**Quantum Entanglement:
Criteria and Collective Tests**

Asher Peres$^*$
Department of Physics, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, 32 000 Haifa, Israel

**Abstract**
The state of a quantum system, consisting of two distinct subsystems, is called *separable* if it can be prepared by two distant experimenters who receive instructions from a common source, via classical communication channels. A necessary condition is derived and is shown to be more sensitive than Bell's inequality for detecting quantum inseparability. Moreover, collective tests of Bell's inequality (namely, tests that involve several composite systems simultaneously) may sometimes lead to a violation of Bell's inequality, even if the latter is satisfied when each composite system is tested separately.

PACS:  03.65

$^*$ Electronic address: email@example.com

Quantum entanglement is a physical resource. Applications include secure communication between distant observers \[1\], faithful teleportation of an unknown quantum state to an unknown location \[2\], quantum computation, and in particular error correction codes \[3\]. Quantum entanglement is subtler than classical correlation. A composite quantum system can be prepared in a prescribed state $\rho$, with distant correlations, by two observers who only use local raw materials and receive instructions from a common source by a classical communication channel. Such a preparation method yields a density matrix which is *separable* into a sum of direct products,

$$\rho=\sum_K w_K\,\rho_K'\otimes\rho_K'', \label{sep}$$ where the positive weights $w_K$ satisfy $\sum w_K=1$, and where $\rho_K'$ and $\rho_K''$ are density matrices for the two subsystems. A separable system represented by the above $\rho$ is *correlated*, but it is not *entangled*: it always satisfies Bell's inequality \[4\].

That inequality was originally derived for solving a completely different problem: is quantum theory compatible with an underlying pseudo-classical "subquantum" background (deterministic or possibly stochastic)? Such a post-quantum theory would presumably involve additional "hidden" variables, and the statistical predictions of ordinary quantum theory would be reproduced by performing suitable averages over these hidden variables. Bell \[4\] was the first to show that if the constraint of *locality* is imposed on the hidden variables (namely, if the hidden variables of two distant quantum systems are themselves separable into two distinct subsets), then there is an upper bound to the correlations of results of measurements that can be performed on the two distant systems. That bound is violated by some states in quantum mechanics, for example the singlet state of two particles. It is not quantum theory itself which is nonlocal. It is any pseudo-classical theory which attempts to mimic quantum effects that is necessarily nonlocal and contextual.

A variant of Bell's inequality, more general and more useful for experimental tests, was derived by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt (CHSH) \[5\]. It can be written

$$|\langle{AB}\rangle+\langle{AB'}\rangle+\langle{A'B}\rangle
  -\langle{A'B'}\rangle|\leq 2. \label{CHSH}$$ On the left hand side, $A$ and $A'$ are two operators that can be measured by an observer, conventionally called Alice. These operators do not commute (so that Alice has to choose whether to measure $A$ or $A'$) and each one is normalized to unit norm (the norm of an operator is defined as the largest absolute value of any of its eigenvalues). Likewise, $B$ and $B'$ are two normalized noncommuting operators, any one of which can be measured by another, distant observer (Bob). Note that each one of the *expectation* values in Eq. () can be calculated by means of quantum theory, if the quantum state is known, and it is also experimentally observable, by repeating the measurements sufficiently many times, starting each time with identically prepared pairs of quantum systems. The validity of the CHSH inequality, for *all* combinations of measurements independently performed on both systems, is a necessary condition for the possible existence of a local hidden variable (LHV) model for the results of these measurements. It is not in general a sufficient condition, as will be shown below.

Note that, in order to test Bell's inequality, the two distant observers independently *measure* subsytems of a composite quantum system, and then they *report* their results to a common site where that information is analyzed \[6\]. This is the converse of the situation that was mentioned above, where the two observers *received* instructions from a common center. There are density matrices for which it can be proved that no such set of instructions exists, and yet Bell's inequality is satisfied \[7–10\]. I shall derive below a simple algebraic test which is a necessary condition for the existence of the decomposition (). I shall then give some examples showing that this new criterion is more restrictive than Bell's inequality, or than the $\alpha$-entropy inequality \[11\].

The derivation of the separability condition is easiest when the density matrix elements are written explicitly, with all their indices \[6\]. For example, Eq. () becomes $$\rho_{m\mu,n\nu}=
  \sum_K w_K\,(\rho'_K)_{mn}\,(\rho''_K)_{\mu\nu}.$$ Latin indices refer to the first subsystem, Greek indices to the second one (the subsystems may have different dimensions). Note that this equation can always be satisfied if we replace the quantum density matrices by classical Liouville functions (and the discrete indices are replaced by canonical variables, **p** and **q**). The reason is that the only constraint that a Liouville function has to satisfy is being non-negative. On the other hand, we want quantum density matrices to have non-negative *eigenvalues*, rather than non-negative elements, and the latter condition is more difficult to satisfy.

It is noteworthy that any set of instructions that Alice and Bob may receive is inherently ambiguous, if these observers have no way of ascertaining that what one of them calls $i=\sqrt{-1}$ is the same as $i$ (not $-i$) of the other observer. Indeed, the only way of explaining to someone what $i$ and $-i$ actually are is by referring to a material (chiral) object, such as a screw. If we are restricted to the use of verbal instructions for preparing $\rho$, the result may be either $\rho$ or $\rho^*=\rho^T$. Therefore Alice and Bob may also end up with the "dual" matrix

$$\sigma=\sum_A w_A\,(\rho_A')^T\otimes\rho_A''. \label{sig}$$

This ambiguity is an important clue for solving the following problem. Let all the matrix elements of $\rho$ be given. Is a decomposition such as in Eq. () possible? A simple condition is readily obtained by defining a new matrix,

$$\sigma_{m\mu,n\nu}\equiv\rho_{n\mu,m\nu}.$$ The Latin indices of $\rho$ have been transposed, but not the Greek ones. This is not a unitary transformation but, nevertheless, the $\sigma$ matrix is Hermitian. Whenever Eq. () is valid, the transposed matrices $(\rho'_A)^T\equiv(\rho'_A)^*$ are non-negative matrices with unit trace, so that they also are legitimate density matrices. It follows that *none of the eigenvalues of $\sigma$ is negative*. This is a necessary condition for Eq. () to hold \[12\].

Note that the eigenvalues of $\sigma$ are invariant under separate unitary transformations, $U'$ and $U''$, of the bases used by the two observers. In such a case, $\rho$ transforms as $$\rho\to (U'\otimes U'')\,\rho\,(U'\otimes U'')^\dagger,$$ and we then have $$\sigma\to
 (U'^T\otimes U'')\,\sigma\,(U'^T\otimes U'')^\dagger,$$ which also is a unitary transformation, leaving the eigenvalues of $\sigma$ invariant.

As an example, consider a pair of spin-$1\over2$ particles in an impure singlet state, consisting of a singlet fraction $x$ and a random fraction $(1-x)$ \[13\]. Note that the "random fraction" $(1-x)$ also includes singlets, mixed in equal proportions with the three triplet components. We have $$\rho_{m\mu,n\nu}=x\,S_{m\mu,n\nu}+
  (1-x)\,\delta_{mn}\,\delta_{\mu\nu}\,/4, \label{x}$$ where the density matrix for a pure singlet is given by $$S_{01,01}=S_{10,10}=-S_{01,10}=-S_{10,01}=\mbox{$1\over2$},
 \label{singlet}$$ and all the other components of $S$ vanish. (The indices 0 and 1 refer to any two orthogonal states, such as "up" and "down.") A straightforward calculation shows that $\sigma$ has three eigenvalues equal to $(1+x)/4$, and the fourth eigenvalue is $(1-3x)/4$. This lowest eigenvalue is positive if $x<{1\over3}$, and the separability criterion is then fulfilled. This result may be compared with other criteria: Bell's inequality holds for $x<1/\sqrt{2}$, and the $\alpha$-entropic inequality \[11\] for $x<1/\sqrt{3}$. These are therefore much weaker tests for detecting inseparability than the condition that was derived here.

In this particular case, it happens that this necessary condition is also a sufficient one. It is indeed known that if $x<{1\over3}$ it is possible to write $\rho$ as a mixture of unentangled product states \[14\]. This suggests that the necessary condition derived above ($\sigma$ has no negative eigenvalue) might also be sufficient for any $\rho$. A proof of this conjecture was indeed recently obtained \[15\] for composite systems having dimensions $2\times2$ and $2\times3$. However, for higher dimensions, the present necessary condition is *not* a sufficient one. Some counterexamples have been constructed, with dimensions $2\times4$ and $3\times3$ \[16\]. It was also shown \[16\] that the decomposition of any separable $\rho$ requires at most $({\rm dim}~{\cal H})^2$ terms of rank one. This property is an important step toward finding an *efficient* algorithm for the decomposition of any separable $\rho$. Such an algorithm, which could also indicate that $\rho$ is not separable, is still lacking at the time of writing.

As a second example, consider a mixed state consisting of a fraction $x$ of the pure state $a|01\rangle+b|10\rangle$ (with $|a|^2+|b|^2=1$), and fractions $(1-x)/2$ of the pure states $|00\rangle$ and $|11\rangle$. We have

$$\rho_{00,00}=\rho_{11,11}=(1-x)/2,$$ $$\rho_{01,01}=x|a|^2,$$ $$\rho_{10,10}=x|b|^2,$$ $$\rho_{01,10}=\rho_{10,01}^*=xab^*,$$ and the other elements of $\rho$ vanish. It is easily seen that the $\sigma$ matrix has a negative determinant, and thus a negative eigenvalue, when $$x>(1+2|ab|)^{-1}.$$ This is a lower limit than the one for a violation of Bell's inequality, which requires \[10\] $$x>[1+2|ab|(\sqrt{2}-1)]^{-1}.$$

An even more striking example is the mixture of a singlet and a maximally polarized pair: $$\rho_{m\mu,n\nu}=x\,S_{m\mu,n\nu}+
  (1-x)\,\delta_{m0}\,\delta_{n0}\,\delta_{\mu0}\,\delta_{\nu0}.$$ For any positive $x$, however small, this state is inseparable, because $\sigma$ has a negative eigenvalue $(-x/2)$. On the other hand, the Horodecki criterion \[17\] gives a very generous domain to the validity of Bell's inequality: $x\leq 0.8$.

The weakness of Bell's inequality as a test for inseparability is due to the fact that the only use made of the density matrix $\rho$ is for computing the probabilities of the various outcomes of tests that may be performed on the subsystems of a *single* composite system. On the other hand, an experimental verification of that inequality necessitates the use of *many* composite systems, all prepared in the same way. However, if many such systems are actually available, we may also test them collectively, for example two by two, or three by three, etc., rather than one by one. If we do that, we must use, instead of $\rho$ (the density matrix of a single system), a *new* density matrix, which is $\rho\otimes\rho$, or $\rho\otimes\rho\otimes\rho$, in a higher dimensional space. It will now be shown that there are some density matrices $\rho$ that satisfy Bell's inequality, but for which $\rho\otimes\rho$, or $\rho\otimes\rho\otimes\rho$, etc., violate that inequality \[18\].

The example that will be discussed is that of the Werner states \[7\] defined by Eq. (). Let us consider $n$ Werner pairs. Each one of the two observers has $n$ particles (one from each pair). They proceed as follows. First, they subject their $n$-particle systems to suitably chosen local unitary transformations, $U$, for Alice, and $V$, for Bob. Then, they test whether each one of the particles labelled 2, 3, …, $n$, has spin up (for simplicity, it is assumed that all the particles are distinguishable, and can be labelled unambiguously). Note that any other test that they can perform is unitarily equivalent to the one for spins up, as this involves only a redefinition of the matrices $U$ and $V$. If any one of the $2(n-1)$ particles tested by Alice and Bob shows spin down, the experiment is considered to have failed, and the two observers must start again with $n$ new Werner pairs.

A similar elimination of "bad" samples is also inherent to any experimental procedure where a failure of one of the detectors to fire is handled by discarding the results registered by all the other detectors: only when *all* the detectors fire are their results included in the statistics. This obviously requires an exchange of *classical* information between the observers. (There is a controversy on whether a violation of Bell's inequality with postselected data \[19\] is a valid test for nonlocality \[20\]. I shall not discuss this issue here; I only examine whether or not Bell's inequality is violated by the postselected data.)

The calculations shown below will refer to the case $n=3$, for definiteness. The generalization to any other value of $n$ is straightforward. Spinor indices, for a single particle, will take the values 0 (for the "up" component of spin) and 1 (for the "down" component). The 16 components of the density matrix of a Werner pair, consisting of a singlet fraction $x$ and a random fraction $(1-x)$, are, in the standard direct product basis: $$\rho_{mn,st}=x\,S_{mn,st}+(1-x)\,\delta_{ms}\,\delta_{nt}\,/4,$$ where I am now using only Latin indices, contrary to what I did in Eq. (); this is because Greek indices will be needed for another purpose, as will be seen soon. Thus, now, the indices $m$ and $s$ refer to Alice's particle, and $n$ and $t$ to Bob's particle.

When there are three Werner pairs, their combined density matrix is a direct product $\rho\otimes\rho'\otimes\rho''$, or explicitly, $\rho_{mn,st}\,\rho_{m'n',s't'}\,\rho_{m''n'',s''t''}$. The result of the unitary transformations $U$ and $V$ is $$\rho\otimes\rho'\otimes\rho''\to
 (U\otimes V)\,(\rho\otimes\rho'\otimes\rho'')\,
 (U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger). \label{newrho}$$ Explicitly, with all its indices, the $U$ matrix satisfies the unitarity relation $$\sum_{mm'm''}U_{\mu\mu'\mu'',mm'm''}\;
 U^*_{\lambda\lambda'\lambda'',mm'm''}=
 \delta_{\mu\lambda}\;\delta_{\mu'\lambda'}\;\delta_{\mu''\lambda''}.
 \label{unitary}$$ In order to avoid any possible ambiguity, Greek indices (whose values are also 0 and 1) are now used to label spinor components *after* the unitary transformations. Note that the indices without primes refer to the two particles of the first Werner pair (the only ones that are not tested for spin up) and the primed indices refer to all the other particles (that are tested for spin up). The $V_{\nu\nu'\nu'',nn'n''}$ matrix elements of Bob's unitary transformation satisfy a relationship similar to (). The generalization to a larger number of Werner pairs is obvious.

After the execution of the unitary transformation (), Alice and Bob have to test that all the particles, except those labelled by the first (unprimed) indices, have their spin up. They discard any set of $n$ Werner pairs where that test fails, even once. The density matrix for the remaining "successful" cases is thus obtained by retaining, on the right hand side of Eq. (), only the terms whose primed components are zeros, and then renormalizing the resulting matrix to unit trace. This means that only two of the $2^n$ rows of the $U$ matrix, namely those with indices 000… and 100…, are relevant (and likewise for the $V$ matrix). The elimination of all the other rows greatly simplifies the problem of optimizing these matrices. We shall thus write, for brevity, $$U_{\mu 00,mm'm''}\to U_{\mu,mm'm''},$$ where $\mu=0,1$. Then, on the left hand side of Eq. (), we effectively have two unknown row vectors, $U_0$ and $U_1$, each one with $2^n$ components (labelled by Latin indices $mm'm''$). These vectors have unit norm and are mutually orthogonal. Likewise, Bob has two vectors, $V_0$ and $V_1$. The problem is to optimize these four vectors so as to make the expectation value of the Bell operator \[21\], $$C:=AB+AB'+A'B-A'B',$$ as large as possible.

The optimization proceeds as follows. The new density matrix, for the pairs of spin- particles that were *not* tested by Alice and Bob for spin up (that is, for the first pair in each set of $n$ pairs), is

$$(\rho_{\rm new})_{\mu\nu,\sigma\tau}=
 N\, U_{\mu,mm'm''}\,V_{\nu,nn'n''}\;\rho_{mn,st}\;\rho_{m'n',s't'}\;
 \rho_{m''n'',s''t''}\,U^*_{\sigma,ss's''}\,V^*_{\tau,tt't''},$$ where $N$ is a normalization constant, needed to obtain unit trace ($N^{-1}$ is the probability that all the "spin up" tests were successful). We then have \[17\], for fixed $\rho_{\rm new}$ and all possible choices of $C$,

$$\max\,[{\rm Tr}\,(C\rho_{\rm new})]=2\sqrt{M}, \label{M}$$ where $M$ is the sum of the two largest eigenvalues of the real symmetric matrix $T^\dagger T$, defined by

$$T_{pq}:={\rm Tr}\,[(\sigma_p\otimes\sigma_q)\,\rho_{\rm new}].
 \label{T}$$ (In the last equation, $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_q$ are the Pauli spin matrices.) Our problem is to find the vectors $U_\mu$ and $V_\nu$ that maximize $M$.

At this point, some simplifying assumptions are helpful. Since all matrix elements $\rho_{mn,st}$ are real, it is reasonable to restrict the search to vectors $U_\mu$ and $V_\nu$ that have only real components. Furthermore, the situations seen by Alice and Bob are completely symmetric, except for the opposite signs in the standard expression for the singlet state:

$$\textstyle{\psi=
 \left[{1\choose0}{0\choose1}-{0\choose1}{1\choose0}\right]
   \;/\sqrt{2}.}$$ These signs can be made to become the same by redefining the basis, for example by representing the "down" state of Bob's particle by the symbol ${0\choose-1}$, *without* changing the basis used for Alice's particle. This unilateral change of basis is equivalent a substitution $$V_{\nu,nn'n''}\to(-1)^{\nu+n+n'+n''}\,V_{\nu,nn'n''},$$ on Bob's side. The minus signs in Eq. () also disappear, and there is complete symmetry for the two observers. It is then plausible that, with the new basis, the optimal $U_\nu$ and $V_\nu$ are the same. Therefore, when we return to the original basis and notations, they satisfy $$V_{\nu,nn'n''}=(-1)^{\nu+n+n'+n''}\,U_{\nu,nn'n''}.$$ We shall henceforth restrict our search to pairs of vectors that satisfy this relation.

After all the above simplifications, the problem that has to be solved is the following: find two mutually orthogonal unit vectors, $U_0$ and $U_1$, each one with $2^n$ real components, that maximize the value of $M(U)$ defined by Eqs. () and (). This is a standard optimization problem which can be solved numerically. Since the function $M(U)$ is bounded, it has at least one maximum. It may, however, have more than one: there may be several distinct local maxima with different values. A numerical search leads to one of these maxima, but not necessarily to the largest one. The outcome may depend on the initial point of the search. It is therefore imperative to start from numerous randomly chosen points in order to ascertain, with reasonable confidence, that the largest maximum has indeed been found.

In all the cases that were examined, $M(U)$ turned out to have a local maximum for the following simple choice: $$U_{0,00\ldots}=U_{1,11\ldots}=1, \label{xor}$$ and all the other components of $U_0$ and $U_1$ vanish. Recall that the "vectors" $U_0$ and $U_1$ actually are two rows, $U_{000\ldots}$ and $U_{100\ldots}$, of a unitary matrix of order $2^n$ (the other rows are irrelevant because of the elimination of all the experiments in which a particle failed the spin-up test). In the case $n=2$, one of the unitary matrices having the property () is a simple permutation matrix that can be implemented by a "controlled- not" quantum gate \[22\] known as xor (exclusive or). For larger values of $n$, matrices that satisfy Eq. () will also be called xor-transformations.

It was found, by numerical calculations, that xor-transformations always are the optimal ones for $n=2$. They are also optimal for $n=3$ when the singlet fraction $x$ is less than 0.57, and for $n=4$ when $x<0.52$. For larger values of $x$, more complicated forms of $U_0$ and $U_1$ give better results. For $n=3$, it was recently found that the optimum is a "controlled Hadamard transform"

$$U_{0,000}=U_{0,111}=U_{1,001}=U_{1,100}=1/\sqrt{2}.$$ The corresponding result for higher $n$ is not known. Anyway, the existence of two different sets of maxima may be seen in Fig. 1: there are discontinuities in the slopes of the graphs for $n=3$ and 4, that occur at the values of $x$ where the largest value of $\langle{C}\rangle$ jumps from one local maximum to another one.

For $n=5$, a complete determination of $U_0$ and $U_1$ requires the optimization of 64 parameters subject to 3 constraints, more than my workstation could handle in a reasonable time. I therefore considered only xor-transformations, which are likely to be optimal for $x\,
\mbox{\raisebox{-2pt}{{\scriptsize $\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$}}}\,
0.5$. In particular, for $x=0.5$ (the value that was used in Werner's original work \[7\]), the result is $\langle C\rangle=2.0087$, and the CHSH inequality is violated. This violation occurs in spite of the existence of an explicit LHV model that gives correct results if the Werner pairs are tested one by one.

These results prompt a new question: can we get stronger *inseparability* criteria by considering $\rho\otimes\rho$, or higher tensor products? It is easily seen that no further progress can be achieved in this way. If $\rho$ is separable as in Eq. (), so is $\rho\otimes\rho$. Moreover, the partly transposed matrix corresponding to $\rho\otimes\rho$ simply is $\sigma\otimes\sigma$, so that if no eigenvalue of $\sigma$ is negative, then $\sigma\otimes\sigma$ too has no negative eigenvalue.

This work was supported by the Gerard Swope Fund, and the Fund for Encouragement of Research.

1.  Ekert, A. K., Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 661 (1991).

2.  Bennett, C. H, Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., and Wootters, W. K., Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 1895 (1993).

3.  Knill, E., and Laflamme, R., Phys. Rev. A **55**, 900 (1997).

4.  Bell, J. S., Physics **1**, 195 (1964).

5.  Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A., and Holt, R. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. **23**, 880 (1969).

6.  Peres, A., "Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods" (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993) Chapters 5 and 6.

7.  Werner, R. F., Phys. Rev. A **40**, 4277 (1989).

8.  Popescu, S., Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 797 (1994); **74**, 2619 (1995).

9.  Mermin, N. D., in "Perspectives on Quantum Reality" (Edited by R. K. Clifton) (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996) pp. 57–71.

10. Gisin, N., Phys. Lett. A **210**, 151 (1996).

11. Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., and Horodecki, M., Phys. Lett. A **210**, 377 (1996).

12. Peres, A., Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 1413 (1996).

13. Blank, J. and Exner, P., Acta Univ. Carolinae, Math. Phys. **18**, 3 (1977).

14. Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Popescu, S., Schumacher, B., Smolin, J., and Wootters, W. K., Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 722 (1996); **78**, 2031 (1997) (E).

15. Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., and Horodecki, R., Phys. Lett. A **223**, 1 (1996).

16. Horodecki, P., "Separability criterion and inseparable mixed states with positive partial transposition" (e-print archive: quant-ph/9605038).

17. Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., and Horodecki, M., Phys. Lett. A **200**, 340 (1995).

18. Peres, A., Phys. Rev. A **54**, 2685 (1996).

19. Peres, A., in "Quantum Potentiality, Entanglement, and Passion-at-a-Distance: Essays for Abner Shimony" (Edited R. S. Cohen, M. Horne, and J. Stachel) (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997).

20. Santos, E., Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 1388 (1991).

21. Braunstein, S. L., Mann, A., and Revzen, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 3259 (1992).

22. Barenco, A., Deutsch, D., Ekert, A., and Jozsa, R., Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 4083 (1995).

**Caption of figure**

FIG. 1.  Maximal expectation value of the Bell operator, versus the singlet fraction in the Werner state, for collective tests performed on several Werner pairs (from bottom to top of the figure, 1, 2, 3, and 4 pairs, respectively). The CHSH inequality is violated when $\langle{C\rangle}>2$.


# Introduction

Extra U(1)$'$ group(s) represent a rather minimal and in some sense natural extension of the Standard Model. The most economical way of making this sector "noticeable" to the Standard Model (SM) particles and fields is via the so-called kinetic mixing portal, which is simply a coupling between the U(1) of the SM hypercharge and U(1)$'$ : $${\cal L}_{ \rm SM+U(1)'} = {\cal L}_{ \rm SM}-
\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}^2 +
\frac{1}{2}\kappa V_{\mu\nu} F^Y_{\mu\nu}
+{\cal L}_{\rm Higgs'}+...
\label{VdF}$$ Here $V_{\mu\nu}$, $F^Y_{\mu\nu}$ are the field strengths of the U(1)$'$ and U(1)$_{\rm SM}$, and $\kappa$ is the mixing angle. The specific form of the U(1)$'$ Higgs sector is not so important, but for simplicity we shall assume that the breaking occurs due to some elementary Higgs$'$ field with the Mexican hat potential. The ellipses stands for other possible matter fields, singlet under the SM and charged under the U(1)$'$. In particular, the ellipses may include the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) charged under U(1)$'$, in which case $V-\gamma$ mixing mediates interaction between visible and dark matter sectors .

Such coupling, and an overall neutrality of the SM under U(1)$'$ ensure the absence of problems with anomalies. This is, of course, not the only possibility of introducing $Z'$ physics, and other examples with and without supersymmetry have been proposed and studied at length (See, *e.g.* and Refs. therein). If the mass of the exra U(1)$'$ gauge boson is at the TeV scale, only the sizable coupling to the SM would allow for the collider tests of such models. It is quite natural, however, to consider the following range of parameters that allows to seclude the U(1)$'$ sector and place it well below the electroweak scale: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relation}
\alpha' \sim \alpha_{\rm SM}(M_Z); ~~~ \kappa \sim (\alpha \alpha')^{1/2}/\pi; ~~~ m_V^2 \sim {\rm loop}
\times\kappa^2 M_Z^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Such values of $\kappa \sim O(10^{-2}-10^{-3})$ can be induced radiatively by the loops of unspecified very heavy particles charged under both U(1) groups. This way the mixing parameter will depend on the logarithm of the ratio of some UV scale (*e.g.* GUT scale) to the mass scale of particles charged under both groups. The last relation in () implies a "radiative transfer" of the gauge symmetry breaking from the SM to the U(1)$'$. For our range of $\kappa$, it suggests that the mass scale of the vector particle is under 1 GeV. This line of arguments justifies a closer look at the phenomenology of low-scale U(1)$'$ models with the kinetic mixing to photons.

In recent years, some interest to the $m_V\sim O($MeV-GeV), per-mill coupling gauge boson physics has been driven by the model-building attempts to construct WIMP models with masses in the MeV range . Some particle phenomenology aspects of the mediator physics have been discussed in Refs. , and most notably by Fayet in . Most recently, an independent motivation for light mediators for the TeV-scale WIMPs have been advocated in as the most natural way of having an enhanced annihilation in Galactic environment. This speculation is fueled by recent results of PAMELA collaboration , that sees evidence for an enhanced fraction of high-energy positrons that may have been created through WIMPs. For other investigations of the vector model with kinetic mixing, covering different phenomenological aspects and different parameter range, see *e.g.* recent works .

Leaving the WIMP physics aside, the purpose of this note is to investigate the phenomenology of MeV-to-GeV scale mediators, keeping both $\kappa$ and $m_V$ as free parameters. In Sections 2 and 3 we will address the constraints coming from the anomalous magnetic moments of electron and muon, as well as other precision QED tests, and the signatures of secluded U(1)$'$ in the decays of strange particle. We reach our conclusions in Section 4.

# QED tests of secluded U(1)

Since we are going to investigate the MeV-scale phenomenology of $V$-bosons, only their mixing with photons is relevant. Retaining the photon part of $F^Y_{\mu\nu}$, redefining $\kappa$ to absorb the dependence on $\theta_W$, assuming the breaking of U(1)$'$, and using the equations of motion, we arrive at the following effective Lagrangian, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{ \rm eff} = -\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}^2 +\frac{1}{2} m_V^2 V_\mu^2 + \kappa V_\nu \partial_\mu F_{\mu\nu}
+{\cal L}_{h'}+... \nonumber\\\!\!\!
= -\frac{1}{4}V_{\mu\nu}^2 +\frac{1}{2} m_V^2 V_\mu^2 + \kappa e  J_\mu V_\mu
+{\cal L}_{h'}+...,
\label{eff}
\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line the divergence of the photon field strength is traded for the operator of the electromagnetic current. The ${\cal L}_{h'}$ term represents the Lagrangian of the Higgs$'$ particle. As evident from (), the production or decay of $V$-bosons occur via the intermediate "non-propagating" photon, as the $q^2$ in the $\kappa$-insertion cancels $1/q^2$ of the photon propagator. A simple examination of Lagrangian () reveals two distinct dynamical regimes for the processes mediated by the exchange of virtual $V$. When the $q^2$ of momentum flowing through the $V$ line is much larger than $m_V^2$, the $V$-exchange is analogous to the photon exchange, and thus leads to a simple renormalization of the fine structure constant. For the momenta much smaller than $m_V$, the exchange of $V$-boson introduces an additional current-current contact interaction, that mimics the contribution of particle's charge radius .

Calculation of the one-loop diagram produces the result for the additional contribution of $V$ bosons to the anomalous magnetic moment of a lepton (electron, muon) $a_l^{V}$, that can be conveniently expressed as: $$\label{g-2}
a_l^{V}  = \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \times \kappa^2 \int_{0}^{1}dz\frac{2m_l^2z(1-z)^2}{m_l^2(1-z)^2+m_V^2z}
=\frac{\alpha\kappa^2}{2\pi}\times \left\{\begin{array}{c}1 ~~{\rm for} ~~ m_l\gg m_V,\\
                                        2m_l^2/(3m_V^2) ~~{\rm for} ~~ m_l\ll m_V.\end{array}
\right.$$ We introduce the notation $F(m_l^2/m_V^2)$ for the integral in ().

Currently, the precision measurement of $(g-2)_e$ surpasses the sensitivity of all other QED measurements, and is used for the extraction of the fine structure constant . Therefore, Eq. () can be re-interpreted as an effective shift of the coupling constant by $$\label{dalpha}
\Delta \alpha = 2\pi a_e^V; ~~ \Delta \alpha^{-1} = - 2\pi a_e^V/\alpha^2,$$ and the precision test of the model comes from the *next* most precise determination of $\alpha$. Currently, these are atomic physics results with Cs and Rb . These determinations are very weekly affected by the additional $V$ boson, compared to $(g-2)_e$. Adopting the results of , we require that the relative shift of $\Delta \alpha$ does not exceed 15 ppb, which results in the following constraints on the parameters of our model: $$\label{ge}
\kappa^2 \times F(m_e^2/m_V^2)  < 15\times 10^{-9} ~~ \Longrightarrow ~~
\kappa^2\times \left( \frac{\rm 100~MeV}{m_V}  \right)^2 < 1. \times 10^{-3},$$ where we also made a relatively safe assumption that $m_V \gg m_e$. In practice one has to require $m_V \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}4$ MeV in order to satisfy constraints imposed by primordial nucleosynthesis (BBN) . If $m_V$ is chosen right at the boundary of the BBN constraint, Eq. () requires $\kappa^2$ to be less than $10^{-6}$, while of course the constraint weakens considerably for larger values of $m_V$.

Another important constraint comes from the measurement of the muon magnetic anomaly. The application of this constraint is not straightforward due to the necessity to deal with hadronic uncertainty in extracting theoretical prediction for $a_\mu$. The determination based on $e^+e^-$ annihilation to hadrons points to a $+302(88)\times 10^{-11}$ deficit (see, *e.g.* and references therein) of $a_\mu^{\rm th}$ relative to the experimental value for $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$ measured at Brookhaven . This constitutes a $3.4\sigma$ deviation, which over the years has prompted numerous theoretical speculations on new physics "solution" to this discrepancy. Other determinations based on $\tau$ physics , and most recently on preliminary analysis of the radiative return at BaBar do not indicate any discrepancy. It is easy to see that the positivity of $V$-contribution (), improves the agreement between $a_\mu^{\rm th}$ and $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$, if one adopts the $e^+e^-\to$hadrons based result. To state a conservative limit, we require that $a_\mu ^V \le (302+5\sigma)\times 10^{-11}
= 7.4\times 10^{-9}$. Such additional contribution to the anomaly is excluded no matter what method of treating the hadronic contribution to $a_\mu^{\rm th}$ one would like to choose. The combination of $g-2$ constraints is shown in Figure 1. The muon constraints include a forbidden region, as well as a "welcome" band of $1.3\times 10^{-9}< a_\mu^V < 4.8\times 10^{-9}$ that puts the theoretical prediction based on $e^+e^-\to$hadrons within two standard deviations from the experimental result $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$.

Another possibility for probing $V-\gamma$ mixing is through the high-precision measurements of photon exchange. For example, the $V$-contribution to the electron-proton scattering amplitude at $|q^2| \ll m_V^2$ is equivalent to the $(r_c^V)^2 = 6\kappa^2/m_V^2$ correction to the proton charge radius. The high-precision measurements of the Lamb shift are used to extract the proton charge radius (see *e.g.* Ref. and references therein), but in order to test $V$-exchange induced contribution, one has to measure the same quantity, $r_c^2$ using different techniques in the kinematic regime where $|q^2|$ would be on the order or larger than $m_V^2$. Since the measurements of charge radii in scattering are intrinsically less precise than the Lamb shift determination of $r_c$, the constraint from the charge radius of the proton does not appear to be better than $$\frac{6\kappa^2}{m_V^2} \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.1 {\rm fm}^2~~ ~~ \Longrightarrow ~~
\kappa^2\times \left( \frac{\rm 100~MeV}{m_V}  \right)^2 < 4\times 10^{-3},$$ and as such is subdominant to the $(g-2)_e-\alpha$ constraint (). It remains to be seen whether other precision QED tests (*e.g.* involving muonic atoms) would be able to improve on this constraint.

Finally, the $V-\gamma$ mixing may be searched for as a narrow resonance in the $e^+e^-$ collisions. The quantum numbers of $V$ allow them to be seen as narrow sharp resonances in the $s$-channel. The leptonic widths of this resonance can be easily calculated to be $$\label{Gammal}
\Gamma_{e^+e^-} = \frac{1}{3} \kappa^2 \alpha m_V,~~
\Gamma_{\mu^+\mu^-} = \frac{1}{3} \kappa^2 \alpha m_V\left(1+\frac{2m_\mu^2}{m_V^2}\right)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_\mu^2}{m_V^2}}.$$ Very close to the muon threshold the second formula will be modified by the Coulomb interaction of the outgoing muons. Above the hadronic threshold, $\Gamma_{\rm hadr}$ is directly related to the total rate of $e^+e^-$ annihilation into hadrons at the center of mass energy equal to $m_V$. For any value of parameters $V$-resonance is extremely narrow, $\Gamma_{e^+e^-} = 2.4~{\rm keV}\times \kappa^2 (m_V/100~{\rm MeV})$, which is smaller than the typical energy spread for the colliding particles. Near the resonance, however, the cross sections for *e.g.* $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ or $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ may be significantly enhanced relative to the usual QED cross section for $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$. Therefore, a proper procedure would be to compare resonant and standard non-resonant cross section smeared over some typical energy interval $\Delta E$, provided of course that the resonant energy is within this interval $\Delta E$. For example, for $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ process we have $$\label{ratio}
\frac{\sigma^{\rm res}_{e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-}}{\sigma^{\rm standard}_{e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-}} \simeq
\frac{9\pi\Gamma_{\rm tot}}{8\alpha^2 \Delta E} \times
\frac{{\rm Br}_{e^+e^-}{\rm Br}_{\mu^+\mu^-}}{(1+2m_\mu^2/m_V^2)\sqrt{1-4m_\mu^2/m_V^2}},$$ where ${\rm Br}_{l^+l^-}$ are the leptonic branching ratios of $V$-resonance, and $\Gamma_{\rm tot}$ its total width. These branching ratios are comparable to 1 and the total width is given by the sum of the leptonic and hadronic widths *if* there are no matter fields in the U(1)$'$-charged sector with masses less than $m_V/2$. In this case, ratio () scales as $\kappa^2 m_V/(\alpha\Delta E)$, which can provide an important constraint on the model. Choosing somewhat conservatively $\Delta E \sim$ 1 MeV, and requiring this ratio to be less than 0.1, we plot this sensitivity level in Figure 2, which also includes other conditional constraints from the next section. With these assumptions, the $e^+e^-$ scattering can become the most precise probe for $m_V > 100$ MeV, and could rule out $O(10^{-3})$ level of mixing. At this point we will refrain from calling it a constraint, as we believe that in practice, without a dedicated search, $O({\rm meV-eV})$ width resonances can be missed even if they are very strong. It is also important to keep in mind that if there exist additional channels for $V$ to decay into the matter charged under U(1)$'$, the ratio () scales as $\sim \kappa^4$, and all constraints weaken considerably. This is exactly the case in models with MeV-scale dark matter, where decays to two dark matter particles can make $\Gamma_V$ parametrically larger than () .

# Production of U(1)$'$ bosons in hyperon and $K$ decays

Radiative decays of strange particles is another natural place where U(1)$'$ bosons can manifest themselves. Since the interaction is mediated by mixing with the photon, the natural place to look for $V$ are the decays of $K$ and $\Sigma^+$ with photon or lepton pair(s) in the final state. A lot of work has been done in this area over the years, and the most important conclusion is that the rates for the flavor-changing radiative decays are dominated by large-distance physics, which cannot be (or almost cannot be) extracted from first principles. For this paper we employ the following strategy: we use the existing evaluations of the kaon and hyperon vertices with on-shell or off-shell photons, and use them to calculate the production of $V$-bosons. We also notice that the vector particles in our model have interactions only with conserved current, which makes them extremely difficult to produce in flavor-changing transitions as opposed to mediators with *e.g.* scalar or axial-vector couplings .

##  Radiative Kaon decays

In this paper we will consider two important processes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kproc}
{\rm A:}~~ K^+ &\rightarrow& \pi^+ V~~~[K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ l^+ l^-]\\
{\rm B:}~~ K^+&\rightarrow& l^+\nu V~~~[K^+ \rightarrow l^+\nu,~~K^+ \rightarrow l^+\nu l^+ l^-]\nonumber,
\end{aligned}$$ where the SM processes are shown inside square brackets. The branchings for the SM processes with $l^+ l^-$ are small, on the order of $O(10^{-7}-10^{-8})$ depending on particular process of interest. For the semileptonic decays A, the SM rates were estimated in Ref. , where the starting point was the chiral perturbation theory together with the experimental input for the $K^+\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^+$ vertex. This analysis results in the prediction for the $q^2$-proportional vertex of $K-\pi$ transition with virtual photon. In terms of this vertex, in the notation of Ref. , the expression for the amplitude is $${\cal M}_{K\to\pi V} = \frac{e\kappa m_V^2}{(4 \pi)^2m_K^2}(k+p)_\mu\epsilon^V_\mu W(m_V^2),$$ where $k$ and $p$ are the kaon and pion momenta, $\epsilon^V_\mu$ is the polarization of $V$-boson, and $W^2(m_V^2) \simeq 10^{-12} (3+ 6m_V^2/m_K^2)$ . The latter is in reasonable agreement with experimental determination via the $K^+\to\pi^+e^+e^-$ decay and with the rate of $K^+\to\pi^+\mu^+\mu^-$ decay . Notice the proportionality of the amplitude to $m_V^2$ that replaces $q^2$ of the virtual photon and suppresses the rate for small $m_V\ll m_K$. This amplitude gives rise to the following branching ratio: $$\Gamma_{K\to\pi V} = \frac{\alpha\kappa^2}{2^{10}\pi^4} \frac{m_V^2W^2}{m_K}f(m_V,m_K,m_\pi)
~~\Longrightarrow~~{\rm Br}_{K\to\pi V}
\simeq 8\times 10^{-5}\times \kappa^2 \left( \frac{m_V}{\rm 100~MeV}  \right)^2.
\label{Ktopi}$$ In this formula, dimensionless factor $f(m_V,m_K,m_\pi)$ stands for the mass dependence of phase space and matrix element, and $f$ is normalized to 1 in the limit $m_{\pi,V} \to 0$ when $m_K$ is kept finite. The last relation in () is valid only when $m_V$ is much smaller than $m_K$, but in practice for all $m_V$ below 200 MeV.

In order to constrain (), one has to know the subsequent fate of $V$. It can decay to lepton pairs or invisibly, if such channel is open. In case of the invisible decay, one could use the results of $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ search, but due to a rather restrictive kinematic window for pion momentum , this constraint is difficult to implement for arbitrary $m_V$. If the invisible decay is absent, $K^+\to\pi^+ V\to \pi l^+ l^-$ decays will contribute to the $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ l^+ l^-$ process. Given that there is still some uncertainty in the determination of $W(q^2)$ and its shape, and without a dedicated search for a resonant part, one could still contemplate that $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}10% of the existing branching ratio for $K^+\to\pi^+ V\to \pi e^+ e^-$ may come from the resonance. Thus, we require () be less than $3\times 10^{-8}$, and arrive at the constraint on mass versus coupling plotted in Figure 2. As one can see, the constraint becomes stronger than $(g-2)_\mu$ for $m_V$ around 300 MeV. We also include a sensitivity line, up to which the model can be probed if $\Delta {\rm Br}_{\rm res}\sim 6\times
10^{-9}$ can be achieved in the dedicated analysis of lepton spectra.

Among fully leptonic decays of type B (), we choose the one that is technically the simplest, $K^+\to e^+\nu V$ and is analogous to $K^+\to e^+\nu \gamma$. Because of the electron chirality suppression of $K^+\to e^+\nu$, the $\gamma$ or $V$ bosons have to be radiated by the structure-dependent vertex, *i.e.* not by the initial kaon or final positron line. This simplifies our task, given that radiative leptonic decays of pseudoscalars are reasonably well understood. In order to estimate the branching ratios in the limit of small $m_V$, $m_V \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}200$ MeV, we simply multiply the SM rate by the mixing parameter $\kappa^2$, $$\label{eenu}
{\rm Br}_{K^+\to l^+\nu V} \simeq \kappa^2  {\rm Br}_{K^+\to l^+\nu \gamma} = 1.5\times 10^{-5}\times \kappa^2 ,$$ while for heavier $m_V$ one would need to perform a separate calculation to include contributions from other $q^2$-proportional form factors and account for the phase space suppression. We notice, however, that from () one can immediately conclude that for $\kappa^2 < 10^{-3}$ the branching ratios fall below $10^{-8}$ level, which is comparable to the experimental errors on the branching ratios of the SM processes $K^+\to l^+\nu l^+l^-$. We conclude that constraints on mixing provided by processes of type B () are subdominant to muon $g-2$ constraints, and therefore there is no pressing need in refining estimate ().

##  Radiative hyperon decay, HyperCP anomaly, and the hypothesis of 214 MeV boson

$V$-boson can also be produced in the radiative hyperon decays. Since the branching ratio for the SM radiative decay is very large, ${\rm Br}_{\Sigma^+\to p\gamma} = 1.2 \times 10^{-3}$, one can expect an enhanced rate for the production of $V$ vector boson. The dedicated search of $\Sigma^+\to p\mu^+\mu^-$ process has produced some unexpected results : three observed events were consistent with the expectation for the SM rate, but their spectrum, all three clustered around $m_{\mu\mu}=214.3\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}0.5 MeV, is extremely puzzling. The HyperCP collaboration estimates that the probability of this happening within SM is less than 1%, while the hypothesis of the two-body decay, $\Sigma^+\to pX$, with $M_X\simeq 214.3$MeV followed by subsequent immediate decay $X\to \mu^+\mu^-$ can account for the anomalous energy distribution, and allows to extract the $X$-mediated branching ratio. This defines the "HyperCP hypothesis" that consists of $$\label{whatyouneed}
{\rm HyperCP~ hypothesis:}~~~
m_X=214.3~{\rm MeV};~~~{\rm Br}^X_{\Sigma^+\to p\mu^+\mu^-} = 3.1^{+2.4}_{-1.9}({\rm stat}) \pm 1.5({\rm syst}).$$ This hypothesis generated the whole line of theoretical investigations that revisited SM calculations of semi-leptonic $\Sigma^+$ decays , made a general analysis of possible New Physics contributions , and invested some (semi-convincing) model-building efforts in an attempt to "find" $X$-particles within more defined models of New Physics .

Ref. analyzes possible couplings of "HyperCP"-boson and concludes that bosons with vector or scalar couplings to $s-d$ flavor-changing currents are not allowed as an explanation of , while pseudoscalars and axial-vectors are possible. The negative conclusion with respect to vector-coupled $X$ comes from the analysis of $K^+ \rightarrow \pi^+ l^+ l^-$ decays. Very naively, this analysis would then preclude $V$ boson of secluded U(1)$'$ that has only vector couplings to serve as a candidate for $X$. We find that this conclusion does not apply to our model, because the results of Ref. rest on the assumption that New Physics in flavor sector is dominated by the *short-distance* contributions, such as $X_\mu \bar s \gamma_\mu d$ and alike. This is not the case for the secluded U(1)$'$ model, where New Physics in form of $V$-bosons couples entirely through the mixing with photons and thus through the *long-distance* effects. It is widely known that the long-distance contributions dominate the short-distance ones in the radiative decays of $\Sigma$ by as much as three orders of magnitude. In what follows, we investigate whether the putative "HyperCP" boson () can be identified with $V$, find the acceptable mixing $\kappa$ that provides required rate for $\Sigma^+\to p V \to p \mu^+\mu^-$ process, and compare this prediction with other constraints.

We start from the standard parametrization of the $\Sigma^+\to p \gamma$ decay form factors $a$, $b$ $c$ and $d$ featured in the matrix element for $\Sigma\to p$ electromagnetic transition: $${\cal M}_{\rm \Sigma\to p\gamma^*} =
eG_F \bar p [i\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_\mu (a+b\gamma_5) +(q^2\gamma^\nu -q^\nu \rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 1 mu /$}}q)(c+d\gamma_5)]  \Sigma .
\label{Seff}$$ Here we follow the convention of Ref. . For the emission of a real photon only $a$ and $b$ form factors at $q^2=0$ are relevant, $$\Gamma_{\Sigma^+\to p \gamma} = \frac{G_F^2e^2}{\pi}\left(|a(0)|^2 + |b(0)|^2 \right) E_\gamma^3.$$ This rate, upon normalization on relevant branching ratio of $1.2\times 10^{-3}$, gives the following inference about the size of the form-factors : $$|a(0)|^2 + |b(0)|^2 = (15\pm 0.3~{\rm MeV})^2;~~~ {\rm Re}(a(0)b^*(0)) = (-85\pm 9.6) ~{\rm MeV}^2.$$ The second relation comes from the measurement of the parity-violating interference in $\Sigma$ decay. Unfortunately, only the cursory information can be gathered about eight form factors, counting real and imaginary parts, as functions of $q^2$. In the assumption of $q^2$-independence, conjectured from the mild $q^2$-dependence reconstructed for imaginary parts of the form factors with the use of chiral perturbation/heavy baryon theory , the prediction for the SM branching ratio is: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
10^8 \times {\rm Br}^{\rm SM}_{\Sigma^+\to p \mu^+\mu^-} \sim 4.5\times
\frac{|a|^2+|b|^2}{(15~{\rm MeV})^2} -3.6\times \frac{|a|^2-|b|^2}{(15~{\rm MeV})^2}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\\
\label{SMSi}
+1.1\times \left(\frac{|c|}{0.1}\right)^2 +0.18\times \left(\frac{|d|}{0.01}\right)^2
+0.45\times \frac{{\rm Re}(ac^*)}{1.5~{\rm MeV}} - 2.4\times \frac{{\rm Re}(bd^*)}{0.15~{\rm MeV}}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\\
=4.5\left[  |A|^2 + |B|^2 - 0.8(|A|^2 - |B|^2) +0.33|C|^2 +0.04|D|^2
+0.1{\rm Re}(AC^*) -0.54{\rm Re}(BD^*)
 \right].
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ We took a liberty of normalizing form factors $a,~b,~c,~d$ on their typical values inferred in , and introduced dimensionless and (presumably) $O(1)$ values $A,~B,~C,~D$. It is important to keep in mind that even if one adopts the chiral perturbation inspired determinations of real and imaginary parts of $a$ and $b$, there exists a residual ambiguity in the choice of signs, that results in () covering an entire range $10^{-9} \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}{\rm Br}^{\rm SM}_{\Sigma^+\to p \mu^+\mu^-} \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-8}$ , and perhaps even wider if one adopts more conservative assumptions about theoretical errors in extracting the form factors. One cannot help noticing numerous possibilities for constructive or destructive interference between different terms, which are beyond theoretical control at the current stage of our understanding of strong dynamics.

The calculation of the $\Sigma \to pV$ decay in terms of form factors in () is similar if not simpler, and we quote our result directly for the case of $m_V=214.3$ MeV, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BrHP}
{\rm Br}_{\Sigma^+\to p V} = 5.2\times 10^{-4} \kappa^2 \times N_{ABCD},
\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{ABCD}$ stands for the following combination taken at $q^2 = (214.3~{\rm MeV})^2$: $$\label{NABCD}
N_{ABCD} = |A|^2 + |B|^2 - 0.66(|A|^2 - |B|^2) +0.35|C|^2 +0.03|D|^2
+0.14{\rm Re}(AC^*) -0.44{\rm Re}(BD^*)$$ One can easily see that if the rate is dominated by $|A|^2 + |B|^2\simeq 1$ and the rest of the contributions is small, the branching ratio to $V$ bosons is about $0.4\kappa^2$ of the $\Sigma\to p\gamma$ branching, where the factor of $0.4$ comes from the phase space suppression. Variation of coefficients in () suggests a $\sim(10^{-4}-10^{-3})\times \kappa^2$ branching ratio range for $\Sigma\to pV$ decay, and in order to get to the final estimate of $V$-mediated $\Sigma^+\to p\mu^+\mu^-$ decay, we must multiply the rate by ${\rm Br}_{V\to \mu^+\mu^-}\simeq 0.2$. Therefore, we arrive at the following estimate for the HyperCP decay rate mediated by $V$ bosons, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{result}
{\rm Br}^V_{\Sigma^+\to p \mu^+\mu^-} = {\rm Br}_{V\to \mu^+\mu^-}\times {\rm Br}_{\Sigma^+\to p V}=
1. \times 10^{-4} \kappa^2 \times N_{ABCD}.
\end{aligned}$$ Assigning somewhat arbitrarily $N_{ABCD}^{max} \sim 3$, one deduces the following *minimal* value of $\kappa$ consistent with hypothesis (): $$\kappa^2 > 3\times 10^{-5}.
\label{whatyouget}$$ This lower bound of mixing compatible with HyperCP hypothesis is also consistent with $a^V_\mu \sim 3\times 10^{-9}$, which is exactly in the middle of the band that "solves" $(g-2)_\mu$ discrepancy, Figure 2. It is fair to say, however, that the most natural values for $\kappa^2$ consistent with () are well above $10^{-4}$ and in the domain already excluded by $K^+\to \pi^+ \mu^+\mu^-$ and muon $g-2$. One can also notice that the coefficients in $N_{ABCD}$ are similar to those in the square bracket of (), although not exactly the same. This is the direct consequence of the fact that the phase space available for the SM muon decays is not that large, and on average muon pairs have an invariant mass not far from 214 MeV. Therefore, it would be natural to divide the two rates, () and (), in an attempt to reduce the uncertainty. We are not pursuing this idea here, because in the end there is no guarantee that the form factor dependence of () and () is the same, given the number of assumptions that was made on the way.

# Discussion

We have presented some results on the phenomenology of U(1)$'$ gauge boson in the mass range of few MeV to GeV, with the kinetic mixing to photon at $O(10^{-3}-10^{-2})$ level. We have concluded that none of the constraint that have been analyzed in this paper can decisively rule out this possibility. Indeed, the opportunities for observing such $V$-boson are very "minimal" since it has only electromagnetic couplings. As a result, the best constraints one can find come from the precision QED experiments. As expected, the muon $g-2$ is the best source for limiting $\kappa-m_V$ parameter space at $m_V \sim 100$ MeV. However, because of the controversial status of the experiment vs theory, one cannot rule out $V$ bosons with per-mill couplings, and moreover, an additional contribution of $V$-muon loop with $\kappa^2\sim 10^{-5}-10^{-4}$ may actually improve the agreement between theory and experiment.

The radiative decays of strange particles have been extensively studied in the past and are another way of probing $m_V-\kappa$ parameter space. Assuming that $V$ decays back to leptons (as opposed to some unspecified $O({\rm MeV})$ matter charged under U(1)$'$), we have shown that $K^+\to \pi^+e^+e^-$ decay is already limiting the model better than $(g-2)_\mu$, but only for a rather narrow range of $m_V$ around 300 MeV. The decays of $K$-mesons to $V$ are dominated by the long-distance contributions, which are significantly enhanced relative to short-distance pieces. The $\Sigma^+\to p l^+ l^-$ particles is another natural place to look for $V$ production. However, the status of $\Sigma^+\to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay is somewhat controversial. The HyperCP collaboration saw an unusual pattern of muon invariant mass distribution, with all events (all=3) clustered around the same energy , and put forward a hypothesis that the decay is mediated by the two-body decay with some intermediate resonance with mass of 214.3 MeV. We have analyzed whether such hypothesis is viable within the secluded U(1)$'$ model and found that given large uncertainties in evaluating long-distance contributions, such possibility is not excluded if $\kappa^2 > 3\times 10^{-5}$. The reason why this model avoids a "no-go" theorem of Ref. , that forbids vector-coupled particles as possible explanation of HyperCP anomaly, is because the dominance of the long-distance effects, to which this theorem does not apply. Since the model is well-defined and the radiative kaon decays are well studied, the dedicated re-analysis of $K^+\to \pi^+e^+e^-$ data may close the window on the HyperCP hypothesis in this model. Before we conclude, a few final remarks are in order.

-   *Other realizations of MeV–GeV scale U(1)$'$.* As noted in the introduction, secluded U(1)$'$ with kinetic mixing is natural, but not the only possible U(1)$'$ extension below the GeV scale. If $B-L$ symmetry is gauged, low $m_V$ would require the U(1)$'$ coupling constant to be much smaller than $\alpha_{EM}$ . The QED constraints considered in this paper can be simply rescaled to limit $\alpha'$. It is also plausible to find an appropriate $\alpha'$ that would fit HyperCP hypothesis. This model, however, has additional constraints related to *e.g.* neutrino interactions that might be far more important than those considered in this paper.

-   *Prospects for refining constraints on mass-mixing parameter space.* It is unlikely that one can achieve further breakthroughs either in theory or experiments studying radiative decays of strange particles. However, a possibility of direct search for narrow (a factor of a million more narrow than $J/\psi$!) resonances in $e^+e^-$ machines should not be discarded as a way of limiting the parameter space of the model. Ultimately, only this could decisively test small values of $\kappa$ down to $10^{-3}$ level for models with $m_V \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower 1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}$GeV.

-   *Doubly-secluded Higgs$'$ as a source of leptons.* So far the physics of Higgs$'$ boson has been ignored. It is worth pointing out, however, that Higgs$'$ decay properties are very sensitively dependent on its mass relative to $m_V$. One can easily see that there are three main regimes for the Higgs$'$ decay to leptons (assuming $m_l \ll m_{h'}$ for simplicity): $$\begin{aligned}
    \nonumber
     2m_V < m_{h'}:~~~ h'\to 2V;~~~\Gamma_{h'} \sim O(\kappa^0)\\
     \nonumber
    m_V < m_{h'} < 2m_V :~~~ h'\to Vl^+l^-;~~~\Gamma_{h'} \sim O(\kappa^2)\\
     m_{h'} < m_V :~~~ h'\to l^+l^-l^+l^-;~~~\Gamma_{h'} \sim O(\kappa^4)
     \label{doublysec}
    \end{aligned}$$ The last line of () corresponds to the regime when the Higgs can decay only via a pair of virtual $V$-bosons, each of which would have to decay electromagnetically via the mixing with photon. As a result, the amplitude of Higgs$'$ decay is quadratic in $\kappa$ and the width is quartic, making this Higgs "doubly-secluded". Being further suppressed by $\alpha^2$ and the four-particle phase space, the lifetime of Higgs$'$ can be much longer than the lifetime of $V$ and indeed on the order of the lifetimes of particles that decay due to weak interactions. It is also worth pointing out that the production cross section of $h'$ by Higgs-strahlung mechanisms is only singly-secluded, $\sigma_{f\bar f \to Vh'} \sim O(\kappa^2)$. Interestingly, a scenario of a particle with not very suppressed production rate and very small decay rate was suggested recently by the CDF collaboration in connection with observation of "ghost muons" . At some superficial level, the doubly-secluded Higgs with $m_{h'} > 4 m_\mu$ may fit this scenario, but without a dedicated analysis it is impossible to tell whether the production rate of $h'$ could be large enough to account for "extra CDF muons". On the other hand, the Higgs$'$-strahlung signature of 6 leptons in the final state can be used in $e^+e^-$ machines to set additional constraints on the model.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Saveliy Karshenboim, Mikhail Voloshin and Adam Ritz for useful discussions. Research at the Perimeter Institute is also supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MEDT.


abstract: Due to the exponentially increased demands of mobile data traffic, e.g., a 1000-fold increase in traffic demand from 4G to 5G, network densification is considered as a key mechanism in the evolution of cellular networks, and ultra-dense heterogeneous network (UDHN) is a promising technique to meet the requirements of explosive data traffic in 5G networks. In the UDHN, base station is brought closer and closer to users through densely deploying small cells, which would result in extremely high spectral efficiency and energy efficiency. In this article, we first present a potential network architecture for the UDHN, and then propose a generalized orthogonal/non-orthogonal random access scheme to improve the network efficiency while reducing the signaling overhead. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. Finally, we present some of the key challenges of the UDHN.
author: Jianping An, , Kai Yang, , Jinsong Wu, , Neng Ye, Song Guo, , and Zhifang Liao
[^1]
[^2] [^3] [^4] [^5]
title: Achieve Sustainable Ultra-Dense Heterogeneous Networks for 5G

# Introduction

Fueled by the proliferation of mobile devices and applications, mobile data traffic increases exponentially in the past decade, and this trend will certainly continue and accelerate even further in the future . It has been reported that the mobile device density (the device number per unit area) and traffic density (the traffic volume per unit area) will rise to several million per $km^2$ and tens of Tera bits per second per $km^2$ in local hotspot areas, respectively . These explosions of mobile device and traffic would impose new challenges to future cellular networks.

To tackle the 1000x mobile traffic challenge and to accommodate the massive devices, ultra-dense heterogeneous networks (UDHN) have been identified as a key mechanism to handle orders of magnitude increase in the data traffic volume . The UDHN refers to the idea of densifying the cellular networks with a very high network densification, including both the mobile device densification and base station (BS) densification, where the density of BS may exceed that of mobile device. As a result, the UDHN would potentially allow for orders of magnitude improvement in both spectral efficiency (SE) and energy efficiency (EE) .

The more traffic generated, the more BSs will be needed to serve the devices. The evolution of the cellular networks, i.e., from 1G to 5G, can be viewed as the process of network densification to some extent. In 1G networks, the cell radius is around 10 miles, and cell splitting may occur, where the radio coverage of one cell is partitioned into two or more new smaller cells to mitigate path-loss and to support more devices. In 2G networks, the typical radius of macrocell varies from a couple of hundred meters to several kilometres. Besides cell splitting, small cells, which are low-powered radio access nodes that have a range of tens of meters to 1 or 2 kilometers, are introduced in 2G networks to offload traffic from macrocells. In 3G and 4G networks, small cells are further popular and viewed as a vital element for boosting network throughput and balancing traffic load. Deploying more and more small cells to serve a certain geographical area leads to smaller and smaller cell coverage areas, and thereby achieving cell splitting gains. With small cells being deployed, homogeneous cellular networks become heterogeneous because of difference in transmit power and coverage area of BSs. In 5G networks, the density of small cells will be further increased compared with that in 4G networks to guarantee seamless coverage and high data rate. As a result, the UDHN is emerging as one of the core characteristics of 5G cellular networks . However, the performance of the UDHN doesnot increase monotonously with BS density, and it is limited by the inter-cell interference and the fronthaul and backhaul network capacity . The full benefits of network densification can be realized only if it is complemented by advanced transceivers capable of interference cancellation and backhaul densification .

In this article, we first present one potential network architecture for 5G UDHN, and then investigate the random access problem in 5G UDHN. Here, we focus on the machine type communication (MTC) devices, whose density is much higher than that of human type communication (HTC) devices, and propose a random access scheme for MTC devices to improve the network efficiency while reducing the signaling overhead. Finally, we analyze the challenges of 5G UDHN.

# Network Architecture

The current LTE heterogeneous networks are mainly designed for mobile broadband scenario. In addition, the communications between different cells are limited by the existing Un and Uu interface, which may not satisfy the demand of growing traffic. To meet the 5G requirements on explosive growth in traffic volumes and unprecedented increase in connected mobile devices, dramatic changes in the design of network architecture are required. As a result, we propose a potential network architecture for the UDHN, as shown in Fig. , where macrocells, microcells, picocells, and femtocells are connected via the cloud radio access network (C-RAN) structure to facilitate the collaboration among cells. The proposed UDHN can be viewed as an evolution of the current LTE heterogeneous networks, and is compatible with the current LTE architecture.

## Multi-Tier Heterogeneous Networks

According to the trend in cellular networks evolution, 5G networks will be a heterogeneous one consisting of macrocells along with a large number of small cells, device-to-device (D2D) pairs, and MTC devices based communication tiers . Each tier has a different size with a different transmit power level. Typically, macrocell is covered by a high power node with a large radius to provide wide area coverage for the remote and rural areas, whereas the main purpose of small cells, which encompass microcells, picocells, and femtocells, is to enhance network capacity in hot spots with very dense services through offloading traffic load from the macrocells and increasing the frequency reuse factor. Compared with microcell and picocell, which are deployed by operator, femtocell is typically in the mode of plug and play, and any consumer can install a femtocell at home. Due to the private property, consumer needs to declare the femtocell access control protocol, namely, open access control, where any nearby users can access the femtocell, or closed access control, where only the pre-registered users are allowed to access the femtocell.

Due to the ultra-densities of BSs and users, a tractable model for the UDHN is desired to facilitate the network performance analysis compared to complex system-level simulations. Fortunately, we can model multi-tier UDHN based on stochastic geometry, where we model the locations of BSs of the same tier as a homogeneous Poisson point process (HPPP) of density $\lambda$. Different tier is with different $\lambda$ to characterize its density property. It is easy to theoretically analyze the performance of multi-tier UDHN based on HPPP model by using Palm measure. However, the locations of the macro BSs are usually dominated by the network planning, and are not random in general. To model the location of macro BS more appropriate, we can resort to Matern hard core Poisson point process, whose repulsive nature makes it a suitable candidate to model macro BSs in cellular networks. Furthermore, we can use Poisson cluster process to characterize the clustering property of small cells, as small cells are usually clustered around highly populated areas.

### Device-to-Device Communications

To take advantage of the physical proximity of communicating devices, such as increasing resource utilization, improving cellular coverage, and offloading traffic load from BSs, D2D communications are proposed as a key component for future cellular networks, as shown in Fig. . Two D2D UEs can communicate with each other using the licensed radio resources in three modes, i.e., cellular mode, overlay mode, and underlay mode, to coordinate the cellular and D2D links and to manage the interference while remaining control under the network. Compared with the underlay mode, the overlay mode is with the advantage in facilitating the challenging interference management. In underlay mode, resource sharing between D2D pair and cellular UE incurs interference, which is usually viewed as an obstacle to cellular networks.

To realize the direct communications between two D2D UEs, the transceiver architecture of current UE shall be changed, since LTE adopts orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and single-carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) in the downlink and uplink, respectively. As a result, we can choose either OFDM or SC-FDMA for D2D communications. One simple solution is to add IDFT module in the UE receive chain for receiving SC-FMDA signal or bypass the DFT module in the UE transmit chain for transmitting OFDM signal. The D2D communication ranges with different transceiver architectures are shown in Table , where we observe that the range improvement of SC-FDMA-based architecture is about 10$\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}15% and 20$\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}50% for indoor and outdoor scenarios, respectively, compared with OFDM-based architecture. This is due to the fact that the peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM is higher than that of SC-FDMA, which means that the power back-off of SC-FDMA is lower than that of OFDM.

```latex
\begin{threeparttable}
        \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
            \toprule
            \multicolumn{2}{c}{Modulation Scheme}  &\multicolumn{2}{c}{QPSK} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{16QAM} &  \multicolumn{4}{c}{64QAM}   \\
            \multicolumn{2}{c}{Code Rate} & 1/2 & 3/4 & 1/2 & 3/4& 1/2  & 2/3   & 3/4 & 5/6 \\\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
            \multirow{2}{*}{Indoor Scenario}&SC-FDMA    &64.7   &58.8   &54.6   &48.9   &48.7   &44.2   &42     &39.8\\
            &OFDM   &56.4   &50.6   &49.5   &43.9   &45     &40.5   &38.4   &36.2\\\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
            \multirow{2}{*}{Outdoor Scenario}&SC-FDMA   &378    &283.5  &231.1& 173.3&  171.8   &136.5& 121.6&  108.4\\
            &OFDM   &252.6  &189.5  &178.9  &134.1  &142.1  &112.8& 100.6   &89.6\\\bottomrule
        \end{tabular}
    \end{threeparttable}
```

### Machine Type Communications

Compared with HTCs, one of the key characteristics of MTCs is that it involves a potentially huge number of power-limited devices, where each connected device transmits low volume of non-delay sensitive data with a certain period. Since the current cellular networks are designed for human type applications, the operator should accommodate their networks to support MTCs. It is noticed that handling a huge amount of MTC devices causes problems in connection establishment and radio resource allocation , and significant congestion problem will be risen due to simultaneous signaling or data transmissions from massive MTC devices.

Before establishing a radio resource control (RRC) connection for an MTC device, a random access procedure shall be initialized for the MTC device. With a large number of MTC devices performing the random access procedure simultaneously, the succession probability of access for each device would degrade seriously. In order to mitigate the congestion in random access procedure, a simple solution is to assign new dedicated resource for the access of MTC devices based on the traffic conditions and the number of MTC devices. In this article, we will propose a random access scheme for massive MTC devices to mitigate the congestion and to improve the network performance later.

## Downlink and Uplink Decoupling

Compared with the traditional coupled downlink-uplink association strategy in current cellular networks, decoupling of downlink and uplink is inspired to balance the traffic load between downlink and uplink in multi-tier UDHN, where each user may be associated with different BSs in the downlink and uplink directions and the downlink and uplink communication sessions are treated as two separated entities. From the perspective of optimization, the region of coupled association is a subset of that of decoupled association, which indicates that a well designed decoupled association strategy principally outperforms coupled one in terms of network throughput, SE, and EE .

Downlink and uplink decoupling (DUDe) can be viewed as an evolution of the biased coupled association, where the small cell range is extended through the use of a positive cell selection offset to the largest received downlink power. Compared with biased coupled association, the gains of DUDe are substantial. A simple access rule of DUDe is that users connect to the nearest BS in uplink and access to the BS with the strongest received downlink signal in downlink. This is much more beneficial for MTC applications, whose uplink traffic load is usually much higher than downlink traffic load.

Compared with coupled association, DUDe results in new challenges from the perspective of network design, where the logical and physical channels are much easier to design and operate for coupled association . Furthermore, decoupling the downlink and uplink requires a strict synchronization and signalling connectivity between the two association BSs, which can be easily implemented with C-RAN. In C-RAN, two BSs can exchange information directly to perform call admission, handover, and resource assignment, which could facilitate the DUDe. As the C-RAN implements the protocol stack in a centralized fashion, it is preferred to employ a centralized fashion for DUDe in our proposed UDHN with C-RAN architecture.

## Cloud Radio Access Network

Since ultra-dense networks meet new challenges of densely deploying small cells due to the significant capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX), C-RAN is viewed as a promising paradigm for 5G UDHN, as shown in Fig. . C-RAN integrates cloud computing into radio access networks to virtualize the functionalities of BSs, and it may be viewed as an evolution of the distributed BS. In distributed BS, the radio function unit, i.e., remote radio head (RRH), is separated from the digital function unit, i.e., baseband unit (BBU). In C-RAN, BBUs are brought together to construct a BBU pool, and RRHs are distributed deployed to provide wide coverage and high data rate . A number of RRHs are connected a BBU pool via high bandwidth and low latency links, e.g., optical fiber or microwave connections, using the open base station architecture initiative (OBSAI) or common public radio interface (CPRI) standard . As the BBU pool is responsible for all the baseband signal processing, C-RAN could facilitate the collaboration among cells, such as coordinated multipoint (CoMP) and interference mitigation.

In Fig. , all the macrocell, microcell, picocell, and femtocell can be served by RRHs, which transmit radio frequency (RF) signals to users in the downlink and forward the baseband signals to BBU pool in the uplink. As most of the functions of the protocol stack are conducted in BBU pool, RRHs could be relatively simple and cheap with PHY layer functions only. Compared to stand-alone BS, which conducts the entire protocol stack and has its own backhaul, battery, air condition, and so on, RRH is a pure RF unit, and can be easily deployed to extend the coverage and to improve the capacity in a cost-efficient manner. Compared to traditional network architecture with stand-alone BSs, the baseband processing resources are shared among RRHs through cloud computing in BBU pool, and fewer BBUs are needed in C-RAN to cover the same geographic area. It is reported that one BBU pool could serve up to one thousand RRHs to cover a geographic area with a radius of tens of kilometers. Due to the cloud computing property of C-RAN, it could also effectively solve the challenge of traffic load fluctuation of each cell caused by the user mobility, and saves the processing resources and power at idle times.

Because of the densely deploying of inexpensive RRHs and processing resources sharing among cells, C-RAN architecture could significantly reduce the CAPEX and OPEX compared to current network architecture with stand-alone BSs and distributed BSs. Furthermore, due to the scalability of C-RAN, it is easy to add new BBUs in the BBU pool to improve the processing ability and to deploy new RRHs to enhance the network coverage, thereby facilitating system roll out and network maintenance.

However, C-RAN architecture brings huge overhead on the fronthaul links between RRHs and BBU pool, and the capacity of fronthaul has a crucial influence on the performance of C-RAN. The traffic load on the fronthaul is proportional to the aggregate volume of all the users, and it is 50 times higher than that on the backhaul. For example, the CPRI data rate per carrier of current TD-LTE is 10 Gbps. Hence, the fronthaul capacity is a bottleneck of C-RAN. To tackle this problem, fronthaul compression is necessary, where RRHs and BBU pool compress the baseband signals in uplink and downlink respectively. With the continued user densification in 5G UDHN, the impact of the constrained fronthaul will become more and more serious, and joint design from both the wireless and transport perspectives is required for the advanced fronthaul. With constrained fronthaul, fronthaul-aware resource allocation schemes are also required to alleviate the fronthaul constraints.

# Random Access

In 5G UDHN, the fact that the density of MTC devices will be much higher than that of UEs makes the random access for MTC devices very challenging. To support a massive number of MTC devices, we propose a generalized orthogonal/non-orthogonal random access (GONORA) scheme for 5G UDHN, which is a grant-less transmission scheme.

Let physical resource pool (PRP) denote the basic transmission block in GONORA, where a PRP consists of $\omega$ resource units (RUs). The procedure of GONORA can be modelled as a Markov chain, as shown in Fig. . An MTC device with a new packet to transmit generates a random discrete-time backoff interval before transmitting to minimize the congestion, where the backoff interval is uniformly chosen in the range $(0, \text{W}_v)$, $0\leq v\leq \text V$, with subscript $v$ denoting the repetition times of the new packet. Here, we adopt an exponential backoff scheme , where the content window $\text{W}_v=2^v \text{W}_0$ with $\text{W}_0$ being the initial content window size. When the backoff time counter reaches zero, the MTC device chooses $\text{N}_v$ RUs from the next coming PRP to transmit part of the new packet based on the size of $\text{N}_v$. The value of $\text{N}_v$ is related with the size of the packet, the repetition times, and the payload of PRP. If it is successfully transmitted, the MTC device returns to idle state to wait for transmitting the rest of the new packet or to wait for the next packet. If the MTC device does not receive an acknowledge (ACK) in time, it will prepare for the next repetition. After reaching the maximum allowed repetition times, i.e., $\text V$ in Fig. , the MTC device will give up repetition and return to the idle state no matter whether the packet is successfully transmitted or not.

In this Markov chain, the one-step transition probabilities are $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\Pr \left( {\left. {v,k} \right|v,k + 1} \right) = 1,\;\;\;\;\;k \in \left( {0,\;{{\text{W}}_v} - 2} \right),\;v \in \left( {0,\;{\text{V}}} \right)\\
\Pr \left( {\left. {v,k} \right|{{\text{S}}_v}} \right) = {1 \mathord{\left/
 {\vphantom {1 {{{\text{W}}_v}}}} \right.
 \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{{\text{W}}_v}}},\;\;\;\;\;\;k \in \left( {0,\;{{\text{W}}_v} - 1} \right),\;v \in \left( {0,\;{\text{V}}} \right)\\
\Pr \left( {\left. {{{\text{S}}_{v + 1}}} \right|{{\text{N}}_v}} \right) = p_v^{\text{e}},\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;v \in \left( {0,\;{\text{V}} - 1} \right)\\
\Pr \left( {\left. {idle} \right|{{\text{N}}_v}} \right) = p_v^{\text{s}},\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;v \in \left( {0,\;{\text{V}}} \right)
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$ where the success and error probabilities $p_v^{\text{s}}$ and $p_v^{\text{e}}$ of the $v$-th repetition are dominated by the channel state and congestion among MTC devices. To simplify the choosing of $\text N_v$, we can choose each RU from one PRP with a probability $p$ with $\text N_v$ following Bernoulli distribution and $E\left[\text N_v\right] = p \omega$. Obviously, $p$ is related with the traffic volume and the size of the PRP, and the value of $p$ can be derived as $$\begin{aligned}
p = \frac{{\beta \gamma }}{{\sum\limits_{m = 1}^M {{\alpha _m}{\lambda _m}\tau } }}
\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the number of MTC devices that associated with the same cell, $\alpha_m$ is the average package size of MTC device $m$, $\lambda_m$ is the Poisson parameter, $\tau$ is the time duration of each PRP, $\beta$ is the average capacity of one PRP without signal superposing, and $\gamma$ denotes the average resource reuse factor. Here, the package arrival of each MTC device is assumed to follow Poisson distribution and, consequently, the average aggregate traffic load during one PRP is ${\sum\nolimits_{m = 1}^M {{\alpha _m}{\lambda _m}\tau } }$.

The block error ratio (BLER) and normalized throughput of GONORA versus overload factor with different RRH numbers are shown in the Figs. and , respectively. Here, the overload factor is defined as the ratio of the MTC device number and the RU number per PRP, and the normalized throughput is defined as the average number of UEs that successfully transmit their packets on one RU. In Fig. , it is shown that the BLER increases with the increase of overload factor due to the congestion of MTC devices. In Fig. , we observe that the normalized throughput approaches the offered traffic with low overload factor, which is due to the fact that the packets are quasi orthogonal in such a scenario. With the increase of overload factor, the orthogonality among the transmitted packets is destroyed, which results in that more RRHs are required to mitigate the congestion. In Fig. , the BLER of GONORA versus overload factor with different RU selecting probability $p$ is plotted. We observe that the BLER decreases with $p$ when overload factor is small. Obviously, the higher the value of $p$, the larger the repetition times per packet, and hence the higher the received SINR. With the increase of overload factor, the congestion becomes serious, which leads to higher BLER.

# Challenges of UDHN

The challenges of the UDHN are from deploying and operating the cellular networks to satisfy the unprecedented mobile device increase and the explosive traffic load growth with limited radio resources. Hence, the most challenge of the UDHN is the interference management. Furthermore, due to the mobility of massive mobile devices, mobility management, mobile association, and channel estimation are also key challenges of the UDHN.

## Interference Management

Due to the decrescent distance between neighbouring cells caused by continued network densification, the co-channel interference will become more and more serious and may severely deteriorate the network performance, especially the QoS of cell-edge users. Hence, effective interference management is crucial for guaranteeing the user experience .

To address the co-channel interference, inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) has been introduced in LTE networks, where the neighbouring BSs allocate different radio resources to their users in some way to mitigate inter-cell interference (ICI) based on the received interference status of their neighbours from X2 interface. A straightforward way of allocating different resources to cell-edge users is adopting fractional frequency reuse (FFR) strategy, where different frequency reuse factors are applied in the cell center and cell edge regions to mitigate ICI. It is noticed that we can also adopt the concept of FFR to mitigate the co-channel interference among geographically overlapped cells by assigning different frequency resources to different cells in overlapped area. Another effective ICIC strategy in LTE is CoMP, which turns the ICIs into useful signals, especially for cell-edge user, through joint processing or coordinated scheduling/coordinated beamforming.

In 5G UDHN, besides FFR and CoMP, advanced interference management strategies are needed to tackle the more serious interference status. Recently, two new interference management strategies have emerged: interference shaping (IS) and interference exploitation (IE) . The concept of IS is to linearly combine the interference signals in a certain way to eliminate the aggregated interference effect at receivers, and the representative IS technique is interference alignment (IA), which aligns multiple interfering signals such that the received signal can be projected into the null space of the interfering signals to decode the desired signal with no interference. IE exploits the interference as side information to improve the throughput, such as network coding and index coding.

The abovementioned four interference management strategies are network-side approaches. To further enhance the interference management, user-side approach is another option to alleviate the interference issues in 5G UDHN. In user-side approach, advanced receiver is required to take use of the interference signals structure, and the desired signals can be derived by subtracting the reconstructed interfering signals from the received signals. Joint network-side and user-side interference managements could significantly mitigate the interference.

## Mobility Management and Mobile Association

The continued network densification and increased heterogeneity in the UDHN also poses challenges for the mobility management . A natural way for mobility management in the UDHN is to decouple the user and control planes, where the user plane protocol stack is conducted through small cell to improve the throughput and the control plane protocol stack is preferred to be conducted by macrocell to reduce the handover frequency. After adopting C-RAN architecture, the mobility management will become more easier with the decoupling of user and control planes, as all necessary information is in the same BBU pool and is easy to be passed from source RRH to target RRH to prepare the handover procedure. Furthermore, the advanced cloud processing could also reduce the intra-BBU pool handover delay. Another way to ease the mobility management in the UDHN is to restrict highly mobile users to macrocells at lower frequencies, thereby forcing them to tolerate lower data rates while minimizing the frequency of the handover.

Most of the existing mobile association schemes are developed based on the downlink channel state information (CSI). In the UDHN, different types of small cells with different transmit powers are densely deployed, where multiple access points are available in both uplink and downlink. Hence, mobile association, which adaptively selects the uplink and downlink access points to guarantee the QoS while balancing the traffic load in different cells, becomes a challenging and fundamental issue. One natural way for mobile association is to select the serving cell with the highest instantaneous receiving power. To reduce the probability of handover, we can also select the serving cell based on long-term CSI. With C-RAN, the mobile association can be performed in the BBU pool to ease the collaboration among cells to guarantee the QoS from the perspective of the UEs and balance the traffic load from the perspective of the networks.

## Channel Estimation

Channel state information is essential not only for resource scheduling and demodulation, but also for coordination among cells in 5G UDHN. And the use of wide channel bandwidths and massive antennas poses significant challenges for the channel estimation. For example, CoMP relies on the availability of CSIs strictly, and fast CSI feedback is required to tackle the channel changes. To alleviate the CSI estimation and signalling overhead, instead of allowing coordination among all the cells, the cells can be clustered so that only certain cells in the same cluster joint the CoMP. In IA algorithm, global and instantaneous CSI at transmitter is also crucial for aligning and removing the interference.

One simple method of reducing the CSI overhead is to use the channel stochastics to replace the instantaneous CSI, e.g., using the channel autocorrelation function instead of CSI itself in blind IA, at the cost of performance degradation. The second method is to adopt the channel reciprocal properties to estimate the uplink (downlink) channel based on the downlink (uplink) signals to avoid the reference signals and to reduce the feedback overhead. The second method is attractive for MIMO channel, especially for massive MIMO channel. However, the channel reciprocality only exists in time division duplexing systems, and the channel reciprocal is also unavailable for DUDe.

# Conclusions

Network architecture dominates the performance of the networks. This article provides a potential network architecture for 5G to satisfy the 1000x traffic increase. The future cellular networks will be an ultra-dense multi-tier heterogeneous networks along with D2D pairs and MTC devices. To accommodate different tier cells, DUDe and C-RAN will be introduced for 5G. We have proposed the GONORA scheme for massive MTC devices and analyzed the challenges of the UDHN. Nevertheless, there are still quite a number of outstanding problems that need further investigations for 5G.

[^1]: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61501028 and Grant 61771054. *(Corresponding author: Kai Yang.)*

[^2]: J. An, K. Yang, and N. Ye are with the School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, and also with Beijing Key Laboratory of Fractional Signals and Systems, Beijing, China (email: email@example.com).

[^3]: J. Wu is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

[^4]: S. Guo is with the Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.

[^5]: Z. Liao is with the School of Software, Central South University, Changsha, China.