes the arbitrary cubic (and quintic) interaction coefficients within the auxiliary Hamiltonian $H_{aux}$ to zero. Thus, transformation () reduces to

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trans2}
w_k&=&c_k-\frac{i}{2}\int d k_{234}\tilde{W}_{k234}c^*_2c_3c_4\delta^{k2}_{34}-3i\int d
k_{23456}\tilde{C}_{k23456}\delta^{k23}_{456}c^*_2c^*_3c_4c_5c_6\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{8}\int d k_{234567}\Big(\tilde{W}_{k743}\tilde{W}^*_{7623}\delta^{k7}_{45}\delta^{76}_{23}-2\tilde{W}_{k247}\tilde{W}_{7356}\delta^{k2}_{47}\delta^{37}_{56}\Big)c^*_2c^*_3c_4c_5c_6 .
\end{aligned}$$

To eliminate the nonresonant four-wave interactions in Hamiltonian (), we substitute transformation () into Hamiltonian (). This yields a new representation of Hamiltonian () in variable $c_k$, where the nonresonant terms (more specifically the four-wave interaction terms) will involve both $W_{1234}$ and $\tilde{W}_{1234}$. Arbitrariness of $\tilde{W}_{1234}$ enables us to select this to eliminate the total four-wave interaction term, $H_2$. In our case this selection is, $$\tilde{W}^*_{1234}=\frac{4iW_{1234}}{\omega_1+\omega_2-\omega_3-\omega_4}.$$ This choice is valid as the denominator will not vanish due to the nonresonance of four-wave interactions. Hamiltonian () expressed in variable $c_k$, $H_{c}$ becomes

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fullham}
H_{c}&&=\int \omega_k c_kc_k^* d
k\nonumber\\
&&+\int
\Big(C_{123456}-i\left(\omega_1+\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_4-\omega_5-\omega_6\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\tilde{C}_{123456}\Big)\delta^{123}_{456}c^*_1c^*_2c^*_3c_4c_5c_6 d
k_{123456}.
\end{aligned}$$

$\tilde{C}_{123456}$ is the arbitrary six-wave interaction coefficient arising from the auxiliary Hamiltonian. This term does not contribute to the six-wave resonant dynamics as the factor in front will vanish upon the resonant manifold, that appears in the kinetic equation. $C_{123456}$ is the six-wave interaction coefficient resulting from the canonical transformation which is defined later in equation ().

To deal with the arbitrary interaction coefficient $\tilde{C}_{123456}$, one can decompose $C_{123456}$ into its value taken on the six-wave resonant manifold plus the residue (i.e. $C_{123456}=-\frac{1}{16}k_1k_2k_3k_4k_5k_6 + C^*_{123456}$). We can then choose $\tilde{C}_{123456}=-iC^*_{123456}/(\omega_1+\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_4-\omega_5-\omega_6)$, hence, allowing the arbitrary six-wave interaction coefficient in $H_{aux}$ to directly cancel with the residual value of $C_{123456}$. This enables us to write Hamiltonian $H_{c}$ as

$$H_c=\int \omega_k |c_k|^2 dk + \nonumber  \int dk_{123456} C_{123456}\delta^{123}_{456} c_1^* c_2^* c_3^* c_4 c_5 c_6,
\label{eq:hc}$$

The explicit form of the interaction coefficient $C_{123456}$ can be expressed by

$$\begin{aligned}
C_{123456}=-\frac{1}{18}\displaystyle\sum^{3}_{i,j,k=1, i\neq j\neq k\neq i}\displaystyle\sum^{6}_{p,q,r=4, p\neq q \neq r\neq p}&\frac{W_{p+q-iipq}W_{j+k-rrjk}}{\left(\omega_{j+k-r}+\omega_r-\omega_j-\omega_k\right)}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{W_{i+j-ppij}W_{q+r-kkqr}}{\left(\omega_{q+r-k}+\omega_k-\omega_q-\omega_r\right)}.\label{eq:C123456}
\end{aligned}$$

Zakharov and Schulman discovered a parametrisation for the six-wave resonant condition with $\omega_k \sim k^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
k_1&=&P+R\left[u+\frac{1}{u}-\frac{1}{v}+3v\right]\nonumber,\\
k_2&=&P+R\left[u+\frac{1}{u}+\frac{1}{v}-3v\right]\nonumber,\\
k_3&=&P -\frac{2R}{u}-2Ru,\\
k_4&=&P +\frac{2R}{u}-2Ru\nonumber,\\
k_5&=&P+R\left[u-\frac{1}{u}+\frac{1}{v}+3v\right]\nonumber,\\
k_6&=&P+R\left[u-\frac{1}{u}-\frac{1}{v}-3v\right]\nonumber.
\end{aligned}$$ This parametrisation allows us to explicitly calculate $C_{123456}$ upon the resonant manifold. This is important because the wave kinetics take place on this manifold, that corresponds to the delta functions of wavenumbers $k$ and frequencies $\omega_k$ within the kinetic equation. When this parametrisation is used with equation () and $W_{1234}=-\frac{1}{8}k_1k_2k_3k_4$ we find that the resonant six-wave interaction coefficient simplifies to $C_{123456}=-\frac{1}{16}k_1k_2k_3k_4k_5k_6$. Note, that this is indeed the identical to the next term, $H_3$ in the LIA expansion with opposite sign.

This six-order interaction coefficient is obtained from coupling of two fourth-order vertices of $H_2$. It is not surprising that the resulting expression coincides, with the opposite sign, with the interaction coefficient of $H_3$ in (). Indeed, () is an integrable model which implies that if we retained the next order too, i.e. $H_3$, then the resulting six-wave process would be nil, and the leading order would be an eight-wave process in this case. In fact, in the coordinate space the Hamiltonian is simply $$\begin{aligned}
H_{exp}[w] &=& H_0  + H_3 =  \nonumber \\
&=& \int dz \left( {1 \over 2} |w'|^2 - {1 \over 16} |w'|^6 \right).
\label{eq:expansion-tr}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the existence of the six-wave process is a consequence of the truncation () of the Hamiltonian.

Hamiltonian () (or equivalently () or ()) constitutes the truncated-LIA model for Kelvin wave turbulence. It possesses the same scaling properties as the BSE system: it conserves the energy and the wave action, and gives rise to a dual-cascade six-wave system with an interaction coefficient with the same order of homogeneity as the one of the BSE. A slight further modification should be made in the time re-scaling factor as $\beta=(\kappa/4 \pi)$, - i.e. by dropping the large log factor from the original definition.

Physical insight into Kelvin wave turbulence is obtained from the wave turbulence (WT) approach which yields a kinetic equation which describes the dynamics of the wave action density $n_k=\langle |c_k|^2 \rangle$.

The dynamical equation for the variable $c_k$ can be derived from Hamiltonian () by the relation $i\partial c_k / \partial t = \delta H_c / \delta c^*_k$, and is $$\label{eq:cdot}
    i\frac{\partial c_k}{\partial t} - \omega_k c_k = \int dk_{23456}C_{k23456}c^*_2c^*_3c_4c_5c_6\delta^{k23}_{456}.$$

Multiplying equation () by $c_k^*$, subtracting the complex conjugate and averaging we arrive at $$\label{eq:n_k}
\frac{\partial \langle c_kc_k^*\rangle}{\partial t}= 6Im\left(\int
dk_{23456} C_{k23456}J_{k23456}\delta^{k23}_{456} \right),$$ where $J_{k23456}\delta^{k23}_{456} = \langle c^*_kc_2^*c_3^*c_4c_5c_6 \rangle$.

Assuming a Gaussian wave field, one can take $J_{k23456}$ to the zeroth order $J^{(0)}_{k23456}$, which is simplified via Gaussian statistics to a product of three pair correlators, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rpa}
J^{(0)}_{k23456}&=&n_2n_3n_4\big[\delta^k_4\left(\delta^2_5\delta^3_6+\delta^2_6\delta^3_5\right)\nonumber\\
&+&\delta^k_5\left(\delta^2_4\delta^3_6+\delta^2_6\delta^3_4\right)+\delta^k_6\left(\delta^2_4\delta^3_5+\delta^2_5\delta^3_4\right)\big].
\end{aligned}$$ However, due to the symmetry of $C_{k23456}$ this makes the right hand side of kinetic equation () zero. To find a nontrivial answer we need to obtain a first order addition $J^{(1)}_{k23456}$ to $J_{k23456}$. To calculate $J^{(1)}_{k23456}$ one takes the time derivative of $J_{k23456}$, using the equation of motion () of the canonical variable $c_k$, and insert the zeroth order approximation for the tenth correlation function (this is similar to equation (), but a product of five pair correlators involving ten wavevectors). $J^{(1)}_{k23456}$ can then be written as

$$\label{eq:integratedJ}
J^{(1)}_{k23456}=Be^{i\Delta\omega t}+\frac{A_{k23456}}{\Delta\omega},$$ where $\Delta\omega=\omega_k+\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_4-\omega_5-\omega_6$ and
$A_{k23456}= 3C^*_{k23456}n_k n_2 n_3 n_4 n_5 n_6 \left[{1 \over n_k}+{1 \over n_2}+{1 \over n_3}-{1 \over n_4}-{1 \over n_5}-{1 \over n_6} \right]$. The first term of () is a fast oscillating function, its contribution to the integral () decreases with $z$ and is negligible at $z$ larger than $1/\omega_k$, and as a result we will ignore the contribution arising from this term. The second term is substituted back into equation (), the relation $Im(\Delta\omega)\sim -\pi\delta(\Delta\omega)$ is applied because of integration around the pole, and the kinetic equation is derived,

$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{n}_k &=& 18 \pi \int dk_{23456} \; |C_{k23456}|^2 \;
\delta^{k23}_{456} \; \delta(\omega^{k23}_{456}) \; f_{k23456},
\label{eq:ke}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $f_{k23456}=n_k n_2 n_3 n_4 n_5 n_6 \left[{1 \over n_k}+{1 \over n_2}
+{1 \over n_3}-{1 \over n_4}-{1 \over n_5}-{1 \over n_6} \right]$ and $\delta(\omega^{k23}_{456})=\delta(\omega_k+\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_4-\omega_5-\omega_6)$.

A simple dimensional analysis of () gives $$\dot{n}_k \sim k^{14} n_k^5,
\label{eq:dim}$$ which is the same form obtained from the full BSE .

In wave turbulence theory, one is concerned with non-equilibrium steady state solutions of the kinetic equation (). These solutions, that rely on a constant (non-zero) flux in some inertial range are known as Kolmogorov-Zakharov (KZ) solutions. In addition, the kinetic equation () contains additional solutions that correspond to the thermodynamical equipartition of energy and wave action. These equilibrium solutions stem from the limiting cases of the more generalised Rayleigh-Jeans distribution

$$\label{eq:rj}
n_k = \frac{T}{\omega_k + \mu },$$ where $T$ is the temperature of the system and $\mu$ is a chemical potential.

To find the KZ solutions, one can apply a dimensional argument on both energy and wave action fluxes. The energy flux at wavenumber $k$ is defined as $\Pi^{(H)}_k = \int dk' \dot{n}_{k'} \omega_{k'}$ which, using (), becomes $\Pi^{(H)}_k \sim k^{17} n_{k}^5$. By requiring the existence of a range of scales in which the energy flux is $k$-independent leads to the spectrum $$n_k \sim k^{-17/5},
\label{eq:spdir}$$ which, again, is the same form obtained from the full BSE .

A similar argument can be applied to the wave action () whose flux is $\Pi^{(N)}_k = \int dk' \dot{n}_{k'} \sim k^{15} n_{k}^5$. Therefore a scale independent flux of wave action requires a spectrum $$n_k \sim k^{-3},
\label{eq:spinv}$$ A word of caution is due about both spectra () and () because the dimensional analysis does not actually guarantee that they are true solutions of the kinetic equation. To check if these spectra are real solutions (and therefore physically relevant) one has to prove their *locality* i.e. convergence of the kinetic equation integral on these spectra. This has not been done yet, neither for the full BSE nor for the truncated-LIA model, and this is especially worrying since the spectrum () has already been accepted by sizable part of the quantum turbulence community and has been used in further theoretical constructions. We announce that there is a work in progress to check locality of spectra () and () in both the BSE and truncated-LIA settings. However, as we will see later, at least for the truncated-LIA these spectra are observed numerically, so we will tentatively assume that they are true and relevant solution.

The two spectra () and () occur in different scale ranges and the two cascades develop in opposite directions, as in the case of two-dimensional turbulence . Among the two conserved quantities, the largest contribution to energy comes from smaller scales than those that contribute to wave action (because the former contains the field derivatives). Therefore, according to the Fjørtoft argument , we expect to have a *direct cascade* of energy with a $k^{-17/5}$ spectrum flowing to large $k$ and an *inverse cascade* of wave action with spectrum $k^{-3}$ flowing to small $k$.

# Numerical Results for Truncated-LIA

In the following we will consider numerical simulations of the system () under the conditions in which a stationary turbulent cascade develops. Energy and wave action are injected in the vortex filament by a white-in-time external forcing $\phi(z,t)$ acting on a narrow band of wavenumbers around a given $k_f$. In order to have a stationary cascade, we need additional terms which remove $H$ and $N$ at small and large scales. The equation of motion obtained from () is therefore modified as $$\dot{w} = {i \over 2} \left[ w' \left( 1 - {1 \over 2} |w'|^2 \right)
\right]' - (-1)^p \nu \nabla^{2p} w - \alpha w + \phi.
\label{eq:liatot}$$ In () the small scale dissipative term (with $p > 1$) physically represents the radiation of phonons (at a rate proportional to $\nu$) and the large scale damping term can be interpreted as the friction induced by normal fluid at a rate $\alpha$.

Assuming the spectra () and (), a simple dimensional analysis gives the IR and UV cutoff induced by the dissipative terms. The direct cascade is removed at a scale $k_{\nu} \sim \nu^{-5/(10p-2)}$ while the inverse cascade is stopped at $k_{\alpha} \sim \alpha^{1/2}$. Therefore, in an idealized realization of infinite resolution one would obtain a double cascade by keeping $k_f=O(1)$ and letting $\nu,\alpha \to 0$. In order to have an extended inertial range, in finite resolution numerical simulations we will restrict ourselves to resolve a single cascade at a time by putting either $k_f \simeq k_{\alpha}$ or $k_f \simeq k_{\nu}$ for the direct and inverse cascades respectively.

We have developed a numerical code which integrates the equation of motion () by means of a pseudospectral method for a periodic vortex filament of length $2 \pi$ with a resolution of $M$ points. The linear and dissipative terms are integrated explicitly while the nonlinear term is solved by a second-order Runge-Kutta time scheme. The vortex filament is initially a straight line ($w(z,t=0)=0$) and long time integration is performed until a stationary regime (indicated by the values of $H$ and $N$) is reached. The ratio between the two terms in the series () is $H_1/H_2 \simeq 20$, confirming *a posteriori* the validity of the perturbative series () and the condition of the small amplitude perturbation $\epsilon \ll 1$ in the derivation of equation ().

The first set of simulations is devoted to the study of the direct cascade. Energy fluctuations are injected at a forcing wavenumber $k_f \simeq 2$ and the friction coefficient $\alpha$ is set in order to have $k_{\alpha} \simeq k_f$. Energy is removed at small scales by hyperviscosity of order $p=4$ which restricts the range of dissipation to the wavenumber in a close vicinity of $k_{max}$.

In Figure  we plot the wave action spectrum for the direct cascade simulation, averaged over time in stationary conditions. A well developed power law spectrum very close to prediction () is observed over more than one decade (see inset). This spectrum confirms the existence of non-trivial dynamics with six-wave processes for the truncated Hamiltonian ().

The direct cascade of the full Biot-Savart Hamiltonian () was discussed by Kozik and Svistunov who gave the dimensional prediction () , who later performed a numerical simulation of the nonlocal BSE to confirm the scaling .

We now turn to the simulation for the inverse cascade regime. To obtain an inverse cascade, forcing is concentrated at small scales, here $k_f=300$. In order to avoid finite size effects and accumulation at the largest scale , the friction coefficient is chosen in such a way that wave action is removed at a scale $k_{\alpha}\simeq 10$. Figure  shows the spectrum for this inverse cascade in stationary conditions. In the compensated plot, a small deviation from the power-law scaling at small wavenumbers is observed, probably due to the presence of condensation ("inverse bottleneck") . Nevertheless, a clear scaling compatible with the dimensional analysis of the kinetic equation is observed over about a decade.

# Differential Approximation Model

Differential Approximation Models (DAMs) have proved to be a very useful tool in the analysis of fluid dynamical and wave turbulence . These equations are constructed using a differential closure, such that the main scalings of the original closure (kinetic equation in our case) are preserved. In addition, there exist a family of simpler or reduced DAMs for which rigourous analysis can be performed upon their solutons. These appears to be quite helpful when the full details about the dynamics are not needed. Moreover, due to the DAMs simplicity, one can add physically relevant forcing and dissipative terms to the models.

For the Kelvin wave spectra () and (), including the thermodynamical equipartition solutions (), the corresponding DAM is $$\label{completeDAM}
\frac{\partial n_\omega}{\partial t} = \frac{C}{\kappa^{10}}\omega^{1/2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \omega^2}\left(n^6_\omega\omega^{21/2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \omega ^2}\frac{1}{n_\omega}\right),$$ where $\kappa$ is the vortex line circulation, $C$ is a dimensionless constant and $\omega=\omega(k)=\kappa k^2 /{4\pi}$ is the Kelvin wave frequency. Notice, that the DAM is written in terms of frequency $\omega$, rather than the wavenumber $k$, as in the case of the kinetic equation ().

Equation () preserves the energy $$E = \int \omega^{1/2}n_\omega d \omega,$$ and wave action $$N = \int \omega^{-1/2}n_\omega d \omega.$$

The forcing of Kelvin waves on quantized vortices arises from sharp cusps produced by vortex reconnections . These reconnections can be interpreted in the DAM by the addition of the term $$\left[\frac{\partial n_\omega}{\partial t}\right]_{forcing}=\lambda \omega^{-2}.$$ The transfer of energy flux in the Kelvin wave turbulence proceeds towards high wavenumbers until, the Kelvin wave frequencies become large enough to excite phonons in the fluid and thus dissipate the energy of the Kelvin waves into the surrounding fluid. One can introduce sound dissipation derived from the theory of Lighthill in classical hydrodynamical turbulence , and in the context of quantum turbulence has been done in . This corresponds to the addition of the following term to the DAM $$\label{}
\left[\frac{\partial n_\omega}{\partial t}\right]_{radiation}=-\nu\omega^{5}n_\omega^2.$$ (This expression is slightly corrected with respect to the relation $\sim \omega^{9/5}n_\omega^2$ of the one introduced dimensionally in to make it consistent with the more rigorous analysis of ).

Finally, one can add an addition term that describes the effect of friction with the normal fluid component as follows, $$\left[\frac{\partial n_\omega}{\partial t}\right]_{friction}=-\alpha\omega n_\omega.$$

Thus, one may write a generalized DAM as $$\label{general}
\frac{\partial n_\omega}{\partial t}=F(n_\omega, \omega)+\lambda\omega^{-2}-\nu\omega^{5}n_\omega^2-\alpha\omega n_\omega.$$ where the nonlinear function $F(n_\omega, \omega)$ is the interaction term, which in the case of the complete DAM is the RHS of equation ().

Other (reduced) DAMs include either, solutions for the direct and inverse cascade and no (thermo) equipartition solutions as in $$\label{DAMinv}
F(n_\omega,\omega)= \omega^{-1/2} \partial_\omega \big(n_\omega^4 \omega^8 \partial_\omega(\omega^{3/2} n_\omega) \big),$$ or just the direct energy cascade and the corresponding energy thermo solution (and no inverse cascade solutions): $$\label{DAMwarm}
F(n_\omega,\omega)= \omega^{-1/2} \partial_\omega \big(n_\omega^4 \omega^{17/2} \partial_\omega(\omega n_\omega) \big).$$

These have the advantage of only containing second order derivatives, and as such one may find analytical solutions for the steady state dynamics. For example, for model () we can ask the question, how does the vortex reconnection forcing build the energy flux in frequency space? For this, we leave the nonlinear transfer and the reconnection forcing terms and drop the dissipation term, and find a solution for the energy flux $\epsilon_\omega$: $$\label{e-flux}
      \epsilon_\omega = \epsilon_0 -\lambda \omega^{-1/2}$$ and the wave action density $n_\omega$: $$\label{sol}
      n_\omega = 10^{1/5} \omega^{-3/2} \big(\epsilon_0 \omega^{-1} -\frac{2}{3} \lambda \omega^{-3/2} -\eta_0 \big)^{1/5}$$ where $\epsilon_0$ and $\eta_0$ are the asymptotic values of the energy and wave action fluxes respectively.

For equation (), without any forcing or dissipation terms, we find that the corresponding analytical steady state solution is $$\label{bottle1}
n_\omega = A\omega^{-17/10}+B\omega^{-1},$$ which is a "warm cascade" solution, i.e. a direct energy cascade gradually transitioning into a thermalized "bottleneck" over a range of scales .

# Numerical Results for DAMs

We performed numerical simulations of the DAMs (), () and (), using a second order finite difference method. We set the resolution at $M=1024$ points, while the phonon radiation dissipation term acts in the range $\omega > \omega_\nu = 800$. The parameters $\lambda$, $\nu$ and the estimated asymptotic values of the fluxes $\epsilon_0$, $\eta_0$ are listed in Table 1. The factor $C/\kappa^{10}$ of equation () has been fixed to unity.

|  | Reduced DAM | Complete DAM |
|:---|:--:|:--:|
| Resolution | $M=1024$ | $M=1024$ |
| Forcing amplitude | $\lambda=2\times10^{-9}$ | $\lambda=1\times10^{-9}$ |
| Viscosity | $\nu=2\times10^{-12}$ | $\nu=1\times10^{-12}$ |
| Energy flux | $\epsilon_0\simeq1.66\times10^{-9}$ | $\epsilon_0\simeq0.66\times10^{-9}$ |
| Waveaction flux | $\eta_0\simeq1.8\times10^{-12}$ | $\eta_0\simeq0.75\times10^{-12}$ |

Parameters and fluxes of the simulations for DAM models with $\nu \ne 0$

Initially, we simulate both the complete DAM () and the reduced DAM (), with forcing, without friction, but with and without the dissipative term for phonon radiation. The results for the energy flux and the spectrum for the complete DAM are shown in Figure  (results for the reduced DAM are nearly identical and, therefore, are not shown). The top panel in Figure  shows the energy flux. We see a good agreement with the analytical prediction () over a large intermediate range of scales. In the case without the phonon dissipation, the numerical result for the energy flux follows perfectly the analytical prediction at high frequencies. In the case with the phonon dissipation, the agreement with the analytical prediction () is good in a long range up to very high frequencies, where the phonon dissipation suddenly kicks in. Such a sudden onset of dissipation is due to the abrupt growth of the phonon radiation term as a function of the frequency. The wave action spectra are shown in the bottom panel of Figure . We see a good agreement with the analytical solution () where $\eta_0$ is taken to be zero (flux of wave action $\eta_0$ could only be generated by an extra forcing at the high-frequency end, which is absent in our case). We observe only a slightly steeper spectrum of $n_\omega\sim \omega^{-1.73}$ compared with the analytical prediction of the direct energy cascade $n_\omega\sim \omega^{-17/10}$. This agreement is remarkable because the solution () is strictly valid only for the reduced and not the complete DAM. This shows that the reduced DAM does pretty well in predicting the behaviour of the more complete nonlinear model. Naturally, in the case with the phonon dissipation, we see a deviation from the analytical solution at very small scales (a rather sharp cut-off).

In Figure  we show the effect of switching on the friction term ($\alpha \neq 0$) for the complete DAM (again, results for the reduced DAM are very similar and are not shown). We see that the presence of the friction has the effect of reducing the energy flux in a large region from frequencies of around $\omega \approx 10$ upwards. Although the flux is reduced, we see that the spectrum has only a slight deviation from the predicted slope ().

Finally we consider another DAM model, (), which contains only the direct and the thermodynamical bottleneck (or warm cascade) of energy. We force the system as usual, however, the simulation is composed of two phases: the first is to get a direct cascade steady state, then lowering the viscosity $\nu$ (i.e. dissipation at small scales) and then turning on the reflecting energy flux boundary condition at the smallest scale $\omega=\omega_{MAX}=M$, after which the system evolves to a secondary steady state (). In Figure  we see a clear transition from the KZ solution towards the thermalized spectrum. The bottom panel is a zoomed in section of the crossover using a compensated spectrum, so that one can clearly make the distinction between the two power laws. We see a good agreement with the predicted power law behaviour of the KZ solution and of the thermalized solution.

# Conclusions

In summary, we have introduced and studied various reduced models for Kelvin wave turbulence. Firstly, we introduced a truncated-LIA model for Kelvin wave turbulence, which we have shown to exhibit the same scalings and dynamical features present in the conventional BSE. We have used this model for numerical simulations of the direct and the inverse cascades and found spectra which are in very good agreement with the predictions of the WT theory. Secondly, we discussed differential approximation models, and introduced three such models to describe various settings of Kelvin wave turbulence, such as the direct energy cascade generated by vortex reconnections and dissipated via phonon radiation or/and the mutual friction with the normal liquid, as well as the bottleneck effect when the energy flux is reflected from the smallest scale. We performed numerical simulations of these cases, which showed good agreements with the predicted analytical solutions.

# Appendix A - Interaction Coefficients in Biot-Savart model

In this Appendix we review and extend the work of Kozik and Svistunov on the Kelvin wave cascade (KS$04$) . They considered the full Biot-Savart Hamiltonian () in $2$D, and simplified the denominator by Taylor expansion. The criterion for Kelvin-wave turbulence is that the wave amplitude is small compared to wavelength, this is formulated as: $$\epsilon(z_1,z_2)=\frac{|w(z_1)-w(z_2)|}{|z_1-z_2|}\ll 1.$$

KS$04$ find the Biot-Savart Hamiltonian () expanded in powers of $\epsilon$ ($H={H}_0+{H}_1+{H}_2+{H}_3$, here ${H}_0$ is just a number and is ignored) is represented as:

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:KS04Ham}
{H}_1&=&\frac{\kappa}{8\pi}\int \frac{d z_1 d z_2}{|z_1-z_2|}\left[2Re\left(w^{'*}(z_1)w^{'}(z_2)\right)-\epsilon^2\right],\nonumber\\
{H}_2&=&\frac{\kappa}{32\pi}\int \frac{d z_1 d z_2}{|z_1-z_2|}\left[3\epsilon^4-4\epsilon^2Re\left(w^{'*}(z_1)w^{'}(z_2)\right)\right],\\
{H}_3&=&\frac{\kappa}{64\pi}\int \frac{d z_1 d z_2}{|z_1-z_2|}\left[6\epsilon^4Re\left(w^{'*}(z_1)w^{'}(z_2)\right)-5\epsilon^6\right]\nonumber.
\end{aligned}$$

One would like to deal with the wave-interaction Hamiltonian () in Fourier space by introducing the wave amplitude variable $w_k$. Using the Fourier representation for variables $w(z_1)=\int dk w_k e^{ikz_1}$ and $w(z_2)=\int dk w_k e^{ikz_2}$ in equations (), one introduces more integration variables, the wavenumbers. Moreover, invoking a cutoff at $a<|z_1-z_2|$ because of the singularity present in the Biot-Savart Hamiltonian () as $|z_1-z_2|\rightarrow 0$, KS$04$ derived the coefficients of $H_1$, $H_2$ and $H_3$ in terms of cosines in Fourier space . Once the equations () are written in terms of wave amplitudes, one can define variables $z_-$ and $z_+$ as variables $z_-=|z_1-z_2|$ which ranges from $a$ to $\infty$ and $z_+=z_1+z_2$ ranging from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. One can then decomposes all variables of type $z_1$ and $z_2$ into variables $z_+$ and $z_-$. The cosine functions arise due to the collection of exponentials with powers in variable $z_-$. Subsequently, the remaining exponentials with powers of variable $z_+$ can be integrated out w.r.t. $z_+$, yielding the corresponding delta function for the conservation of wavenumbers. The explicit formulae of the four-wave $W_{1234}$, and the six-wave $T_{123456}$ interaction coefficients derived by Kozik and Svistunov can be written as:

$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_k &=& \frac{\kappa}{2\pi}\left[A-B\right],\label{KSOmega}\\
W_{1234}&=&\frac{\kappa}{16\pi}\left[6D-E\right],\label{KSW}\\
T_{123456}&=&\frac{\kappa}{16\pi}\left[3P-5Q\right]\label{KST},
\end{aligned}$$ where $A$, $B$, $D$, $E$, $P$ and $Q$ are integrals of cosines:

$$\begin{aligned}
A &=& \int_a^\infty \frac{dz_-}{z_-}k^2C^k,\label{eq:A}\\
B &=& \int_a^\infty \frac{dz_-}{z^3_-}\left[1-C^k\right],\label{eq:B}\\
D &=& \int_a^\infty \frac{dz_-}{z_-^5}\left[1-C_1-C_2-C^3-C^4+C^3_2+C^{43}+C^4_2\right],\label{eq:D}\\
E &=& \int_a^\infty \frac{dz_-}{z_-^3}[k_1k_4\left(C^4+C_1-C^{43}-C^4_2\right)+k_1k_3\left(C^3+C_1-C^{43}-C^3_2\right)+\nonumber\\
&& +k_3k_2\left(C^3+C_2-C^{43}-C^3_1\right)+k_4k_2\left(C^4+C_2-C^{43}-C^3_2\right)],\label{eq:E}\\
P &=& \int_a^\infty\frac{dz_-}{z_-^5}k_6k_2[C_2-C^5_2-C_{23}+C^5_{23}-C^4_2+C^{45}_2+C^4_{23}-C^6_1+C^6-C^{56}-\nonumber\\
&&-C^6_3+C^{56}_3-C^{46}+C^{456}+C^{46}_3-C_{12}],\label{eq:P}\\
Q &=& \int_a^\infty\frac{dz_-}{z_-^7}[1-C^4-C_1+C^4_1-C^6+C^{46}+C^6_1-C^{46}_1-C^5+C^{45}+C^5_1-C^{45}_1+\nonumber\\
&&+C^{65}-C^{456}-C^{56}_1+C_{23}-C_3+C^4_3+C_{13}-C^4_{13}+C^6_3-C^{46}_3-C^6_{13}+C^5_2+\nonumber \\
&&+C^5_3-C^{45}_3-C^5_{13}+C^6_2-C^{56}_3+C_{12}+C^4_2-C_2]\label{eq:Q},
\end{aligned}$$ where the variable, $z_- = |z_1-z_2|$ and the expressions $C$, are cosine functions such that $C_1 = \cos(k_1z_-)$, $C^4_1 = \cos((k_4-k_1)z_-)$, $C^{45}_1=\cos((k_4+k_5-k_1)z_-)$, $C^{45}_{12}=\cos((k_4+k_5-k_1-k_2)z_-)$ and so on.

We integrate the Fourier representations of $H_1$, $H_2$ and $H_3$, namely equations (), (), (), (), () and () using integration by parts, and apply the following cosine identity ,

$$\begin{aligned}
\int_a^\infty\frac{\cos(z)}{z}dz &=& -\gamma-\ln(a)-\int_0^a\frac{\cos(z)-1}{z}dz\nonumber\\
&=& -\gamma-\ln(a)-\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{\left(-a^2\right)^k}{2k\left(2k\right)!}\nonumber\\
&=& -\gamma-\ln(a)+\mathcal{O}(a^2).
\end{aligned}$$ Neglecting terms of order $\sim a^2$ and higher we calculate the frequency and interaction coefficients of equations () $$\begin{aligned}
{H}_1 &=&\int \omega_k |w_k|^2 d k,\\
{H}_2 &=&\int d k_{1234}W_{1234}w^*_1w^*_2w_3w_4\delta^{12}_{34} ,\\
{H}_3 &=&\int d k_{123456}C_{123456}w^*_1w^*_2w^*_3w_4w_5w_6\delta^{123}_{456},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_k &=& \frac{\kappa}{4\pi}k^2\left[\ln\left(\frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}a}\right)-\gamma -\frac{3}{2}\right]- \frac{\kappa k^2}{4\pi}\ln\left(\frac{k}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right),\label{eq:BSomega}\\
W_{1234} &=& \frac{\kappa}{64\pi}k_1k_2k_3k_4\left[1+4\gamma-4\ln\left(\frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}a}\right)\right]+F_{1234},\label{eq:BSW}\\
C_{123456}&=& \frac{\kappa}{128\pi}k_1k_2k_3k_4k_5k_6\left[1-4\gamma+4\ln\left(\frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}a}\right)\right] + G_{123456}.\label{eq:BST}
\end{aligned}$$ We use the notation that $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the mean value of wavenumbers, $\gamma=0.5772\dots$ is the Euler constant and $F_{1234}$ and $G_{123456}$ are logarithmic terms of order one that are shown below, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1234}&=&-\frac{\kappa}{16\pi}\Big[6\sum_{N \in I}\frac{N^4}{24}\ln\left(\frac{N}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)+\sum_{N \in J}k_ik_j\frac{N^2}{2}\ln\left(\frac{N}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\Big],
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
G_{123456}&=&-\frac{\kappa}{16\pi}\Big[3\sum_{N \in K}k_6k_2\frac{N^4}{24}\ln\left(\frac{N}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right) +5\sum_{N \in L}\frac{N^6}{720}\ln\left(\frac{N}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\Big],
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&\left\{ -[_1],-[_2],-[^3],-[^4],[^3_2],[^{43}],[^4_2] \right\},\\
J&=&\Big\{ \left\{[^4], [_1], -[^{43}],-[^4_2]\right\}_{i=4,j=1},\nonumber\\
&&\left\{[^3], [_1], -[^{43}],-[^3_2]\right\}_{i=3,j=1},\nonumber\\
&&\left\{[^3], [_2], -[^{43}],-[^3_1]\right\}_{i=3,j=2},\nonumber\\
&&\left\{[^4], [_2], -[^{43}],-[^4_1]\right\}_{i=4,j=2}\Big\},\\
K&=&\Big\{ [_2],-[^5_2],-[_{23}],[^5_{23}],-[^4_2],[^{45}_2],[^4_{23}],-[^6_1],[^6],-[^{56}],-[^6_3],\nonumber \\
&&[^{56}_3],-[^{46}],[^{456}],[^{46}_3],-[_{12}]\Big\},\\
L&=&\Big\{ -[^4],-[_1],[^4_1],-[^6],[^{46}],[^6_1],-[^{46}_1],-[^5],[^{45}],[^5_1],-[^{45}_1],\nonumber\\
&&[^{65}],-[^{456}],-[^{56}_1],[_{23}],-[_3],[^4_3],[_{13}],-[^4_{13}],[^6_3],-[^{46}_3],\nonumber\\
&&-[^6_{13}],[^5_2],[^5_3],-[^{45}_3],-[^5_{13}],[^6_2],-[^{65}_3],[_{12}],[^4_2],-[_2]\Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ The notation used for the logarithmic terms is as follows, for $N\in K = \pm[^{pq}_r]$, the corresponding term in $G_{123456}$ is $$\mp\frac{3\kappa}{16\pi}k_6k_2\frac{(k_p+k_q-k_r)^4}{24}\ln\left(\frac{k_p+k_q-k_r}{k_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right).$$

We checked numerically that after the canonical transformation of the four-wave dynamics, that in the full six-wave interaction coefficient $C_{123456}$, the LIA contribution, which is of order $\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})=\ln(\/k_{\mathrm{eff}}a)$ in the interaction coefficient () directly cancels with the LIA contribution from the six-wave interaction in (). The canonical transformation, which is explicitly written in the main text, equation () can be expanded by the means of a small parameter $1/\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$. We expand the denominator, which is just a function of the linear frequency around the $\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$ contribution,

$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_k &\sim  &k^2\left[\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})+A\right],\\
\frac{1}{\omega_k} &\sim & \frac{1}{\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})}-\frac{A}{\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})^2}.
\end{aligned}$$

Using this strategy, we can represent the final six-wave contribution in terms of powers of $1/\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$. We find in this case that the leading term of order $\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$, which corresponds to the local dynamics drops out, and the next leading order is of order unity. Moreover, we find that this leading contribution to the six-wave interaction coefficient, which is $\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$ independent is also $k_\mathrm{eff}$ independent.

Unfortunately, there is no magic cancelations or simplifications in the resulting six-wave coefficient and it remains extremely large and complicated even after the integrations and the asymptotical limits of large $\Lambda(k_\mathrm{eff})$ taken in this Appendix. This is why we think that the truncated-LIA model, where the six-wave coefficient is simply the product of the six wavenumbers, is helpful for understanding the basic properties of Kelvin wave turbulence, before a more complete model based on the BSE can be attacked. However, we think that the derivations made in this Appendix will help us to at least establish whether or not the KZ spectra of Kelvin wave turbulence are local or nonlocal, and a work is underway in this direction.

# Appendix B - Integrability of $2$D-LIA

We show the details of the derivation that the LIA of the BSE yields the $2$D-LIA model (), i.e. that the cutoff operation commutes with making the $2$D reduction. In view of the integrability of the original LIA, this amounts to a proof of integrability of the $2$D-LIA model ().

The LIA of the BSE can be written as

$$\label{eq:LIAofBSE}
\dot{\bf r}= \beta {\bf r}'\times {\bf r}'',$$ where the notation for the differentiation operator $'$ is $d/dl$, and where $l =\left(1+|{\bf w}|^2\right)^{-1/2}$ is the arc length. The two-dimensional representation of a vortex line can be described by a vector ${\bf r}=z\hat{z}+{\bf w}$. The vector ${\bf w} = (x(z),y(z))$ being a function of $z$, orientated in the $xy$-plane.

Applying the chain rule to rewrite all derivatives to be with respect to $z$ (from this point on $'$ will refer to $d/dz$), LIA can be written as $$\label{eq:rdot}
\dot{{\bf r}}=\beta\left[\left(1+|{\bf w}'|
^2\right)^{-3/2}(\hat{z}\times{\bf w}''+{\bf w}'\times{\bf w}'')\right].$$ With a little geometrical intuition , one can show $\dot{{\bf w}}=\dot{\bf r} - (\dot{\bf r}\cdot\hat{z})(\hat{z}+{\bf w}')$. In addition, both ${\bf w}'$ and ${\bf w}''$ are perpendicular to $\hat{z}$ direction, thus, one can represent ${\bf w}'\times {\bf w}''=(({ \bf w}'\times {\bf w}'')\cdot\hat{z})\hat{z}=A\hat{z}$. Then equation () can be reduced to $$\label{eq:wdotfinal}
\dot{\bf w}=\beta \left(1+|{\bf w}'|^2\right)^{-3/2}\left[\hat{z}\times{\bf w}''-A{\bf w}'\right].$$

We will now show that equation () is equivalent to equation (). First, we must change our representation of $w$ from a complex variable $w(z)=x(z)+iy(z)$ to vector notation ${\bf w}=(x(z),y(z))$. Equation () is equivalent to $$\label{eq:com2vec}
\dot{\bf w}=\frac{1}{2}\hat{z}\times \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(
\frac{{\bf w}'}{\sqrt{1+|{\bf w}'|^2}}\right).$$ Expanding, keeping track of $\beta$ and applying the vector identity $({\bf a}\times{\bf b})\times {\bf c}=({\bf c}\cdot {\bf a}){\bf b}-( {\bf c}\cdot {\bf b}) {\bf a}$, equation () can be rewritten as $$\dot{\bf w}=\beta \left(1+|{\bf w}'|^2\right)^{-3/2}\left[\hat{z}\times {\bf w}''-A{\bf w}'\right].$$ This is exactly the same result as Equation (). The $2$D-LIA model () is equivalent to the LIA of the BSE () and so the $2$D-LIA model is indeed integrable. We remind, however, that both models () and () can only be used continuously until the moment when they predict self-crossings of vortex lines (absent in weak turbulence), and therefore the integrability of these models may only be used for predicting the vortex line motion in between of the reconnection events (see the footnote on page 4).

[^1]: Weakness of waves implies that there are no vortex line reconnections. On the other hand, for strong waves the reconnections can occur and they could qualitatively be described by the self-crossing solutions of LIA . At self-crossing events, the LIA model fails, but it can be "reset" via an *ad hoc* reconnection procedure .


# Abstract

Out of nearly 70,000 bills introduced in the U.S. Congress from 2001 to 2015, only 2,513 were enacted. We developed a machine learning approach to forecasting the probability that any bill will become law. Starting in 2001 with the 107th Congress, we trained models on data from *previous* Congresses, predicted all bills in the *current* Congress, and repeated until the 113th Congress served as the test. For prediction we scored each sentence of a bill with a language model that embeds legislative vocabulary into a high-dimensional, semantic-laden vector space. This language representation enables our investigation into which words increase the probability of enactment for any topic. To test the relative importance of text and context, we compared the text model to a context-only model that uses variables such as whether the bill's sponsor is in the majority party. To test the effect of changes to bills after their introduction on our ability to predict their final outcome, we compared using the bill text and meta-data available at the time of introduction with using the most recent data. At the time of introduction context-only predictions outperform text-only, and with the newest data text-only outperforms context-only. Combining text and context always performs best. We conducted a global sensitivity analysis on the combined model to determine important variables predicting enactment.

# Introduction

The U.S. legislative branch creates laws that impact the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly affected the health care industry and individuals' health insurance coverage. Bills often consist of hundreds of pages of dense legal language. In fact, the ACA is more than 900 pages long. There are thousands of bills under consideration at any given time and only about 4% will become law. Furthermore, the number of bills introduced is trending upward (see S1 Appendix), exacerbating the problem of determining what text is relevant. Given the complexity, length, and vast quantity of bills, a machine learning approach that leverages bill text is well-suited to forecast bill success and identify the important predictive variables. Despite rapid advancement of machine learning methods, it's difficult to outperform naive forecasts of rare events because of inherent variability in complex social processes and because relationships learned from historical data can change without warning and invalidate models applied to future circumstances.

Due to the complexity of law-making and the aleatory uncertainty in the underlying social systems, we predict enactment probabilistically. It's important to make *probabilistic* predictions for high consequence events because even small changes in probabilities for events with extreme implications can have large expected values. For instance, the 2009 stimulus bill cost \$831 billion so even a 0.1 change in the predicted probability of this bill corresponds to a \$83.1 billion dollar change in the expected value (the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences). Probabilities provide much more information than a simple "enact" or "not enact" prediction. Model performance metrics that don't use probabilities, such as accuracy, are not suitable measures of rare event predictive ability. For instance, a blunt "never enact" model has a seemingly impressive 96% accuracy rate on this data but incorrectly classifies all the enacted bills with incalculable effects on society.

Forecasting model performance should be estimated using multiple metrics on large amounts of test data measured *after* the data that was used to train the model. We trained models on Congresses prior to the Congress predicted, which simulated real-time deployment across 14 years and 68,863 bills. Starting with the 107th Congress (2001–2003), models were sequentially trained on data from *previous* Congresses and tested on all bills in the *current* Congress. This was repeated seven times until the most recently completed Congress – the 113th (2013–2015) – served as the test. To estimate performance, we compared a baseline model to our models across three performance measures that leverage predicted probabilities.

Although previous research found that bill text was useful for predicting whether bills will survive committee and for predicting roll call votes , these authors tested their models on much less data than we do and predicted more frequently observed events: getting out of committee is more common than being enacted and bills up for vote are a small subset of all bills introduced. It's not clear whether utilizing text models trained on previous Congresses will improve predictions of enactment of bills introduced in future Congresses beyond the predictive power of sponsorship, committee and other non-textual data. Text is noisy and completely different topics can be found within the same bill . However, we hypothesized that there are unique semantic and syntactic signatures that consistently differentiate successful bills. Our second hypothesis was concerned with the changes to bills over their lives. Some bills, e.g. the ACA, are only a few pages when introduced but are hundreds of pages when enacted. However, 87% of bill texts don't change after being introduced because they don't progress further in the law-making process. We hypothesized that using the most recently available version of bill text and metadata would lead to stronger predictive performance for text and context models. To test these hypotheses, we designed an experiment across two primary dimensions: *data type* (text-only, text and context, or context-only) and *time* (using oldest or newest bill data).

Analyzing a model that makes successful ex ante predictions can be more informative than ex-post interpretations of socio-political events (outside experiment-like settings) due to the over-fitting that plagues most modeling of observational data . However, because highly predictive models are often designed with only predictive power in mind, they rarely provide clear insights into relationships between predictor variables and the predicted outcome. When estimates of these relationships are provided for non-linear models, they are almost always measures of only magnitudes of the effects of predictor variables and not also the directions of the effects. Our work is not limited to raw predictive power. We estimate the *direction and magnitude* of the effect of each predictor variable in the model on the predicted probability of enactment. Furthermore, the text model reveals which words are more associated with enactment success.

# Methods and Data

## Model Training

### Word Vectors and Inversion of Language Models

Continuous-space vector representations of words can capture subtle semantics across the dimensions of the vector . To learn these representations, a neural network model predicts a target word with the mean of the representations of the surrounding words (e.g. vectors for the two words on either side of the target word in Fig. 1A.). The prediction errors are then back-propagated through the network to update the representations in the direction of higher probability of observing the target word . After randomly initializing representations and iterating this process over many word pairings, words with similar meanings are eventually located in similar locations in vector space as a by-product of the prediction task, which is called word2vec .

The only pre-processing we applied to text was removal of HTML, carriage returns, and whitespace, and conversion to lower-case. Then inversion of distributed language models was used for classification as described in . Distributed language models – mappings from words to $\mathbf{R}^d$ obtained by leveraging word co-occurrences – were separately fit to the sub-corpora of successful and failed bills by applying word2vec. Each sentence of a testing bill was scored with each trained language model and Bayes' rule was applied to these scores and prior probabilities for bill enactment to obtain posterior probabilities. The proportions of bills enacted in the same chamber as the predicted bill in all *previous* Congresses were used as the priors. The probabilities of enactment were then averaged across all sentences in a bill to assign an overall probability.

### Tree-based Models

Trees are decision rules that divide predictor variable space into regions by choosing variables and their threshold values on which to make binary splits . A tree model can learn interactions between predictors, unlike linear models where interactions must be manually specified, and is generally robust to the inclusion of variables unrelated to the outcome. A *gradient boosted machine* (GBM) improves an ensemble of weaker base models, often trees, by sequentially adjusting the training data based on the residuals of the preceding models . A *random forest* randomly samples observations from training data and grows a tree on each sample, forcing each tree to consider randomly selected sets of predictor variables at each split to reduce correlation between trees . GBMs and random forests can both learn non-linear functions but have different strengths: in general, random forests are more robust to outliers while GBMs can more effectively learn complex functions. A regularized logistic regression (elastic-net) with hyper-parameters ($\alpha$ = 0.5 and $\lambda$ = 1e-05) is also estimated to gain a complementary linear perspective .

Using the predictions from the inversion of the word vector language model (as described in Section 2.1.1.) as features allows the training process to learn interactions between contextual variables and textual probabilities. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis can then estimate the impact of text predictions on enactment probabilities along with the contextual predictors, controlling for the effect of the probability of the bill text when estimating non-textual effects.

### Ensemble Stacking

Random forests and GBMs combine weak learners to create a strong learner. Stacking combines strong learners to create a stronger learner. A cross-validation stacking process on the training data is used to learn a combination of the three base models to form a meta-predictor . Out-of-fold cross-validation predictions are made on the training data with the three base learners described above in Section 2.1.2 (the gradient boosted machine model, the random forest model, and the regularized logistic regression model). These predictions and the outcome vector are used to train the meta-learner, a regularized logistic regression with non-negative weights. Weights are forced to be non-negative because we assume all predictors should positively contribute. This entire learning process is conducted on data from prior Congresses. The model is applied to test data by making predictions with base learners and feeding those into the meta-learner (Fig. 1B.).

## Model Performance

We use the two most frequently applied binary classification probability scoring functions: the log score and the brier score (see S1 Appendix). For both, if a model assigns high probability to a failed bill it's penalized more than if it was less confident and if a model assigns high probability to an enacted bill it is rewarded more than if it wasn't confident. A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) is built from points that correspond to the true positive rate at varying false positive rate thresholds with the model's predictions sorted by the probability of the positive class (enacted bill) . Starting at the origin of the space of true positive rate against false positive rate, the prediction's impact on the rates results in a curve tracing vertically for a correct prediction and horizontally for an incorrect prediction. A perfect area under the ROC curve (AUC) is 1.0 and the worst is 0.5. AUC rewards models for being discriminative throughout the range of probabilities and is more appropriate than accuracy for imbalanced datasets.

## Analysis

### Text Model Similarity Analysis

We train language models with word2vec for enacted House bills, failed House bills, enacted Senate bills, and failed Senate bills and then investigate the most similar words within each of these four models to word vector combinations representing topics of interest. That is, for each of the four models, return a list of most similar words: $\arg\max_{v* \in V_{1:N}}{cos(v*, \frac{1}{W} \sum_{i=1}^{W} w_i \times s_i)}$, where $w_i$ is one of $W$ word vectors of interest, $V_{1:N}$ are the $N$ most frequent words in the vocabulary of $M$ words (rare words are retained to train the model, but $N$ is set to less than $M$ to exclude rare words during model analysis) excluding words corresponding to the $W$ query vectors, $s_i$ is *1* or *-1* for whether we are positively or negatively weighting $w_i$, and $cos(a, b) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{d} a_i \times b_i}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{d} a_i^2} \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{d} b_i^2}}$. For ease of comparison across enacted and failed categories we also remove words the two have in common.

### Full Model Sensitivity Analysis

We conduct a sensitivity analysis on our model of the legislative system by varying inputs to the model and measuring the effect on the output. If input values are varied one at a time, while keeping the others at "default values," sensitivities are conditional on the chosen default values . There are no sensible default values for the predictor variables. Instead of using default values of variables, we use empirically observed predictor variables and we predict the enactment of all the bills from Congresses 104-112. These predictions are a vector of predicted probabilities. The empirical predictors variable data and these associated predicted probabilities create a sufficiently large yet realistic set of observations for a global sensitivity analysis to determine the modeled effects of the predictors variables on the probability of enactment.

Next, we expand the factor variables out so each level is represented in the design matrix as a binary indicator variable. This allows us to estimate the effect of each level of a factor, e.g. the 39 subject categories. We add interaction terms between the Chamber and bill characteristics, e.g. whether the bill originated in the Senate and the number of characters, to estimate these interaction effects potentially automatically learned by the tree models. Finally, we estimate the relationship between the resulting matrix of input values and the vector of predicted probability outputs with a partial rank correlation coefficient (PRCC) analysis, which estimates the correlation between an input variable and the predicted probability of bill enactment, discounting the effects of the other inputs and allowing for potentially non-linear relationships by rank-transforming the data before model estimation . Partial correlation controls for the other predictor variables, $Z$, by computing the correlation between the *residuals* of regressing the predictor of interest, $x$, on $Z$ and the *residuals* of regressing the outcome (predicted probability of enactment) on $Z$. The PRCC analysis is bootstrapped 1,000 times to obtain 95% confidence intervals.

## Data

We include all House and Senate bills and exclude simple, joint, and concurrent resolutions because simple and concurrent resolutions do not have the force of law and joint resolutions are very rare. We downloaded all bill data (from the 103rd Congress through the 113th Congress) other than committee membership from govtrack.us/developers/data, which is created by scraping THOMAS.gov. We downloaded committee membership data from web.mit.edu/17.251/www/data_page.html .

There is often more than one version of the full text for each bill. In order to create a forecasting problem that predicts enactment as soon as possible, the earliest dated full text is used, which is, for more than 99% of the bills in the testing data, the text as it was introduced. To understand how much predictive power newer versions add, we collect the most recent version of each bill, which is, for 87% of the bills in the testing data, the version as introduced. Bills can change dramatically between the time of their introduction and the time of the last action taken on them. H.R. 3590 in the 111th Congress, was a short bill on housing tax changes for service members when it was introduced, and shortly before it was enacted it was the 906-page Affordable Care Act. H.R. 34 in the 114th Congress was originally introduced as the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act and was about 30 pages long. Shortly before it was enacted, H.R. 34 was the 312-page 21st Century Cures Act.

The full text of all introduced bills is only available starting with the 103rd Congress (1993–1995) and therefore this is the first Congress used to train language models. The 104th Congress is the first used to train the base models of the ensemble because they require the language model predictions and the language models need the 103rd for training. The 107th Congress (2001–2003) is the first to serve as a testing Congress because the full model needs multiple Congresses worth of data for training. We used the list of predictor variables from as a starting point for designing our feature set.

The following variables capture characteristics of a bill's sponsor and committee(s):

-   *region*: region corresponding to state the sponsor represents (5 levels).

-   *sponsorPartyProp*: proportion of chamber in sponsor's party (min: 0, median: 0.51, max: 0.59).

-   *sponsorTerms*: number of terms sponsor has served in Congress (only up to Congress being predicted to ensure model is only using data that would have been available at that time, min: 1, median: 6, max: 30).

-   *committeeSeniority*: mean length of time sponsor has been on the committees the bill is assigned to (min: 0, median: 0, max: 51). If not on committee, assigned 0.

-   *committeePosition*: out of any leadership position of sponsor on any committee bill is assigned to, lowest number on the "leadership codes" list in S1 Appendix (11 levels, e.g. Chairman).

-   *NotMajOnCom*: binary for whether sponsor is (*i*) *not* in majority party and (*ii*) on first listed committee bill is assigned to.

-   *MajOnCom*: binary for whether sponsor is (*i*) in majority party and (*ii*) on first listed committee bill is assigned to.

-   *numCosponsors*: number of co-sponsors (for oldest - min: 0, median: 2, max: 378; for newest - min: 1, median: 6, max: 432).

The following variables capture political and temporal context of bills:

-   *session*: Session (first or second) of Congress that corresponds to full text date, almost always the date bill was introduced for oldest data (for oldest - proportion in first session: 0.64; for newest - proportion in first session: 0.6).

-   *house*: binary for whether it's a House bill.

-   *month*: month bill is introduced.

The following variables capture aspects of bill content and characteristics:

-   *subjectsTopTerm*: official top subject term (36 levels).

-   *textLength*: number of characters in full text (for oldest - min: 119, median: 5,340, max: 2,668,424; for newest - min: 113, median: 5,454, max: 3,375,468).

# Results

## Prediction Experiments

Five models are compared across the two time conditions. *w2v* is the scoring of full bill text with an inversion of word2vec-learned language representations . We take this approach to textual prediction because it provides the capacity to conduct a semantic similarity text analysis across enacted and failed categories and can predict which sentences of a bill contribute most to enactment. *w2vTitle* is title-only scoring with the same method. *GLM* is a regularized non-negative generalized linear model (GLM) meta-learner over an ensemble of a regularized GLM, a gradient boosted machine and a random forest, which each use only the contextual variables (see Data section). *w2vGLM* is the same as *GLM* except the *w2v* and *w2vTitle* predictions are added as two more predictor variables for the three base learners. These are compared to a baseline, *null*, that uses the proportion of bills enacted in the same chamber as the predicted bill across all previous Congresses as the predicted probability. For instance, the proportion of bills enacted in the Senate from the 103rd to the 110th Congress was 0.04 and so this is the *null* predicted probability of enactment of a Senate bill in the 111th Congress. It's important to use Chamber-specific rates to improve *null* performance because bills originating in the House have a higher enactment rate.

Using only text outperforms using only context on two of three performance measures (AUC and Brier) for the newest data, while using only context outperforms only text on three measures for the oldest data (Fig. 2). Using text and context together, *w2vGLM*, outperforms all competitors on all measures for newest and oldest data (Table 1). When predicting enactment with the newest bill text and the updated number of cosponsors, text length and session, both models improved but *w2vGLM* and *w2v* improved dramatically. *w2vGLM* has the highest AUC, *w2v* has the second highest for predictions with new data and *GLM* has the second highest for predictions with old data.

| Model       | AUC  | MeanBrier | MeanLogLoss |
|:------------|:-----|:----------|:------------|
| w2vGLM      | 0.96 | 0.021     | 0.083       |
| w2v         | 0.93 | 0.027     | 0.127       |
| GLM         | 0.87 | 0.028     | 0.118       |
| w2vTitle    | 0.81 | 0.049     | Inf         |
| Null        | 0.58 | 0.035     | 0.157       |
| w2vGLMOld   | 0.85 | 0.029     | 0.122       |
| w2vOld      | 0.76 | 0.035     | 0.154       |
| GLMOld      | 0.83 | 0.031     | 0.131       |
| w2vTitleOld | 0.8  | 0.047     | Inf         |

Model performance comparison (n=68,863). Lower mean brier score (MeanBrier) and mean log loss (MeanLogLoss) is better and higher AUC is better. *w2vTitle* has infinite log loss due to making predictions with 0 and 1 probabilities. Two-sample t-tests with alternative hypotheses that *w2vGLM* outperforms its closest competitors are significant with p-values of 3.02e-53 (log loss newest data), 3.65e-26 (brier loss newest data), 9.73e-04 (log loss oldest data) and 5.36e-03 (brier loss oldest data).

Predicted probabilities of *w2vGLM* range from 0.01 to 0.99. In fact, the majority of the predicted probabilities are near 0 and 1 (S1 Appendix). This is impressive given that it still maintains overall high performance on log and brier scoring, which significantly penalize models for high probability predictions on the wrong side of 0.5. The central tendencies of the predicted probabilities (mean = 0.05, and median = 0.01) are close to the observed frequency of bill enactment, 0.04. The median of the predicted probabilities where the true outcome was not enact (0.01) is much lower than the median of the predicted probabilities where the true outcome was enact (0.71) (Fig. 3A.). The *w2v* predicted probabilities (Fig. 3B.) demonstrate that with just the text of the bills, the model can make probabilistic predictions that discriminate between enacted and failed bills, providing credibility to our textual semantic similarity analysis. In contrast, the title-only (Fig. 3C.) and context-only (Fig. 3D.) models poorly discriminate.

We conduct an error analysis (see S1 Appendix) and find that, across all bill subjects, *w2vGLM* and *w2v* both have the highest log loss on two categories of low economic importance: Commemorations; and Arts, Culture, Religion. As a final investigation of model performance, we explore the *w2vGLM* predictions for the two most significant bills in the past century: the ACA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The density of the predicted probabilities for all bills is peaked around 0.01 (S1 Appendix) and the predicted probabilities for the ACA and ARRA were $>0.5$ (Table 2). None of the 296 other bills with "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" in the title were enacted. These bills (all official titles listed in S1 Appendix) attempted to amend or repeal the ACA, which could have had significant economic effects. In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, would cause a \$109 billion net increase in federal deficits . *w2vGLM*'s predicted probabilities for these failed attempts are much more useful than *null*'s (Table 2). 96% of the (unsuccessful) bills to repeal and amend the ACA have *lower* predicted probabilities of enactment from *w2vGLM* than from *null*.

| ShortTitle          | ForecastNew | ForecastOld | BaselineForecast |
|:--------------------|:------------|:------------|:-----------------|
| ACA                 | 0.6         | 0.23        | 0.05             |
| Failed Amend Repeal | 0.02        | 0.03        | 0.05             |
| ARRA                | 0.55        | 0.52        | 0.05             |

Predicted probabilities of enactment for key bills. Probabilities increased between old and new forecasts for the two enacted bills, and the mean of the probabilities for the failed bills decreased.

## Analysis

Now that we have a model validated on thousands of predictions, we analyze it to better understand law-making. With our language models, we create "synthetic summaries" of hypothetical bills by providing a set of words that capture any topic of interest. Comparing these synthetic summaries across chamber and across Enacted and Failed categories uncovers textual patterns of how bill content is associated with enactment. The title summaries are derived from investigating similarities within *w2vTitle* and the body summaries are derived from similarities within *w2v*. Distributed representations of the words in the bills capture their meaning in a way that allows semantically similar words to be discovered. Although bills may not have been devoted to the topic of interest within any of the four training data sub-corpora, these synthetic summaries can still yield useful results because the queried words have been embedded within the semantically structured vector space along with all vocabulary in the training bills. This is important for a topic, such as climate change, with little or no relevant enacted legislation.

To demonstrate the power of our approach, we investigated the words that best summarize "climate change emissions", "health insurance poverty", and "technology patent" topics for Enacted and Failed bills in both the House and Senate (Fig. 4). "Impacts," "impact," and "effects" are in House Enacted while "warming," "global," and "temperature" are in House Failed, suggesting that, for the House climate change topic, highlighting potential future impacts is associated with enactment while emphasizing increasing global temperatures is associated with failure. In both chambers, "efficiencies" is in Enacted and "variability" is in Failed. In the Senate, "anthropogenic" (human-induced) and "sequestration" (removing greenhouse gases) are in Failed. For the health insurance poverty topic, "medicaid" and "reinsurance" are in both House and Senate Failed. The Senate has words related to more specific health topics, e.g. "immunization" for Failed and "psychiatric" for Enacted. For the patent topic, both chambers have a word related to water ("fish" and "marine") in the Failed Titles and "geospatial" in the Failed Bodies. Given recent legal developments regarding patenting software, it's notable that "software" and "computational" are in Failed for the House and Senate, respectively.

Our language model provides sentence-level predictions for an overall bill and thus predicts what sections of a bill may be the most important for increasing or decreasing the probability of enactment. Fig. 5 compares patterns of predicted sentence probabilities as they evolve from the beginning to the end of bills across four categories: enacted and failed and newest and oldest texts. In the newest texts of enacted bills, there is much more variation in predicted probabilities within bills.

We conducted a partial rank correlation coefficient sensitivity analysis to estimate the effect of each predictor variable on the predicted probability of enactment. These are not bivariate correlations between variables and the predicted probabilities, rather, they are estimates of correlation *after controlling for* the effect of all other predictor variables, e.g. the effect of a bill being introduced in the House is negative after controlling for the other effects in the model (Fig. 6B.) but bills introduced in the House are enacted at a 0.043 rate while Senate bills are enacted at a 0.025 rate. If we stopped with the simple descriptive statistic we could have incorrectly concluded that introducing a bill in the House will increase its odds, all else equal.

The two subjects with the largest negative effects are Foreign Trade and International Finance, and Taxation (Fig. 6A.). Some bills fail because their content is integrated into other bills and this is especially true for tax-related bills . With the oldest data model, increasing bill length decreases enactment probability but with the newest data the opposite relationship holds (Fig. 6B.). We repeated the sensitivity analysis on the model where no text predictions are included (*GLM*, see S1 Appendix), and found that, under both time conditions, when we don't control for the probability of the text by including our language model predictions (*GLM*), longer texts are more negative than when we control for the text (*w2vGLM*), and that this difference is much larger for the newest data. This suggests that the better we capture the probability of the text and control for its effects, the better we isolate estimates of non-textual effects.

If the bill sponsor's party is the majority party of their chamber, the probability of the bill is much higher, especially with the oldest data where the model relies on this as a key signal of success. Increasing the number of terms the sponsor has served in Congress also has a positive effect. The predictive model learned interactions as well: the number of co-sponsors has a stronger positive effect in the Senate for the newest data and in the House for the oldest data. If the bill text scored by the language model is in the second session of the Congress, for the newest data model, this can serve as a signal that a bill is being updated and thus it has a higher chance of enactment. For the oldest data, this means the bill was introduced in the second session, which is not particularly indicative of success or failure.

# Discussion

We compared five models across three performance measures and two data conditions over 14 years. A model using only bill text outperforms a model using only bill context for newest data, while context-only outperforms text-only for oldest data. In all conditions text consistently adds predictive power.

In addition to accurate predictions, we are able to improve our understanding of bill content by using a text model designed to explore differences across chamber and enactment status for important topics. Our textual analysis serves as an exploratory tool for investigating subtle distinctions across categories that were previously impossible to investigate at this scale. The same analysis can be applied to any words in the large legislative vocabulary. The global sensitivity analysis of the full model provides insights into the variables affecting predicted probabilities of enactment. For instance, when predicting bills as they are first introduced, the text of the bill and the proportion of the chamber in the bill sponsor's party have similarly strong positive effects. The full text of the bill is by far the most important predictor when using the most up-to-date data. The oldest data model relies more on title predictions than the newest data model, which is understandable given that titles rarely change after bill introduction. Comparing effects across time conditions and across models not including text suggests that controlling for accurate estimates of the text probability is important for estimating the effects of non-textual variables.

Although the effect estimates are not causal and estimates on predictors correlated with each other may be biased, they represent our best estimates of predictive relationships within a model with the strongest predictive performance and are thus useful for understanding the process of law-making. This methodology can be applied to analyze any predictive model by treating it as a "black-box" data-generating process, therefore predictive power of a model can be optimized and subsequent analysis can uncover interpretable global relationships between predictors and output. Our work provides guidance on effectively combining text and context for prediction *and analysis* of complex systems with highly imbalanced outcomes that are related to textual data. Our system for determining the probability of enactment across the thousands of bills under consideration focuses effort on legislation that is likely to matter, allowing users to identify policy signal amid political and procedural noise.

# Supporting Information

#### S1 Appendix

**Supplementary Information.**


*Brazilian Journal of Physics* **33**, 616 (2003)

**Corrections to Finite Size Scaling in Percolation**

P.M.C. de Oliveira$^1$, R.A. Nóbrega$^2$ and D. Stauffer$^3$.

Instituto de Fı́sica, Universidade Federal Fluminense, av. Litorânea s/n, Boa Viagem, Niterói, Brasil 24210-340

$^1$ firstname.lastname@example.com $^2$ email@example.com

$^3$ email@example.com; Visiting from Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, D-50923 Köln, Euroland

Abstract: A $1/L$-expansion for percolation problems is proposed, where $L$ is the lattice finite length. The square lattice with 27 different sizes $L
= 18, 22, \dots 1594$ is considered. Certain spanning probabilities were determined by Monte Carlo simulations, as continuous functions of the site occupation probability $p$. We estimate the critical threshold $p_c$ by applying the quoted expansion to these data. Also, the universal spanning probability at $p_c$ for an annulus with aspect ratio $r = 1/2$ is estimated as $C = 0.876657(45)$.

# Introduction

In reference a square lattice is viewed as a torus, thus without frontiers, where sites are randomly occupied with probability $p$. *Wrapping* percolation probabilities can be defined within this geometry, counting configurations which wrap along the horizontal and/or/xor vertical directions. The probability $R_h$, for instance, counts all configurations wrapping along the horizontal direction, no matter which occurs vertically. As a function of $p$, $R_h$ corresponds to a plot like figure 1 (to be quoted later) for a finite lattice. In the thermodynamic limit $L \to \infty$, this plot approaches a step function, $R_h = 0$ below, and $R_h = 1$ above the critical threshold $p_c$. The point $p_L(\tau)$ exemplified on the plot serves as an estimator for $p_c$: by measuring a sequence of such values, for larger and larger sizes $L_1, L_2 \dots L_N$, one can extrapolate this sequence for $L \to \infty$. Reference presents the figure $p_c = 0.59274621(13)$, the most accurate available today, obtained from more than $7 \times 10^9$ Monte Carlo samples. Starting from an empty lattice, filled site by site at random, each sample provides a single number to the statistics, namely the precise number $n$ of occupied sites for which the proper wrap (horizontal for $R_h$) appears for the first time. This computational strategy of filling up the lattice site by site and storing data onto bell-shaped $n$-histograms is equivalent to that of , and similar to early works . However, the multi-step strategy introduced in involves many other components (see ). The authors of assume a $p_L(\tau) - p_c \sim
L^{-(2+1/\nu)}$ dependence, where $\nu = 4/3$ is the correlation length critical exponent. As $2+1/\nu = 2.75$ is a sufficiently high value, data up to only $L = 128$ were needed. Also, the authors adopt the value $\tau^* =
0.521058290$, corresponding to that particular wrapping geometry and exactly known as the limiting value for $R_h$ at $p_c$, called Pinson's number in . Outside this value or within other geometries, the not-so-high exponent $1+1/\nu$ or even the smaller $1/\nu$ were observed .

Here, we propose the mathematical form

$$p_L(\tau) = p_c + {1\over L^{1/\nu}} \Big[ A_0(\tau) + {A_1(\tau)\over L} +
{A_2(\tau)\over L^2} + \dots {A_M(\tau)\over L^M} \Big]\,\,\,\, ,$$

for estimators $p_L$ obtained from quantities like $R_h$, where the cutoff $M$ is conveniently chosen according to the numerical accuracy available.

| $L$  | $p_L(\tau=0.9)$ |    samples     |
|:-----|:---------------:|:--------------:|
| 18   | 0.55982808(075) |     $10^9$     |
| 22   | 0.56196704(122) |     $10^9$     |
| 26   | 0.56403393(062) |     $10^9$     |
| 30   | 0.56590384(082) |     $10^9$     |
| 38   | 0.56902009(083) |     $10^9$     |
| 46   | 0.57146271(087) |     $10^9$     |
| 52   | 0.57296244(060) |     $10^9$     |
| 62   | 0.57500000(066) |     $10^9$     |
| 74   | 0.57689631(175) |     $10^8$     |
| 86   | 0.57838778(129) |     $10^8$     |
| 102  | 0.57993924(157) |     $10^8$     |
| 118  | 0.58115110(109) |     $10^8$     |
| 142  | 0.58254835(133) | $5\times 10^7$ |
| 166  | 0.58360542(109) | $5\times 10^7$ |
| 202  | 0.58479326(182) | $3\times 10^7$ |
| 234  | 0.58558821(076) | $3\times 10^7$ |
| 282  | 0.58649210(124) |     $10^7$     |
| 334  | 0.58721227(157) |     $10^7$     |
| 402  | 0.58791296(095) |     $10^7$     |
| 478  | 0.58848866(104) |     $10^7$     |
| 566  | 0.58898678(159) | $6\times 10^6$ |
| 674  | 0.58944374(126) | $6\times 10^6$ |
| 802  | 0.58984063(146) | $4\times 10^6$ |
| 958  | 0.59019986(149) | $4\times 10^6$ |
| 1126 | 0.59048760(168) | $4\times 10^6$ |
| 1354 | 0.59077660(121) | $4\times 10^6$ |
| 1594 | 0.59100202(082) | $4\times 10^6$ |

Values for $p_L$ obtained for fixed $\tau=0.9$, as an example. A Chi-square fitting of equation (1) gives $p_c = 0.59274675(88)$, $A_0 =
-0.44204(11)$, $A_1 = 3.275(14)$, etc.

We apply this formula to the $L \times L$ square lattice, with a set of different increasing lengths such that the numbers of sites grow by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$. Table I shows an example for $\tau = 0.9$, for which the traditional Chi-square fitting gives $p_c =
0.59274675(88)$, in agreement with although within a larger error bar. We adopted $M = 4$ in equation (1), compatible with our smallest lattice size $L = 18$, since $18^{-4.75} = 1 \times 10^{-6}$ still falls inside our numerical accuracy, whereas the next term $18^{-5.75} = 6 \times
10^{-8}$ would be outside. The quality of this fit can be appreciated by the so-called goodness-of-fit $Q$ , a quantity between 0 and 1. The fit is considered believable for values of $Q > 0.1$. In our example, we get $Q = 0.857$ for table I. All our data to be discussed hereafter, for many other values of $\tau$ between $0.5$ and $0.99$, present the same degree of accuracy, giving credit to our proposal, equation (1). In spite of these accurate results, one cannot rule out some possible higher terms deviating from (1), for example that proposed in .

# Measured quantity

First, let's explain the *spanning* probability we adopted within the torus, instead of the *wrapping* probability . We consider two parallel lines distant $L/2$ from each other, on the $L \times
L$ square lattice. For each sample — again obtained by filling up the initially empty lattice, site by site at random — we count the precise number $n$ of occupied sites for which these lines become connected for the first time, no matter which occurs around the other direction. This approach has a big advantage over the *wrapping* probability around the whole torus: From the same sample we can count $n$ just $L$ times instead of only once! The parallel lines can be numbered ($i,i+L/2$) for $i = 1, 2, \dots
L/2$ along the horizontal direction, with the same procedure repeated vertically. Thus, the statistics is multiplied by a factor of $L$. In table I, for instance, the sampling counting $10^9$ for $L = 18$ corresponds to an $n$-histogram with $18 \times 10^{9}$ accumulated units (the total area below the bell-shaped curve). In the same table, for $L = 1594$, the much smaller sampling counting $4 \times 10^6$ corresponds indeed to almost the same statistics, i.e. $6 \times 10^{9}$ accumulated units below the curve. This trick allows us to test a wide range of lattice sizes, and verify the validity of our proposal (1). The further computational time one needs in order to implement this trick is negligible: we simply keep in memory the top and bottom (left and right) extreme lines for each already formed cluster of neighbouring occupied sites. Thus, for each new included site, only the last updated cluster must be verified.

The *spanning* probability function is obtained by superimposing a lot of step functions, one for each counted $n$, and dividing the result by the total number ($L \times$sampling counts). An average is then performed, weighted by $C(L^2,n) p^n (1-p)^{L^2-n}$ where $C$ is a combinatorial factor, yielding the $p$-continuous curves shown in figure 1.

The 3-digits error bars shown in table I were obtained by dividing the whole set of data into, say, $S = 10$ sub-sets, independently calculating $p_L(\tau)$ for each sub-set. The error bars are the standard deviation of this distribution divided by $\sqrt{S}$. This last division is based on the supposition that the whole data is normally distributed. In order to verify the validity of this approach, we repeated the same procedure with $S = 20$. Indeed, the error bars are approximately the same, independent of $S$. For safety, we adopted always the largest between both error bars so obtained. For intermediate lattice sizes (from $L = 74$ up to 402), we used $S = 10$ and 5, instead of 20 and 10.

We also simulated larger $L \times L$ lattices for $\tau = 0.5$, up to $L = 24000$, with free instead of periodic boundary conditions, within a poorer statistics. The results are also compatible with equation (1).

# Data Analysis

By fitting data with equation (1), we have a set of $M+2$ parameters to be determined, namely $p_c, A_0(\tau), A_1(\tau), \dots A_M(\tau)$. The error bars for these quantities come from the Chi-square fitting procedure , as a consequence of the primary error bars directly measured for the crude data (that of table I, for instance). Thus, the accuracy obtained for each parameter, in particular the interesting one $p_c$, involves a series of accumulated errors. Instead of taking care of $p_c$, let's turn our attention to $A_0(\tau)$ for a while. Figure 2 shows a plot of this value as a function of $\tau$.

One can see that $A_0$ vanishes for the particular value $\tau^* =
0.984786(11)$. For the geometry we adopted, this is the equivalent of the above quoted Pinson's number , i.e. the universal value of our spanning probability at $p_c$ in the thermodynamic limit. Recently, Cardy tried to calculate this value for an annulus, i.e. an $L_1 \times L_2$ square lattice where periodic boundary condition is adopted only along the direction of $L_1$. The quoted universal value corresponds to the critical spanning probability between the two free-boundary lines, and depends only on the ratio $r = L_2/L_1$. Unfortunately, within his theoretical approach, Cardy was forced to leave out spanning configurations which also wrap along the direction of $L_1$, the periodic boundary.

Our geometry with the complete $L \times L$ torus divided in two halves by the lines $i$ and $i + L/2$ corresponds to the $r = 1/2$ Cardy's geometry counted twice, in parallel. Thus, our $\tau^*$ can be related to Cardy's number $C$ by $1 - \tau^* = (1 - C)^2$, i.e. $C = 0.876657(45)$. Compared with Cardy's exact value $C - C_{\rm wrap} = 0.7569977963$ we found the contribution $C_{\rm wrap} = 0.119659(45)$ for the spanning configurations which also wrap around the periodic direction.

The critical occupation probability $p_c$ can be obtained from our expansion (1) by fixing any value for $\tau$. The best choice is $\tau =
\tau^*$, for which the leading finite-size term in (1) becomes $L^{-1-1/\nu}$ instead of $L^{-1/\nu}$. In this case, we get $p_c =
0.59274621(33)$, where the error bar is estimated by the same above-quoted procedure of dividing the whole data set into $S = 10$ sub-sets. For some unknown particular reason, the *wrapping* probabilities adopted in works better yet, the leading finite-size term in (1) being $L^{-2-1/\nu}$. In a numerical evidence for that behaviour is given, by plotting $\tau_L(p_c) - \tau^*$ against $L$ (assuming some previously determined value for $p_c$) and verifying a power-law dependence with an exponent very close to $-2$. Indeed, for our *spanning* probability, the same plot gives an exponent very close to $-1$.

# Conclusion

We propose the finite-size expansion (1) for spanning probabilities in percolation, where $p_L(\tau)$ is defined in figure 1.

This approach can be used to calculate various critical quantities. We applied it to a particular geometry within the site percolation problem on a $L \times L$ square lattice, considered as a torus. Taking two parallel lines distant $L/2$ from each other, our spanning probability counts configurations for which these two lines are connected. The universal value $\tau^* = 0.984786(11)$ and the critical occupation $p_c = 0.59274621(33)$ are obtained.

As a by-product, we propose the universal value $C = 0.876657(45)$ for the critical spanning probability within a $L \times L/2$ annulus, i.e. a square lattice with periodic (free) boundaries along the direction of $L$ ($L/2$). This probability corresponds to all configurations for which the frontiers separated by $L/2$ are connected. Cardy determined the exact figure $C - C_{\rm wrap} = 0.7569977963$, where $C_{\rm wrap}$ corresponds to spanning configurations which also wrap along the direction of $L$, discounted in his approach.

The whole computer time for obtaining these data was 20 thousand hours, on a dozen computers, typically powered by an Athlon 1GHz processor.

# Acknowledgements

Six months ago, the first author presented a preliminary version of this work in Campos do Jordão, São Paulo, Brazil, in honour of the 60$^{\rm th}$ birthday of professor Silvio Salinas. Now, some other articles are presented in honour of the 60$^{\rm th}$ birthday of the last author. In contrast, the younger authors dedicated this work to the senior professor Silvio Salinas.

We are indebted to Carlos Tomei, Antonio Brito Serbeto, John Cardy and Robert Ziff for helpful discussions, and Brazilian agencies CNPq and FAPERJ for support.